Homeopathy research
Homeopathy always triggers strong feelings. This type of treatment is repeatedly attacked—but in most cases unobjectively—in the trade and lay press, and sometimes in television programs. The opponents bring up a lot of different arguments. The most frequently cited “counterargument” is often the issue of dilution: According to this argument, in homeopathy agents are often used whose dilution was so great that mathematically not a single molecule of the active ingredient could be left. In addition, the similarity principle that homeopathy is based on has been critically scrutinized.
In theoretical models and experimental approaches the principles behind the effect of homeopathic remedies has been examined for years. A number of positive results were obtained without the general public knowing about them—which also may certainly be due to the lack of response by the media that is generally critical of homeopathy. In the next few years, it will be the task of homeopathy research to make these and other experimental findings that make the case for its efficacy more comprehensible using appropriate theories.
In addition to the experiments on the mechanism of action, for years numerous studies have also been conducted on the efficacy of homeopathic medicines. Critics often claim that there are no positive clinical trials on homeopathy, but this is just not true: There are now approximately 600 clinical trials, many of which were positive and provided evidence about the efficacy of the examined homeopathic remedies.
Below we will provide an overview of the most important theoretical models being discussed in homeopathy research, as well as of promising experimental research results and results from clinical research.
1. Explanatory models and theories on homeopathy’s mechanism of action
1.1 Imprint theory, clustering and water memory
Simply put, memory of water (or of the homeopathic dilution medium such as a water alcohol mixture or lactose) is to be explained. The basis for this was created especially by the imprint theory sug-gested in 1967 by Barnard and Stephenson. The theory is based on the assumption that—despite increasing dilution—long polymer chains (chain-like chemical compounds), which come from the start-ing substance, form in a specific manner in the dissolution medium depending on the particular parent drug. (Barnard et al., 1967) Under the umbrella of imprint theory, other storage mechanisms have also been discussed that are based on other effects, such as certain ordered states of the dipoles of the water.
Likewise, water cluster formation (lump formation) has also been discussed. It is assumed that water molecules form larger subunits—so-called clusters—due to their hydrogen bonding, and these subu-nits may be responsible for storage of information. (Luu et al., 1980, 1981, 1982)
Also models have been suggested that combine the imprint theory with cluster formation. However, the extent to which water or water-alcohol mixtures form ordered structures at all, that are stable enough and exist for more than a split second, and thus may be responsible for the storage of ho-meopathic drug information, is again being increasingly discussed. (Jones et al., 1981)
In general, it can be said that so far, water research does not have a theoretical model that adequately describes all phenomena and properties of water. Consequently, many properties of water itself have not yet been sufficiently researched. Innovative work in the field of water research such as that of the group headed by Prof. Gerald H. Pollack may show new ways of finding out what types of previously unexplored stable structures exist in water. Pollack has shown that in contact with surfaces of various materials, water forms boundary layers that have differing physical properties. (Pollack, 2018)
1.2 Quantum phenomena
With regard to homeopathy’s mechanism of action, there is repeated discussion of phenomena that are based on quantum effects or scientific ideas that were developed using quantum theory, a theory that goes beyond the conventional ideas of classical physics. For this purpose mathematical formal-isms (formula systems) were developed by the theoretical physicists Dr. Harald Atmanspacher and Prof. Dr. Hartmann Römer and the psychologist and homeopathy researcher Prof. Dr. Dr. Harald Wa-lach, but whose experimental implementation with regard to homeopathy is still a work in progress. (Atmanspacher et al., 2002)
1.3 Nano research
In particular in the past few years there has been renewed in-depth discussion about whether, despite the many dilution steps for homeopathic high potencies, one can assume that there is actually a re-maining concentration of the starting material. It is claimed that studies using methods that have been developed in the context of nano-research have proven that above a certain dilution step a relatively constant concentration of the starting material in the form of nanoparticles (particles in the range of about 1 to 100 x 10-9 m) is established, which would support a material mechanism of action. In particular, the working groups headed by Prof. Jayesh Bellare (Bombay, India) and Prof. Iris Bell (USA) have presented experimental work on this. (Chikramane et al., 2010 2012; Bell et al., 2015a&b)
It is claimed that studies using methods that have been developed in the context of nano-research have proven that above a certain dilution step a relatively constant concentration of the starting mate-rial in the form of nanoparticles (particles in the range of about 1 to 100 x 10-9 m) is established, which would support a material mechanism of action. Thus, significantly higher concentrations may be present in homeopathic remedies than previously assumed. The French nuclear medicine specialist Dr. Jean-Louis Demangeat and the team of scientists headed by Prof. Vittorio Elia (Naples, Italy) have presented research work on experimental proof of nanostructures induced by succussion. (Demangeat, 2010, 2013 & 2015; Elia et al. 2014)
The research work by the Russian group of researchers headed by Prof. Alexander Konovalov and Dr. Irina Ryzhkina provides further signs of the existence of nanostructures in ultra-high dilutions. One interesting feature of this work is that the scientists generally work with dilutions, and they are not primarily concerned with researching the action mechanism of homeopathic active ingredients. (Konovalov et al., 2014)
2. Experimental research on homeopathy’s mechanism of action
2.1 Experimental research on the similarity principle
The best known work currently on scientific evidence of the similarity principle stems from the two basic researchers Roeland van Wijk and Fred A. C. Wiegant. They examined the recovery process of cell cultures that were previously exposed to different cell toxins (arsenic and cadmium) or damaging heat. Primarily, the concentrations of stress proteins produced by cells as a response to damage were measured. Researchers were able to show that previously damaged cell systems recover faster when they are again confronted with the harmful substance in an attenuated form, either slightly re-heated or treated with dilute arsenic or cadmium. These experiments provide the first indications of how the similarity principle can be preclinically (on the cell model) investigated and physiologically (regarding the biological processes) understood. (van Wijk et al., 2006)
2.2 Experimental research on potentized remedies
Physical experimental methods
In recent decades, numerous experiments have been conducted to decode homeopathy’s physical mechanism of action. High-potency medicines were compared with placebo mainly using standard spectroscopic methods, to draw conclusions about physical differences. Significant results that were obtained with Raman and NMR spectroscopy (methods that examine the molecular structure with stimulation using laser light or magnetism), were successfully reproduced. A detailed overview of the different experimental examinations in physics is provided in Witt’s metastudy (Witt, 2006) and the recently published review of the state of basic research in physics (Klein et al., 2018; Tournier et al., 2019). The qualitative evaluation of this review included 203 physical experiments whose documenta-tion quality was rated as good to very good in prior publications by the respective reviewers. 73% of these 203 experiments report on differences between homeopathic preparations and controls, and according to the authors of the review, a further substantial increase in the experimental quality stand-ards is required in future reproductions for many of the experiments in order to indicate reliable proof.
Research on living organisms
Likewise, statistically significant results with regard to the effect of high potency remedies were ob-tained with test systems that work with plant, animal and cell systems. In this case, the focus is less on how the drug works and more on whether it is possible to prove significant effects. The research teams led by Dr. Peter Christian Endler and PD Dr. Stephan Baumgartner have presented especially promising results.
Endler’s research primarily focuses on tadpoles, which are randomized (assigned randomly) to differ-ent groups and then treated differently in a blinded approach (the investigator does not know which group is receiving the drug and which the placebo). This amphibian model is based on the influence of the development of the tadpole into a frog by treatment with the thyroid hormone thyroxine, which accelerates the rate of transformation. Endler has conducted numerous trials, including trials with potentized thyroxine compared to placebo to impact the speed of metamorphosis (transformation). In another series of tests all the tadpoles were pretreated first with slightly diluted thyroxine and subse-quently further treated with either placebo or potentized thyroxine. The aim of the research was to determine whether the administration of homeopathically prepared thyroxine cancels the accelerated transformation through material thyroxine. Endler et al. were able to show that the tadpoles treated with a homeopathic high potency actually developed more slowly than those treated with placebo. (Zausner et al., 2002; Endler et al., 2003; Graunke, 2007; Welles et al., 2007; Lingg et al., 2008)
The research group led by the physicist Baumgartner also expended great efforts on experimental research. Their focus is on ultra-high dilutions: on the one hand in physical studies, on the other, their effects on in-vivo test systems. Very plausible results that support the impact of highly potentized homeopathic preparations were obtained with a test system consisting of duckweed cultures, a standard system in ecotoxicology (research on environmental toxins). Since then, several experiments have been carried out with this test system, such as the measurement of the influence of potentized plant hormones (gibberellins) on the growth of duckweed. (Scherr et al., 2009; Jäger et al., 2010) Likewise, an attempt was made to treat deficient duckweed (calcium, iron or magnesium deficiency) with potentized remedies. In the case of calcium deficiency clear effects of homeopathic potencies on plant growth are observed. Meaningful results were also obtained with duckweed in an intoxica-tion/detoxification model. Healthy organisms are initially poisoned with a toxic substance here and thus put in an artificial disease state. They are then treated with high homeopathic dilutions of the same or a similar substance on a randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled basis. Next, there is a statistical evaluation as to whether the samples treated with homeopathic medicines subsequently show different growth characteristics from those treated with placebo. Promising experiments with this approach have already been performed on duckweed poisoned with arsenic. (Jäger et al., 2011) With the support of Hevert-Arzneimittel, this experimental approach has now also been tested on duckweed poisoned with mercuric chloride with the aim of also applying this model to more complex research topics. (Jäger et al., 2019) The review by Ücker et al., 2018, provides a newer overview of all plant experiments within homeopathy research.
The results published in 2009 by Bellavite also support the impact of homeopathic high potencies. This involved an experiment in which the activity of the mice was tested. Mice that were treated with gelsemium, showed significantly more active behavior towards placebo-treated mice. (Bellavite et al., 2009)
3. Clinical research on the efficacy of homeopathy
As was already mentioned at the beginning, in recent years hundreds of clinical trials have been con-ducted with homeopathic remedies. Nevertheless, the study design, the homeopathic treatment ap-proach and also the remedies used differed greatly among them. In evidence-based medicine it is common to evaluate multiple trials investigating one treatment approach in overview articles, referred to as reviews, in the form of a meta-analysis. This means that the number of patients or individual results from each study are summarized and evaluated, based on specified statistical criteria in their entirety. This has also been done in the past for clinical trials of homeopathic medicines. The approaches thus taken and the problems associated with them, is shown in the following.
3.1 Different treatment methods make comparisons difficult
A general problem of clinical homeopathy research is that positive study results are regularly disqualified because the study quality would not meet accepted standards; with negative results, however, the efficacy of the entire treatment direction is called into question in general, although “homeopathy” is not a uniform method of treatment. In "traditional" or "classical homeopathy,” in which the accurate history (medical history and symptoms) of the patient is an essential part of treatment, the medicines are, for example, individually selected: Consequently, the examination of the method according to current standards of clinical research becomes a challenge, since a particular disease is not treated in a large patient group with the same medicine. In addition, there are many other homeopathic treatment methods, such as complex homeopathy, which are more accessible to the standards of clinical re-search. Correspondingly, the current study situation is just as complex.
3.2 Review articles on the status of clinical research
In overview articles, referred to as reviews, on the status of clinical homeopathy research, the ques-tion being discussed in the past was mostly based on whether homeopathic remedies work at all, regardless of the type of drug, the treatment method or the particular indication (disease). Thus, a wide variety of clinical studies with homeopathic remedies were considered together, without making any distinctions. Just as controversial are the major reviews that were done on homeopathy and were widely published.
For example, K. Linde et al. published a meta-analysis in 1997, in which 89 placebo-controlled studies (testing a medicine compared to placebo) were evaluated in the internationally known medical journal “The Lancet.” The result of the meta-analysis was that homeopathy was statistically proven superior to placebo. (Linde et al., 1997) R. Mathie, who analyzed 93 studies in 2003, and M. Dean (2004), who included 205 homeopathy studies in his analysis had likewise positive results establishing the effica-cy of homeopathy.
A furor was caused by the 2005 overview study by Shang et al., also published in the “The Lancet,” that compared 110 placebo-controlled homeopathy studies with 110 comparable studies of conven-tional treatment. (Shang et al., 2005) Even if ultimately only 8 homeopathy studies and 6 conventional treatment studies were considered good enough to be evaluated by the authors, the negative result of the analysis for homeopathy was pronounced the “end of homeopathy” in the media, because, ac-cording to them, the lack of efficacy for homeopathy had finally been scientifically proven. The methodology of Shang et al. and the approach of the study was then heavily criticized by many sources. There is further heated debate about which methods from evidence-based medicine can be used for homeopathy and the extent to which these do justice to homeopathy.
3.3 New approaches
Now the trend in assessing clinical studies is to no longer test “homeopathy“ as a whole, but rather to perform smaller meta-analyses on specific indications, as makes sense, because this will provide clearer results. And there are some positive meta-analyses on the efficacy of homeopathy for specif-ic medical conditions. For example, the meta-analysis by Taylor et al. from 2000 and that by Lüdtke and Wiesenauer from 1997 support the efficacy of homeopathic treatments for hay fever. In addition to these meta-analyses there are several other positive analyses, such as for the homeopathic treat-ment of fibromyalgia (Boehm et al., 2014) or life-threatening diarrhea in children (Jacobs et al., 2003).
Robert T. Mathie and his co-authors pursue another method for defining the issue of meta-analyses. In recent years, he has published several review works that include only studies that are based on a specific homeopathic treatment approach (individualized or non-individualized prescription) or a spe-cific study design (placebo-controlled or controlled by another comparison medication). (Mathie et al. 2014, 2017 & 2018) When assessing the individual studies, Mathie et al. base their meta-analyses on guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration so that the results can be described as reliable in terms of evidence-based medicine. In these meta-analyses, it was apparent that most of the studies show pos-itive results in favor of homeopathic treatment, but the number of high-quality studies is still too low to enable a definitive conclusion.
Building on the knowledge that the individualized treatment especially in the field of classical home-opathy can only be reproduced with difficulty using the usual standards of evidence-based medicine, attempts are increasingly being made to demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy using health ser-vices research methods. The long-term treatment success of homeopathically treated patients is in-vestigated in what are referred to as outcome studies. The largest outcome study that included about 4,000 patients was published in 2005 by Witt et al. (Witt et al. 2005) Generally such studies demon-strate that the health of patients can be significantly improved with homeopathic treatments, and of-ten in the case of chronic diseases the use of conventional drugs can be reduced or even completely avoided. Critics of homeopathy however attribute these successes exclusively to placebo effects.
4. Outlook for clinical research
In general, it is clear that the current state of research on the efficacy of homeopathic remedies or therapies is significantly better than is often alleged by critics. There is abundant scientific literature that supports the efficacy of homeopathy. Although the number of several hundred studies at first glance seems like a lot, it is still minuscule compared to the number of published clinical studies for conventional treatments. In this case it is important to address the positive results already obtained; to verify and expand on them. To do this, though, clinical homeopathy research is in need of more financial support.
The main problem is that clinical homeopathy research has thus far been almost exclusively financed through funds from complementary medicine foundations or by homeopathic medicine manufacturers. In other words, there has been no systematic research of the clinical efficacy of homeopathic remedies supported by public research money. Accordingly, many homeopathy studies are accused of lacking quality, since they are often not carried out in the same dimensions (e.g., number of partic-ipating patients and clinics) as the conventional pharmaceutical research studies. However, because in the field of complementary medicine remedies the profit margin is significantly smaller than with many conventional medicine products, for which a package of a patented drug regularly costs several hundred euros, and, additionally, no patents may be submitted for homeopathic remedies, only lim-ited resources for clinical research are provided by pharmaceutical manufacturers. There are relatively few resources, especially in the field of basic research on the mechanism of action of potentized remedies. High-quality and large-scale studies, as demanded by critics, however, depend on a large budget of > EUR 500,000. In addition, allegations that the so-called “homeopathy lobby” are influencing the study results may be difficult to refute, as long as the sponsors of homeopathy research consist exclusively of complementary medicine-oriented foundations and homeopathic pharmaceuti-cal manufacturers.
But because the acceptance of homeopathy in the population is very high, as several surveys have shown, and studies of health services research in homeopathy attest to positive effects, it should also be in the public interest to support this research increasingly using public research funds.
Literature
- Atmanspacher H, Römer H, Walach H: Weak Quantum Theory: Complementarity and Entanglement in Phys-ics and Beyond. Foundations of Physics 2002;32:379-406.
- Barnard GP, Stephenson JH: Microdose paradox: A new biophysical concept. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1967;60:277-86.
- Bell IR, Muralidharan S, Schwartz GE: Nanoparticle characterization of traditional homeopathically-manufactured Gelsemium sempervirens medicines and placebo controls. Nanomed Biotherapeutic Discov 2015;5:136.
- Bell IR, Muralidharan S, Schwartz GE. Nanoparticle characterization of traditional homeopathically-manufactured silver (Argentum Metallicum) medicines and placebo controls. Nanomed Nanotechnol 2015;6:311–316.
- Bellavite P, Magnani P, Marzotto M, Conforti A: Assays of homeopathic remedies in rodent behavioural and psychopathological models. Homeopathy 2009;98:208-27.
- Boehm K, Raak C, Cramer H, Lauche R, Ostermann T: Homeopathy in the treatment of fibromyalgia, A comprehensive literature-review and meta-analysis. Complement Ther Med 2014; 22(4): 731-742.
- Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR and Kane SG: Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy 2010;99:231-42.
- Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR: Why extreme dilutions reach non-zero asymptotes: A nanoparticulate hypothesis based on froth flotation. Langmuir 2012;28: 15864–15875.
- Dean ME: The Trials of Homeopathy, Origins, Structure and Development. Essen: KVC Verlag, 2004.
- Demangeat J-L: NMR relaxation evidence for solute-induced nanosized superstructures in ultramolecular aqueous dilutions of silica-lactose. J Mol Liq 2010;155: 71–79.
- Demangeat J-L: Nanosized solvent superstructures in ultramolecular aqueous dilutions: Twenty years’ re-search using water proton NMR relaxation. Homeopathy 2013; 102:87–105.
- Demangeat JL :Gas nanobubbles and aqueous nanostructures: The crucial role of dynamization. Homeo-pathy 2015;104:101–115.
- Elia V, Ausanio G, Gentile FS, Germano R, Napoli E, Niccoli M: Experimental evidence of stable water nanostructures in extremely dilute solutions, at standard pressure and temperature. Homeopathy 2014;103:44–50.
- Endler PC, Lüdtke R, Heckmann C, Zausner C, Lassnig H, Scherer-Pongratz W, Haidvogl M, Frass M: Pre-treatment with thyroxin (10-8 parts by weight) enhances a "curative" effect of homeopathically prepared thy-roxin (10-13) on lowland frogs. Research on Complementary Medicine / Forschende Komplementärmedizin 2003;10:137-42.
- Graunke H, Endler PC, Scherer-Pongratz W, Frass M, Lothaller H: Treatment of Lowland Frogs from the Spawn Stage on with Homeopathically Prepared Thyroxin (10-30). The Scientific World Journal 2007;7:1697-702.
- Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D: Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003;22(3):229-234.
- Jäger T, Scherr C, Simon M, Heusser P, and Baumgartner S: Effects of homeopathic arsenicum album, nosode, and gibberellic acid preparations on the growth rate of arsenic-impaired duckweed (Lemna gibba L.). ScientificWorldJournal 2010;10:2112-29.
- Jäger T, Scherr C, Simon M, Heusser P, and Baumgartner S: Development of a Test System for Homeopathic Preparations Using Impaired Duckweed (Lemna gibba L.). J Altern Complement Med 2011;17:315-23.
- Jäger T, Würtenberger S, Baumgartner S: Effects of Homeopathic Preparations of Mercurius corrosivus on the Growth Rate of Severely Mercury-Stressed Duckweed Lemna gibba L. Homeopathy. 2019 May;108(2):128-138.
- Jones RL, Jenkins MD: Plant responses to homeopathic remedies. Brit Hom J 1981;70:120.
- Klein SD, Würtenberger S, Wolf U, Baumgartner S, Tournier A: Physicochemical investigations of homeo-pathic preparations: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis—Part 1. J Altern Complement Med 2018;24:409–421.
- Konovalov AI, Ryzhkina IS: Formation of nanoassociates as a key to understanding of physicochemical and biological properties of highly dilute aqueous solutions. Russ Chem Bull 2014;63:1–14.
- Luu C, Luu DV, Boiron J: Perturbation de la structure de l´eau liquide par effet thermique et par la présence d´une substance étrangère. Trav Soc Pharm Montpellier 1980;40:1.
- Luu C, Luu DV, Boiron J: Modèle de Structure pour l´eau liquide: Déconvolution de la bande Raman v(OH). Trav Soc Pharm Montpellier 1981;41(3):203
- Luu C, Luu DV, Rull F, Sopron F: Etude par Effet Raman de la Perturbation Structurale de l´eau liquide par une substance étrangère. J Mol Struct 1982;81:1.
- Mathie RT: The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature, Homeopathy. 2003 Apr;92(2):84-91.
- Mathie RT, Lloyd SM, Legg LA, Clausen J, Moss S, Davidson JR, Ford I: Randomised placebo-controlled tri-als of individualised homeopathic treatment: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2014;3:142.
- Mathie RT, Ramparsad N, Legg LA, Clausen J, Moss S, Davidson JR, Messow CM, McConnachie A: Ran-domised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 24;6(1):63.
- Mathie RT, Ulbrich-Zürni S, Viksveen P, Roberts ER, Baitson ES, Legg LA, Davidson JRT: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised, Other-than-Placebo Controlled, Trials of Individualised Homeopathic Treatment. Homeopathy. 2018 Nov;107(4):229-243.
- Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV & Jonas WB (1997): Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials.The Lancet. 1997; 350(9081): 834–843.
- Lingg G, Endler PC, Frass M, Lothaller H: Treatment of Highland Frogs from the Two Legged Stage with Homeopathically Prepared Thyroxin (10-11 – 10-21). The Scientific World Journal 2008;446-50.
- Lüdtke R, Wiesenauer M: A meta-analysis of homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca. Wien Med Wochenschr 1997; 147 (14):323-7.
- Pollack GH: Wasser – viel mehr als H₂O. 3. Auflage. Kirchzarten: 2018.
- Scherr C, Simon M, Spranger J, and Baumgartner S: Effects of potentised substances on growth rate of the water plant Lemna gibba L. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2009;17:63–70.
- Shang, A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M: Are the Clinical Ef-fects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? Comparative Study of Placebocontrolled Trials of Homoeopathy and Allopathy. In: The Lancet 2005, 366 (9487), 726–732.
- Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC: Randomised controlled trials of ho-moeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. BMJ 2000;321:471-476.
- Tournier A, Klein SD, Würtenberger S, Wolf U, Baumgartner S: Physicochemical Investigations of Homeo-pathic Preparations: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis—Part 2. J Altern Complement Med 2019 Sep;25(9):890-901.
- Ücker A, Baumgartner S, Sokol A, Huber R, Doesburg P, Jäger T: Systematic Review of Plant-Based Homeo-pathic Basic Research: An Update. Homeopathy. 2018 May;107(2):115-129.
- Upadhyay RP, Nayak C: Homeopathy emerging as nanomedicine. Int J High Dilution Res 2011;10:299-310.
- Welles SU, Endler PC, Scherer-Pongratz W, Suanjak-Traidl E, Weber S, Spranger H, Frass M, Lothaller H: Pretreatment with Thyroxin (10-8 M) and the Effect of Homeopathically Prepared Thyroxin 10e-30 on High-land Frogs - Results of a Multi-Researcher Study. Research on Complementary Medicine / Forschende Komplementärmedizin 2007;14:353-7.
- Wijk van R, Wiegand FAC: The Similia Principle. An Experimental Approach on the Cornerstone of Home-opathy. Essen: KVC Verlag, 2006.
- Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Homöopathie e.V.: Der aktuelle Stand der Forschung zur Homöopathie. http://www.wisshom.de/dokumente/upload/7cda0_forschungsreader_2016_ergschutzgeb%C3%BChr_180713.pdf [abgerufen am 01.10.2019].Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Baur R, Willich SN: Homeopathic medical practice: Long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. BMC Public Health 2005;5:115.
- Witt C. Physikalische Untersuchung homöopathischer Hochpotenzen. 1. Nachdruck. Essen: KVC Verlag, 2006.
- Zausner C, Lassnig H, Endler PC, Scherer W, Haidvogl M, Frass M, Kastberger G, Lüdtke R: Die Wirkung von "homöopathisch" zubereitetem Thyroxin auf die Metamorphose von Hochlandamphibien. Ergebnisse einer multizentrischen Kontrollstudie. Perfusion 2002;17:268-7.