Abstract:
Background: There are diverging opinions about scientific evidence for Homoeopathy, but
evidence for conventional medicine is not perfect either. In fact, proof for Homoeopathy is
not inferior to conventional. However, the evidence for Homoeopathy has been downplayed
by selection of trials (cherry‑picking). The effect of Homoeopathy in randomized controlled
trials (RCTs), however, is small due to many ineffective prescriptions. This is caused by
shortcomings of our Materia Medica and Repertories.
Discussion: The hegemony of the RCT is increasingly questioned; it does not provide all
answers, especially not for the individual patient. The individual patient wants to know his
individual prognosis: Will this medicine work for him? This is even more important than
his individual diagnosis. It is possible to assess prognosis scientifically the same way
as diagnosis. Prognostic research is based on daily practice; practitioners should have
knowledge about statistics to fulfill their role in this process.
Conclusion: The discussion in this paper elucidates that RCT has its limitations,
especially for the patient whose main concern is recovery/prognosis. Drug validation is a
key to improve the outcome of clinical practice in Homoeopathy.
