Skip navigation




Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://aohindia.in/xmlui/handle/123456789/86
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLewith, GT-
dc.contributor.authorBrien, Sarah-
dc.contributor.authorE Hyland, Michael-
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-25T08:46:09Z-
dc.date.available2019-02-25T08:46:09Z-
dc.date.issued2005-
dc.identifier.citationHomeopathy Vol. 94en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://aohindia.in:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/86-
dc.description.abstractA number of authors have recently discussed the possible role entanglement in homeopathy. Walach et al have published a homeopathic proving which they interpreted as demonstrating entanglement between placebo and verum groups in a proving. The lack of a ‘run-in’ period was a weakness of this trial. We present further results of our proving of Belladonna which show that subjects who reported symptoms during the placebo run-in period (‘presentiment provers’) were more likely to report symptoms during the treatment period. This data suggests and the observations of Walach et al may be explicable by conventional mechanisms including differential reporting and constitutional typeen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipCCRHen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectProvingen_US
dc.subjectBelladonnaen_US
dc.subjectpresentiment proversen_US
dc.subjectentanglementen_US
dc.titlePresentiment or entanglement?en_US
dc.title.alternativeAn alternative explanation for apparent entanglement in provingsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:Digitised Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Homoeopathy vol 94,Apr 2005,pp 92-95.pdf
  Restricted Access
602.21 kBAdobe PDFView/Open Request a copy
Show simple item record


Items in Archive are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.