Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C

Authors

  • Sarah Brien,

    Corresponding author
    1. Complementary Medicine Research Unit, University of Southampton, Royal South Hants Hospital, Brintons Terrace, Southampton SO14 0YG, UK, and
    Search for more papers by this author
  • George Lewith,

    1. Complementary Medicine Research Unit, University of Southampton, Royal South Hants Hospital, Brintons Terrace, Southampton SO14 0YG, UK, and
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Trevor Bryant

    1. Information and Computing Division, School of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton S016 6YD, UK
    Search for more papers by this author

Sarah Brien PhD, Complementary Medicine Research Unit, Mailpoint OPH, Royal South Hants Hospital, Brintons Terrace, Off St Mary's Road, Southampton SO14 0YG, UK. Tel.: + 44 23 8082 5213; Fax: + 44 23 8082 5243; E-mail: s.brien@soton.ac.uk

Abstract

Aims  To investigate if ultramolecular homeopathy has any clinical effects. This was assessed using the proving of the homeopathic remedy Belladonna given at an ultramolecular dose (30C), as a model. A proving states that when a homeopathic remedy is given to a healthy person, they will experience symptomatic effects specific to that remedy. If ultramolecular doses are clinically active, the Belladonna 30C group should experience more true Belladonna proving symptoms than the placebo group.

Methods  Healthy subjects (n = 253), aged 18–30 years, took part in this double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study. Total study duration was 4 weeks. Subjects were randomized before 1 week placebo run-in. They received 2 weeks of treatment intervention (Belladonna 30C or placebo) and were followed up for 1 week. Subjects recorded any symptoms experienced during the total study period on a daily basis using a structured questionnaire. Symptom diaries were analysed blind to determine if each subject had proved or not (based on predefined criteria). The main outcome was the proportion of subjects who had proved in each treatment group.

Results  No significant group differences in proving rates were observed [Belladonna provers N = 14 (13.9%); placebo provers N = 15 (14.3%); mean difference − 0.4%, 95% confidence interval − 9.3, 10.1] based on intention to treat analysis. Primary outcome was not affected by seasonality or the individual's attitude to complementary medicine.

Conclusion  Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects.

Ancillary