New facts about the munich headache study

Abstract

Since its publication the Munich headache study by Walach (Walach 1997 and 2000) has been the subject of controversial discussion. [Particularly by Vithoulkas (Vithoulkas 2002/2)but also by Kosters (Kosters 1998) and Others] In spite of this even in homeopathic circles, Walach's study is still regarded as a serious scientific trial with negative implications for classical homeopathy and has influenced all meta analyses since published. As a result it damaged homeopathy more than anything else that has so far surfaced in medical journals" (Vithoulkas 2002/1p. 32) and become a main pillar of Walach's interpretation of homeopathy as "non-casual" or magical (Walach 1999 p. 292) contradicting Hahnemann's original principles. This has recently prompted Seiler to carry out a detailed review of Walach's study (Seiler 2006/1 and 2006/2) this shows that Vithoulkas's original criticism that the verum group was suffering from homeopathic aggravations can be proven to be correct. Walach's data concerning the therapeutic reactions of verum and placebo have been interchanged for the most part and are interpreted in a clinically inadequate manner; moreover, an essential error in randomization has been overlooked and the clinical parameters for migraine have been used inappropriately. the following text includes a review of the history and the most important critical aspects of the Munich study.