Homeopathy’s healing is counterintuitive to reasoning. The physical matter of the original substances in the medicines cannot be measured because homeopathy is based on energy. Yet homeopathy provides relief from acute and chronic conditions to many people around the world every day.

At this point, I think the best direction is to say thank you for all the time and thought that has gone into this discussion. Thank you!

I would also like to provide the Whole Foods Market position on Homeopathy:

We offer homeopathic remedies at Whole Foods Market as a resource to customers who wish to use them. Homeopathic remedies are safe and not harmful, and we only sell homeopathic remedies manufactured and labeled according to the standards for strength, purity and quality set by the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, as recognized by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic act and regulated by the FDA.

We acknowledge that there is disagreement in the scientific community about the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. A growing body of research supports the efficacy of these remedies, and recent meta-analyses of earlier research suggest that homeopathy can be significantly more effective than placebo. Other studies have cast doubt on the efficacy of these remedies. There is a clear need for further research in this area. We are unaware of any studies which have suggested that homeopathic remedies are harmful or dangerous.

Homeopathy is a system of healing which has attracted many avowed followers in its 200+ year history. Because homeopathic remedies are safe and believed by many to be effective, we will continue to carry them in our stores.

For more information:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html

Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997;250:834–43

Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. Br Med J 1991;302:316–23

You cite several references that discuss the history of homeopathy. I think it will help clarify things to give a little history of Oscillococcinum in particular. In the early 1900s, a French physician named Joseph Roy claimed to have found a universal bacterium that (supposedly) appeared in patients with everything from cancer to syphilis and chickenpox. He named this mysterius germ “oscillococci” and claimed that it was the root cause of all these diseases. Roy further claimed that a prime source of oscillococci was the muscovy duck, which is why this “remedy” is made from duck heart and liver.

Now, here is the kicker–since Roy’s “discovery,” no microbiologist has ever reported seeing this so-called oscillococci. If you go to your nearest University library and search the archives of scientific journals, you will find nothing supporting the existence of this microorganism (there are clinical trials of Oscillococcinum, meaning the highly diluted duck liver preparations sold by Boiron, but no evidence of Roy’s bacterium). Further, we now know that many of the conditions that Roy traced back to it (like cancer) are not even caused by bacteria, nor even by anything that Roy could have possibly seen with his microscope.

The bottom line is that Oscillococcinum (and homeopothy in general) does NOT have a solid theoretical underpinning. In fact, homeopathy makes outrageous claims which run counter to contemporary scientific understanding.

I agree that the fact that homeopathy lacks a clear theoretical underpinning and posits odd and unmeasurable mechanisms is not positive evidence of its inefficacy. However, people claiming its efficacy (and charging consumers for it) should bear the brunt of scientific evidence supporting their claims, particularly in light of the illogical and dubious nature of these claims.

So what is the state of scientific evidence bearing on the efficacy of Oscillococcinum? Malia has already cited statements from Boiron (the producer of Oscillococcinum), and several organizations that work to promote homeopathy. Do these summaries support the efficacy of homeopathy? That really depends on what you consider adequate proof. Yes, there are a number of studies, but as I have said, many of these studies include severe methodological flaws that seriously limit their validity. In an efficacy study, this includes randomization to conditions and adequate comparison conditions (preferably a placebo control), which are not included in many of these studies. Another problem is that many of these reports are biased in favor of positive results. For instance, an author may measure ten outcomes and only find positive results on one or two–if the author only reports those two outcomes, this introduces a bias in that there is a greater chance that those results were due to random chance rather than real effects.

My own search of the research databases at my library uncovered a few recent, systematic reviews examining the clinical trials of Oscillococcinum.

Vickers and Smith (2006) conducted a systematic review of studies examining Oscillococcinum in particular. They conclude that the available evidence does NOT support the claim that Oscillococcinum prevents influenza. They do acknowledge a small, barely significant overall effect on reducing length of illness by a few hours, but this is suspect given the small number of methodologically sound studies and the reporting bias previously mentioned.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16855981

Guo, Pittler, and Ernst (2007) conducted a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials involving Oscillococcinum and other alternative treatments for influenza. They conclude that the available studies are plagued by methodological flaws and small sample sizes, and that these treatments are not supported beyond reasonable doubt. Even among studies showing positive effects, the size of the effects are so small as to be insignificant in a clinical sense.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17976414

Here is another article that discusses various reviews of studies:
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.632/healthissue_detail.asp

A few more quibbles: you say “homeopathic medicines are made from substances diluted beyond current capacity of scientific measurement.” This is misleading. The problem is not that science is not advanced enough to measure miniscule dilutions–the problem is that chemically, with these sort of dilutions, it is unlikely that a single molecule of the original ingredient exists. It is not a matter of the sensitivity of measurements–we can measure substances at a molecular level. Search for “homeopathy and Avogadro’s constant” for more on this.

At the center of debate are the reasons stated in this discussion: 1) homeopathic medicines are made from substances diluted beyond current capacity of scientific measurement, 2) and the medicines are more powerful when more diluted. These two facts are true, however they are not proof that this system of healing is ineffective. Rather they highlight that scientific methods cannot explain all of the complexities of the human body or its systems.

A growing body of research supports the efficacy of these remedies (due to space limitations, please again see reference links below (4-6).) In fact, homeopathy has been shown to work on babies, children, unconscious patients, and even animals; all examples of something more going on than the placebo effect.

Homeopathy has provided relief from chronic pain, allergy symptoms, depression, insomnia, and more for millions of people. In Europe it is often prescribed before pharmaceuticals. The debate will no doubt continue; but the fact remains that homeopathy is an affordable healing system with no side effects and the potential to help the body heal itself in many ways.

1) National Center for Homeopathy (NCH) “Homeopathy” (reprinted from Arthritis Today) http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,37
2) http://www.tldp.com/issue/11_00/208_11_00/How_Does_Homeopathy_Work.htm by Allen M. Kratz, PharmD.
3) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html
4) European Council for Classical Homeopathy http://www.homeopathy-ecch.org/
Search “ENHR (European Network of Homeopathy Researchers) – An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys” 3/07.
5) American Institute of Homeopathy http://homeopathyusa.org/faq.html
6) http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/research.jsp Research (including peer- reviewed journals)