Homeopathic Science: Changing facet of 21st Century

In this 21^st century, science demands evidence to support the hypothesis, factual findings confirmed from basic fundamental experiments, in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials. The homeopathic system of medicine has faced a lot of criticism, in spite of having documented evidence. Homeopathy has always survived in crucial times of evidence in various clinical and preclinical researches. This letter highlights a nutshell of events, challenges, and evidence of homoeopathic medicines.

Homeopathy, a controversial medical system discovered by a German physician, Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843), was first postulated at the end of the 18^th century and mentioned in the first edition of his Organon in 1810.⁽¹⁾ In such anecdotal times, where theories about the deficiency of four bodily fluids and theories about “corrupted juices” were propagating, against all odds, the beginning of pre‐scientific medical theories was booming with evidence. Homeopathy was safest to administer and sustained the practice and preaching in the community due to its easy acceptance as compared to other lines of treatment, which involved painful procedures. But when explored in the domain of criteria of evidence-based medicine, homeopathy has always been in conflict with proving itself different from the placebo effects and providing evidence on its mechanism of action.

Challenges against evidence for homoeopathy:

Researchers over the globe are curious in understanding the homeopathic science because the results of so-called diluted medicines are contradicting the existing available literatures of research in basic science, modern medicine, and pharmacological responses, which are observed in these homeopathic medicines preceding the Avogadro’s limit. Experiments of Benveniste⁽²⁾ and Montagnier et al.^(3-4) are worth documenting the evidence, but the replications of results have challenged their hypothetical theories or plausible explanations as to how these highly diluted medicines are exactly showing the effects different from placebo. Another challenge persists in deciphering the principles of potentization, as it contradicts the second principle of thermodynamics, the law of mass action, and the dose‐to‐effect relationship. The principle of similia too is a challenge in exploring the effects and justifying the evidence based on laws and principles of basic science.

Explore more: https://www.pharmafocusasia.com/articles/homeopathic-science