Editing Homeopathy (section)

== Evidence and efficacy ==
{{main|Evidence and efficacy of homeopathy}}
Outside of the [[alternative medicine]] community, scientists have long considered homeopathy a sham<ref name="aaci2">{{cite journal|last1=Caulfield|first1=Timothy|last2=Rachul|first2=Christen|year=2011|title=Supported by science?: What Canadian naturopaths advertise to the public|journal=Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology|volume=7|issue=1 |page=14|doi=10.1186/1710-1492-7-14|pmc=3182944|pmid=21920039|quote=Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham|author-link1=Timothy Caulfield |doi-access=free }}</ref> or a [[pseudoscience]],<ref name="Tuomela p83-101">{{cite book |author=Tuomela, R |title=Rational Changes in Science |chapter=Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience |publisher=Springer |year=1987 |isbn=978-94-010-8181-8 |veditors=Pitt JC, Marcello P |series=Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science |volume=98 |pages=83–101 |doi=10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4 |author-link=Raimo Tuomela|issn = 0068-0346}}</ref><ref name="Why">{{cite journal |vauthors=Mukerji N, Ernst E |title=Why homoeopathy is pseudoscience |journal=Synthese |date=14 September 2022 |volume=200 |issue=5 |eissn=1573-0964 |doi=10.1007/s11229-022-03882-w |pmid=|s2cid=252297716 |url= |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Baran20142">{{cite book|vauthors=Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP|title=Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century |chapter=Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How do They Differ? |publisher=Springer|year=2014|isbn=978-1-4614-8540-7|pages=19–57|doi=10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2|quote=within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery}}</ref><ref name="Ladyman2">{{cite book|author=Ladyman J|title=Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2013|isbn=978-0-226-05196-3|veditors=Pigliucci M, Boudry M|pages=48–49|chapter=Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience|quote=Yet homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. It is neither simply bad science nor science fraud, but rather profoundly departs from scientific method and theories while being described as scientific by some of its adherents (often sincerely).}}</ref> and the medical community regards it as [[quackery]].<ref name="Baran20142" /> There is an overall absence of sound [[statistical evidence]] of therapeutic efficacy, which is consistent with the lack of any [[Biological plausibility|biologically plausible]] pharmacological [[Active ingredient|agent]] or mechanism.<ref name="pmid124926032" /> Proponents argue that homeopathic medicines must work by some, as yet undefined, biophysical mechanism.<ref name="Vickers 1115–11182" /> No homeopathic preparation has been shown to be different from [[placebo]].<ref name="pmid124926032" />

=== Lack of scientific evidence ===
The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy<ref name="Adler2">{{Cite news|author=Adler J|date=February 4, 2004|title=No way to treat the dying|magazine=[[Newsweek]]|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/105581}}</ref> and its use of preparations without active ingredients have led to characterizations of homeopathy as pseudoscience and quackery,<ref name="Dearden2">{{cite news|last=Dearden|first=Lizzie|date=February 7, 2017|title=Russian Academy of Sciences says homeopathy is dangerous 'pseudoscience' that does not work|newspaper=[[The Independent]]|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-academy-of-sciences-homeopathy-treaments-pseudoscience-does-not-work-par-magic-a7566406.html|access-date=February 7, 2017}}</ref><ref name="pmid146761792">{{cite journal|last1=Atwood|first1=KC|year=2003|title="Neurocranial restructuring" and homeopathy, neither complementary nor alternative|journal=Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery|volume=129|issue=12|pages=1356–57|doi=10.1001/archotol.129.12.1356|pmid=14676179}}</ref><ref name="NdububaQuack2">{{cite journal|last1=Ndububa|first1=VI|year=2007|title=Medical quackery in Nigeria; why the silence?|journal=Nigerian Journal of Medicine|volume=16|issue=4|pages=312–17|doi=10.4314/njm.v16i4.37328|pmid=18080586|doi-access=free}}</ref> or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".<ref name="Ernst2">{{cite journal|last1=Ernst|first1=E|last2=Pittler|first2=MH|year=1998|title=Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials|journal=Archives of Surgery|volume=133|issue=11|pages=1187–90|doi=10.1001/archsurg.133.11.1187|pmid=9820349|doi-access=free}}</ref> The [[Russian Academy of Sciences]] considers homeopathy a "dangerous 'pseudoscience' that does not work", and "urges people to treat homeopathy 'on a par with magic{{'"}}.<ref name="Dearden2" /> The Chief Medical Officer for England, [[Sally Davies (doctor)|Dame Sally Davies]], has stated that homeopathic preparations are "rubbish" and do not serve as anything more than placebos.<ref>{{cite news|last=Silverman|first=Rosa|title=Homeopathy is 'rubbish', says chief medical officer|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|location=London|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9822744/Homeopathy-is-rubbish-says-chief-medical-officer.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130126102237/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9822744/Homeopathy-is-rubbish-says-chief-medical-officer.html|archive-date=January 26, 2013|access-date=January 24, 2013|issn=0307-1235|oclc=49632006}}</ref> In 2013, [[Mark Walport]], the UK [[Government Chief Scientific Adviser]] and head of the [[Government Office for Science]] said "homeopathy is nonsense, it is non-science."<ref name="Collins2">{{cite news|author=Nick Collins|date=April 18, 2013|title=Homeopathy is nonsense, says new chief scientist|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10003680/Homeopathy-is-nonsense-says-new-chief-scientist.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130420234704/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10003680/Homeopathy-is-nonsense-says-new-chief-scientist.html|archive-date=April 20, 2013}}</ref> His predecessor, [[John Beddington]], also said that homeopathy "has no underpinning of scientific basis" and is being "fundamentally ignored" by the Government.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Gray|first=Richard|date=April 9, 2013|title=Homeopathy on the NHS is 'mad' says outgoing scientific adviser|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9982234/Homeopathy-on-the-NHS-is-mad-says-outgoing-scientific-adviser.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9982234/Homeopathy-on-the-NHS-is-mad-says-outgoing-scientific-adviser.html |archive-date=January 11, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=2020-10-28|website=The Telegraph|language=en-GB}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the [[National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine]], says homeopathy "goes beyond current understanding of chemistry and physics". He adds: "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment."<ref name="Adler2" /> [[Ben Goldacre]] says that homeopaths who misrepresent scientific evidence to a [[Scientific literacy|scientifically illiterate]] public, have "... walled themselves off from academic medicine, and critique has been all too often met with avoidance rather than argument".<ref name="Goldacre20072">{{cite journal|last1=Goldacre|first1=Ben|year=2007|title=Benefits and risks of homoeopathy|journal=The Lancet|volume=370|issue=9600|pages=1672–73|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61706-1|pmid=18022024|s2cid=43588927}}</ref> Homeopaths often prefer to ignore [[Meta-analysis|meta-analyses]] in favour of [[Cherry picking (fallacy)|cherry picked]] positive results, such as by promoting a particular [[observational study]] (one which Goldacre describes as "little more than a customer-satisfaction survey") as if it were more informative than a series of randomized controlled trials.<ref name="Goldacre20072" />

In an article entitled "Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy?"<ref name="Baum_&_Ernst2">{{cite journal|last1=Baum|first1=Michael|last2=Ernst|first2=Edzard|year=2009|title=Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy?|journal=The American Journal of Medicine|volume=122|issue=11|pages=973–74|doi=10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.03.038|pmid=19854319|quote=Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine... These axioms [of homeopathy] are not only out of line with scientific facts but also directly opposed to them. If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect... To have an open mind about homeopathy or similarly implausible forms of alternative medicine (e.g., Bach Flower remedies, spiritual healing, crystal therapy) is, therefore, not an option}}</ref> published in the ''[[American Journal of Medicine]]'', [[Michael Baum (surgeon)|Michael Baum]] and [[Edzard Ernst]]{{spaced ndash}}writing to other physicians{{spaced ndash}}wrote that "Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine... These axioms [of homeopathy] are not only out of line with scientific facts but also directly opposed to them. If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect...".

=== Plausibility of dilutions ===
[[File:LedumPalustre15CH.jpg|right|thumb|A homeopathic preparation made from [[marsh tea]]: the "15C" dilution shown here means the original solution was diluted to 1/10<sup>30</sup> of its original strength.]]
The exceedingly low concentration of homeopathic preparations, which often lack even a single [[molecule]] of the diluted substance,<ref name="Ernst2005" /> has been the basis of questions about the effects of the preparations since the 19th century.<ref name="GrimesFACT">{{cite journal|last1=Grimes|first1=D.R.|year=2012|title=Proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are physically impossible|journal=Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies|volume=17|issue=3|pages=149–55|doi=10.1111/j.2042-7166.2012.01162.x}}</ref> The laws of chemistry give this dilution limit, which is related to the [[Avogadro constant|Avogadro number]], as being roughly equal to 12C homeopathic dilutions (1 part in 10<sup>24</sup>).<ref name="Appendix2" /><ref name="Sbarrett2">{{cite web|author=Barrett S|date=December 28, 2004|title=Homeopathy: the ultimate fake|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html|access-date=July 25, 2007|publisher=[[Quackwatch]]}}</ref><ref name="dynam2">{{cite web|author=Faziola L|title=Dynamization and dilution|url=http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/philosophy/dilution.htm|access-date=July 24, 2007|work=Homeopathy Tutorial|publisher=Creighton University School of Medicine|archive-date=August 26, 2002|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020826082134/http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/philosophy/dilution.htm}}</ref> [[James Randi]] and the [[10:23 campaign]] groups have highlighted the lack of [[active ingredient]]s by taking large 'overdoses'.<ref name="Jones2">Sam Jones, [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/29/sceptics-homeopathy-mass-overdose-boots "Homeopathy protesters to take 'mass overdose' outside Boots"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', January 29, 2010</ref> None of the hundreds of demonstrators in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US were injured and "no one was cured of anything, either".<ref name="Jones2" />

Modern advocates of homeopathy have proposed a concept of "[[water memory]]", according to which water "remembers" the substances mixed in it, and transmits the effect of those substances when consumed. This concept is inconsistent with the current understanding of matter, and water memory has never been demonstrated to have any detectable effect, biological or otherwise.<ref name="NatureWhenToBelieve2">{{cite journal|author=Maddox J|year=1988|title=When to believe the unbelievable|journal=Nature|type=editorial|volume=333|issue=6176|pages=1349–56|bibcode=1988Natur.333Q.787.|doi=10.1038/333787a0|pmid=<!--none-->|s2cid=4369459|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="delusion2">{{cite journal|last1=Maddox|first1=J|last2=Randi|first2=J|last3=Stewart|first3=W|year=1988|title="High-dilution" experiments a delusion|journal=Nature|volume=334|issue=6180|pages=287–91|bibcode=1988Natur.334..287M|doi=10.1038/334287a0|pmid=2455869|s2cid=9579433}}</ref> Existence of a [[Biological activity|pharmacological effect]] in the absence of any true active ingredient is inconsistent with the [[law of mass action]] and the observed [[dose-response relationship]]s characteristic of therapeutic drugs.<ref name="Levy2">{{cite journal|last1=Levy|first1=G|year=1986|title=Kinetics of drug action: An overview|journal=Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology|volume=78|issue=4 Pt 2|pages=754–61|doi=10.1016/0091-6749(86)90057-6|pmid=3534056}}</ref> Homeopaths contend that their methods produce a therapeutically active preparation, selectively including only the intended substance, though in reality any water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, and homeopaths cannot account for the selected homeopathic substance being isolated as a special case in their process.<ref name="Smith20122">{{cite journal|author=Smith K|year=2012|title=Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical|journal=Bioethics|volume=26|issue=9|pages=508–12|doi=10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x|s2cid=143067523|url=https://zenodo.org/record/1035885 }}</ref>

Practitioners also hold that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects. This idea is also inconsistent with observed dose-response relationships, where effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body.<ref name="Levy2" />  Some contend that the phenomenon of [[hormesis]] may support the idea of dilution increasing potency,<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Oberbaum, M|author2=Singer, SR|author3=Samuels, N.|date=Jul 2010|title=Hormesis and homeopathy: bridge over troubled waters|journal=Hum Exp Toxicol|volume=29|issue=7|pages=567–71|doi=10.1177/0960327110369777|pmid=20558608|s2cid=8107797|doi-access=free|bibcode=2010HETox..29..567O }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Khuda-Bukhsh|first1=Anisur Rahman|date=2003|title=Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an overview|journal=Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry|volume=253|issue=1/2|pages=339–45|doi=10.1023/A:1026048907739|pmid=14619985|s2cid=10971539}}</ref> but the dose-response relationship outside the zone of hormesis declines with dilution as normal, and nonlinear pharmacological effects do not provide any credible support for homeopathy.<ref name="Smith20122" />

===Efficacy===
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="width:40%;"
|+ Explanations for efficacy of homeopathic preparations:<ref name="Shelton" />{{rp|155–167|date=November 2012}}<ref name="BrienRheumatology">{{cite journal |url= |title=Homeopathy has clinical benefits in rheumatoid arthritis patients that are attributable to the consultation process but not the homeopathic remedy: a randomized controlled clinical trial |author1=Brien S |author2=Lachance S |author3=Prescott P |author4=McDermott C |author5=Lewith G |journal=Rheumatology |date=June 2011 |volume=50 |issue=6 |pages=1070–82 |doi=10.1093/rheumatology/keq234 |pmid=21076131 |pmc=3093927}}</ref>
|-
| The [[placebo effect]]
| The intensive consultation process and expectations for the homeopathic preparations may cause the effect
|-
| Therapeutic effect of the consultation
| The care, concern, and reassurance a patient experiences when opening up to a compassionate caregiver can have a positive effect on the patient's well-being.
|-
| Unassisted [[healing|natural healing]]
| Time and the body's ability to heal without assistance can eliminate many diseases of their own accord.
|-
| Unrecognized treatments
| An unrelated food, exercise, environmental agent, or treatment for a different ailment, may have occurred.
|-
| [[Regression toward the mean|Regression towards the mean]]
| Since many diseases or conditions are cyclical, symptoms vary over time and patients tend to seek care when discomfort is greatest; they may feel better anyway but because of the timing of the visit to the homeopath they attribute improvement to the preparation taken.
|-
| Non-homeopathic treatment
| Patients may also receive standard medical care at the same time as homeopathic treatment, and the former is responsible for improvement.
|-
| Cessation of unpleasant treatment
| Often homeopaths recommend patients stop getting medical treatment such as surgery or drugs, which can cause unpleasant side-effects; improvements are attributed to homeopathy when the actual cause is the cessation of the treatment causing side-effects in the first place, but the underlying disease remains untreated and still dangerous to the patient.
|}

No individual homeopathic preparation has been unambiguously shown by research to be different from placebo.<ref name="pmid124926032" /> The [[Methodology|methodological]] quality of the early primary research was low, with problems such as weaknesses in [[study design]] and reporting, small [[sample size]], and [[selection bias]]. Since better quality trials have become available, the evidence for efficacy of homeopathy preparations has diminished; the highest-quality trials indicate that the preparations themselves exert no intrinsic effect.<ref name="Caulfield20053" /><ref name="Shelton2">{{cite book|last=Shelton|first=JW|url=https://archive.org/details/homeopathyhowitr0000shel|title=Homeopathy: How it really works|publisher=[[Prometheus Books]]|year=2004|isbn=978-1-59102-109-4|location=Amherst, New York|url-access=registration}}</ref>{{rp|206|date=November 2012}}<ref name="Linde19992">{{cite journal|last1=Linde|first1=K|last2=Scholz|first2=M|last3=Ramirez|first3=G|last4=Clausius|first4=N|last5=Melchart|first5=D|last6=Jonas|first6=WB|year=1999|title=Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy|journal=Journal of Clinical Epidemiology|volume=52|issue=7|pages=631–36|doi=10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00048-7|pmid=10391656}}</ref> A review conducted in 2010 of all the pertinent studies of "best evidence" produced by the [[Cochrane Collaboration]] concluded that this evidence "fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo."<ref name="Ernst20102" />

In 2009, the United Kingdom's [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] Science and Technology Committee concluded that there was no compelling evidence of effect other than placebo.<ref name="inquiry_cfm">UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee. [http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/homeopathy-/ "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"]</ref> The Australian [[National Health and Medical Research Council]] completed a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of homeopathic preparations in 2015, in which it concluded that "there were no health conditions for which there was reliable evidence that homeopathy was effective."<ref name="NHMRC2">{{cite book|author1=National Health and Medical Research Council|url=https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02|title=NHMRC statement on homeopathy and NHMRC information paper – Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions|date=2015|publisher=National Health and Medical Research Council|isbn=978-1-925129-29-8|location=Canberra|page=16|quote=There is no reliable evidence that homoeopathy is effective for treating health conditions.|author1-link=National Health and Medical Research Council|access-date=August 18, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170419065845/https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02|archive-date=April 19, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref> The European Academies' Science Advisory Council (EASAC) published its official analysis in 2017 finding a lack of evidence that homeopathic products are effective, and raising concerns about quality control.<ref name="EASAC2017">{{cite web|date=September 2017|title=Homeopathic products and practices: assessing the evidence and ensuring consistency in regulating medical claims in the EU|url=http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/EASAC_Homepathy_statement_web_final.pdf|access-date=1 October 2017|work=European Academies' Science Advisory Council|page=1|quote=... we agree with previous extensive evaluations concluding that there are no known diseases for which there is robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect.}}</ref> In contrast a 2011 book was published, purportedly financed by the Swiss government, that concluded that homeopathy was effective and cost efficient.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Bonhöft|first1=Gudrun|title=Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs.|last2=Matthiessen|first2=Peter|publisher=Springer|year=2012}}</ref> Although hailed by proponents as proof that homeopathy works,<ref name="ShawMisconduct2">{{cite journal|author=Shaw, David|date=May 2012|title=The Swiss report on homeopathy: a case study of research misconduct|journal=[[Swiss Medical Weekly]]|volume=142|pages=w13594|doi=10.4414/smw.2012.13594|pmid=22653406|doi-access=free}}</ref> it was found to be scientifically, logically and ethically flawed, with most authors having a [[conflict of interest]].<ref name="ShawMisconduct2" /> The [[Swiss Federal Office of Public Health]] later released a statement saying the book was published without the consent of the Swiss government.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Gurtner, Felix|date=December 2012|title=The report "Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs" is not a "Swiss report"|journal=[[Swiss Medical Weekly]]|volume=142|pages=w13723|doi=10.4414/smw.2012.13723|pmid=23255156|doi-access=free}}</ref>

[[Meta-analysis|Meta-analyses]], essential tools to summarize evidence of therapeutic efficacy,<ref name="PRISMA2">{{cite journal|last1=Liberati|first1=A|last2=Altman|first2=DG|last3=Tetzlaff|first3=J|last4=Mulrow|first4=C|last5=Gøtzsche|first5=PC|last6=Ioannidis|first6=J PA|last7=Clarke|first7=M|last8=Devereaux|first8=PJ|last9=Kleijnen|first9=J|last10=Moher|first10=D|year=2009|title=The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration|journal=PLOS Medicine|volume=6|issue=7|pages=e1000100|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100|pmc=2707010|pmid=19621070|doi-access=free}}</ref> and [[systematic review]]s have found that the methodological quality in the majority of randomized trials in homeopathy have shortcomings and that such trials were generally of lower quality than trials of conventional medicine.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Jonas|first1=WB|last2=Anderson|first2=RL|last3=Crawford|first3=CC|last4=Lyons|first4=JS|date=2001|title=A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic clinical trials|journal=BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine|volume=1|page=12|doi=10.1186/1472-6882-1-12|pmc=64638|pmid=11801202 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="pmid114160762">{{cite journal|last1=Linde|first1=K|last2=Jonas|first2=WB|last3=Melchart|first3=D|last4=Willich|first4=S|year=2001|title=The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture|journal=International Journal of Epidemiology|volume=30|issue=3|pages=526–31|doi=10.1093/ije/30.3.526|pmid=11416076|author-link1=Klaus Linde|doi-access=free}}</ref>  A major issue has been [[publication bias]], where positive results are more likely to be published in journals.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Jeffrey D. Scargle|year=2000|title=Publication Bias: The "file-drawer problem" in scientific inference|url=http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_1_scargle.pdf|journal=[[Journal of Scientific Exploration]]|volume=14|issue=2|pages=94–106|arxiv=physics/9909033|bibcode=1999physics...9033S|access-date=January 19, 2011|archive-date=January 22, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150122021757/http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_1_scargle.pdf}}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=February 2020}}<ref name="pmid160607222">{{cite journal|last1=Ioannidis|first1=John P. A.|year=2005|title=Why most published research findings are false|journal=PLOS Medicine|volume=2|issue=8|pages=e124|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124|pmc=1182327|pmid=16060722 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="pmid18258002">{{cite journal|last1=Kleijnen|first1=J|last2=Knipschild|first2=P|last3=Ter Riet|first3=G|year=1991|title=Clinical trials of homoeopathy|journal=BMJ|volume=302|issue=6772|pages=316–23|doi=10.1136/bmj.302.6772.316|pmc=1668980|pmid=1825800}}</ref> This has been particularly marked in alternative medicine journals, where few of the published articles (just 5% during the year 2000) tend to report [[null result]]s.<ref name="Goldacre20072" /> A systematic review of the available systematic reviews confirmed in 2002 that higher-quality trials tended to have less positive results, and found no convincing evidence that any homeopathic preparation exerts clinical effects different from placebo.<ref name="pmid124926032" /> The same conclusion was also reached in 2005 in a meta-analysis published in ''The Lancet''.  A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis found that the most reliable evidence did not support the effectiveness of non-individualized homeopathy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mathie|first1=Robert T.|last2=Ramparsad|first2=Nitish|last3=Legg|first3=Lynn A.|last4=Clausen|first4=Jürgen|last5=Moss|first5=Sian|last6=Davidson|first6=Jonathan R. T.|last7=Messow|first7=Claudia-Martina|last8=McConnachie|first8=Alex|date=March 24, 2017|title=Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis|journal=Systematic Reviews|volume=6|issue=1|page=63|doi=10.1186/s13643-017-0445-3|issn=2046-4053|pmc=5366148|pmid=28340607 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Health organizations, including the UK's [[National Health Service]],<ref name="nhs_choices2">{{cite web|title=Health A-Z -- Homeopathy|url=http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx|access-date=April 22, 2013|publisher=National Health Service}}</ref> the [[American Medical Association]],<ref name="amapseudo2">{{cite web|author=AMA Council on Scientific Affairs|year=1997|title=Alternative medicine: Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A–97)|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090614085504/http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml|archive-date=June 14, 2009|access-date=March 25, 2009|publisher=[[American Medical Association]]}}</ref> the [[FASEB]],<ref name="Weissmann2">{{cite journal|last1=Weissmann|first1=G|year=2006|title=Homeopathy: Holmes, Hogwarts, and the Prince of Wales|journal=The FASEB Journal|volume=20|issue=11|pages=1755–58|doi=10.1096/fj.06-0901ufm|pmid=16940145|s2cid=9305843|doi-access=free}}</ref> and the [[National Health and Medical Research Council]] of Australia,<ref name="NHMRC2" /> have issued statements saying that there is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.<ref name="nhs_choices2" /> In 2009, [[World Health Organization]] official [[Mario Raviglione]] criticized the use of homeopathy to treat [[tuberculosis]]; similarly, another WHO spokesperson argued there was no evidence homeopathy would be an effective treatment for [[Diarrhea|diarrhoea]].<ref>{{cite news|date=August 20, 2009|title=Homeopathy not a cure, says WHO|work=BBC News|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8211925.stm|access-date=October 20, 2014}}</ref> They warned against the use of homeopathy for serious conditions such as [[Major depressive disorder|depression]], [[HIV/AIDS|HIV]] and [[malaria]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Mashta|first=O|date=August 24, 2009|title=WHO warns against using homoeopathy to treat serious diseases|journal=BMJ|volume=339|issue=aug24 2|pages=b3447|doi=10.1136/bmj.b3447|pmid=19703929|s2cid=9303173}}</ref> The [[American College of Medical Toxicology]] and the [[American Academy of Clinical Toxicology]] recommend that no one use homeopathic treatment for disease or as a preventive health measure.<ref name="toxicfive2">{{cite web|author1=American College of Medical Toxicology|author1-link=American College of Medical Toxicology|author2=American Academy of Clinical Toxicology|author2-link=American Academy of Clinical Toxicology|date=February 2013|title=Five things physicians and patients should question|url=http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-college-of-medical-toxicology-and-the-american-academy-of-clinical-toxicology/|access-date=December 5, 2013|work=[[Choosing Wisely]]: an initiative of the [[ABIM Foundation]]|publisher=American College of Medical Toxicology and American Academy of Clinical Toxicology}}, which cites {{cite journal|last1=Woodward|first1=KN|date=May 2005|title=The potential impact of the use of homeopathic and herbal remedies on monitoring the safety of prescription products|journal=Human & Experimental Toxicology|volume=24|issue=5|pages=219–33|doi=10.1191/0960327105ht529oa|pmid=16004184|bibcode=2005HETox..24..219W |s2cid=34767417}}</ref> These organizations report that no evidence exists that homeopathic treatment is effective, but that there is evidence that using these treatments produces harm and can bring indirect health risks by delaying conventional treatment.<ref name="toxicfive2" />

===Purported effects in other biological systems===
While some articles have suggested that homeopathic solutions of high dilution can have statistically significant effects on organic processes including the growth of [[grain]]<ref>{{cite book
 |author =Kolisko L
 |trans-title =Physiological and physical evidence of the effectiveness of the smallest entities |title=Physiologischer und physikalischer Nachweis der Wirksamkeit kleinster Entitäten
 |language =de
 |location =Stuttgart
 |year =1959
}}</ref> and [[enzyme|enzyme reactions]], such evidence is disputed since attempts to replicate them have failed.<ref name="pmid11316508">{{cite journal |last1=Walach |first1=H |last2=Köster |first2=H |last3=Hennig |first3=T |last4=Haag |first4=G |title=The effects of homeopathic belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers – a randomized, double-blind experiment |journal=Journal of Psychosomatic Research |volume=50 |issue=3 |pages=155–60 |year=2001 |pmid=11316508 |doi=10.1016/S0022-3999(00)00224-5}}</ref><ref name="pmid8255290">{{cite journal |last1=Hirst |first1=SJ |last2=Hayes |first2=NA |last3=Burridge |first3=J |last4=Pearce |first4=FL |last5=Foreman |first5=JC |title=Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE |journal=Nature |volume=366 |issue=6455 |pages=525–27 |year=1993 |pmid=8255290 |doi=10.1038/366525a0|bibcode=1993Natur.366..525H |s2cid=4314547 }}</ref><ref name="pmid1376282">{{cite journal |last1=Ovelgönne |first1=J. H. |last2=Bol |first2=AWJM |last3=Hop |first3=WCJ |last4=Wijk |first4=R |title=Mechanical agitation of very dilute antiserum against IgE has no effect on basophil staining properties |journal=Experientia |volume=48 |issue=5 |pages=504–08 |year=1992 |pmid=1376282 |doi=10.1007/BF01928175|s2cid=32110713 }}</ref><ref name="pmid16722785">{{cite journal |last1=Witt |first1=Claudia M |last2=Bluth |first2=M |last3=Hinderlich |first3=S |last4=Albrecht |first4=H |last5=Ludtke |first5=R |last6=Weisshuhn |first6=Thorolf ER |last7=Willich |first7=Stefan N |title=Does potentized HgCl<sub>2</sub> (mercurius corrosivus) affect the activity of diastase and amylase? |journal=Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine |volume=12 |pages=359–65 |year=2006 |doi=10.1089/acm.2006.12.359 |pmid=16722785 |issue=4}}</ref><ref name="pmid16036166">{{cite journal |last1=Guggisberg |first1=A |last2=Baumgartner |first2=S |last3=Tschopp |first3=C |last4=Heusser |first4=P |title=Replication study concerning the effects of homeopathic dilutions of histamine on human basophil degranulation in vitro |journal=Complementary Therapies in Medicine |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=91–100 |year=2005 |pmid=16036166 |doi=10.1016/j.ctim.2005.04.003}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Vickers|first1=AJ|title=Independent replication of pre-clinical research in homeopathy: a systematic review.|journal=Forschende Komplementärmedizin|date=December 1999|volume=6|issue=6|pages=311–20|doi=10.1159/000021286|pmid=10649002|s2cid=22051466}}</ref> In 2001 and 2004, [[Madeleine Ennis]] published a number of studies that reported that homeopathic dilutions of [[histamine]] exerted an effect on the activity of [[basophil]]s.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brown|first1=V|last2=Ennis|first2=M|date=April 2001|title=Flow-cytometric analysis of basophil activation: inhibition by histamine at conventional and homeopathic concentrations|journal=Inflammation Research|volume=50|issue=Suppl 2|pages=S47–48|doi=10.1007/PL00022402|pmid=11411598|s2cid=10880180}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Cumps|first1=J.|last2=Ennis|first2=M.|last3=Mannaioni|first3=P. F.|last4=Roberfroid|first4=M.|last5=Sainte-Laudy|first5=J.|last6=Wiegant|first6=F.A.C.|last7=Belon|first7=P.|date=April 1, 2004|title=Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation|journal=Inflammation Research|volume=53|issue=5|pages=181–88|doi=10.1007/s00011-003-1242-0|pmid=15105967|s2cid=8682416}}</ref> In response to the first of these studies, ''[[Horizon (BBC TV series)|Horizon]]'' aired a programme in which British scientists attempted to replicate Ennis' results; they were unable to do so.<ref>{{cite web|title=Homeopathy: The Test|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml|access-date=April 29, 2015|publisher=BBC}}</ref> A 2007 systematic review of high-dilution experiments found that none of the experiments with positive results could be reproduced by all investigators.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Witt|first1=CM|last2=Bluth|first2=M|last3=Albrecht|first3=H|last4=Weisshuhn|first4=TE|last5=Baumgartner|first5=S|last6=Willich|first6=SN|title=The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature|journal=Complementary Therapies in Medicine|date=June 2007|volume=15|issue=2|pages=128–38|pmid=17544864|doi=10.1016/j.ctim.2007.01.011}}</ref>

In 1988, French immunologist [[Jacques Benveniste]] published a paper in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' while working at [[INSERM]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Davenas|first1=E.|last2=Beauvais|first2=F.|last3=Amara|first3=J.|last4=Oberbaum|first4=M.|last5=Robinzon|first5=B.|last6=Miadonnai|first6=A.|last7=Tedeschi|first7=A.|last8=Pomeranz|first8=B.|last9=Fortner|first9=P.|last10=Belon|first10=P.|last11=Sainte-Laudy|first11=J.|date=1988|title=Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE|url=http://www.nature.com/articles/333816a0|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=333|issue=6176|pages=816–818|doi=10.1038/333816a0|pmid=2455231|bibcode=1988Natur.333..816D|s2cid=12992106|issn=0028-0836}}</ref> The paper purported to have discovered that basophils released histamine when exposed to a homeopathic dilution of anti-immunoglobulin E antibody. Skeptical of the findings, ''Nature'' assembled an independent investigative team to determine the accuracy of the research. After investigation the team found that the experiments were "statistically ill-controlled", "interpretation has been clouded by the exclusion of measurements in conflict with the claim", and concluded, "We believe that experimental data have been uncritically assessed and their imperfections inadequately reported."<ref name="delusion">
{{cite journal |last1=Maddox |first1=J |last2=Randi |first2=J |last3=Stewart |first3=W |title="High-dilution" experiments a delusion |journal=Nature |volume=334 |issue=6180 |pages=287–91 |year=1988 |pmid=2455869 |doi=10.1038/334287a0 |bibcode=1988Natur.334..287M |s2cid=9579433 }}</ref><ref name="Sullivan 1988-07-27">
{{cite news
 |author =Sullivan W
 |title =Water that has a memory? Skeptics win second round
 |date =July 27, 1988
 |work =[[The New York Times]]
 |url =https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/27/us/water-that-has-a-memory-skeptics-win-second-round.html
 |access-date =October 3, 2007
|author-link =Walter S. Sullivan
 }}</ref><ref>Benveniste defended his results by comparing the inquiry to the Salem witch hunts and asserting that "It may be that all of us are wrong in good faith. This is no crime but science as usual and only the future knows."</ref>