Two NEW (2021) Articles in Homeopathy Published in Peer-Review Conventional Medical and Scientific Journals

Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, has used his time during this pandemic to write and get published two vitally important articles on homeopathy.   Based on these new articles, skeptics of homeopathy will no longer be able to say that homeopathic medicines are “implausible” or that there is “no scientific evidence that homeopathy works.”

The first article, Exploring Possible Mechanisms of Hormesis and Homeopathy in the Light of Nanopharmacology and Ultra-High Dilutions, was published in the journal, Dose Response, which is the leading scientific journal to explore the concept of hormesis, which is the exploration of small dose effects. Literally hundreds of studies have consistently found the power of specific substances on specific biological systems.

This article draws from the most recent studies in material sciences and the physics of water to provide compelling explanations for how homeopathic nanodoses can have powerful biological effects and clinically relevant results.

This article contains some technical information, and thus, some readers may have difficulty understanding certain paragraphs, but there is still much that can be learned from this article whether you can understand some of the technical parts.

The bottomline is that no one can now claim that homeopathic nanodoses are “implausible” or that they are outside scientific understandings.

The second article, An Analysis of Four Government-Funded Reviews of Research on Homeopathic Medicine, was just published in a conventional medical journal called Cureus (pronounced “Curious”!).  I was recommended to submit this article to this journal by George Lundberg, MD, the former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the former editor at Medscape.

You may have heard that several European countries, including France, Great Britain, and Spain, have stopped reimbursement of homeopathic medicines.  These countries made this health policy decision due to reports on homeopathy and homeopathic research by several countries that claimed that there was “no scientific evidence that homeopathic medicines worked.”

However, before this new article was published, there was not a single article to analyze and critically review these reports on homeopathy.  As it turns out, three of the four reports were based on “junk science” and questionable scientific analysis of the body of evidence.  Further, at least one study had potentially unethical actions in their reports on homeopathy.

The one report that was the most positive about the scientific evidence for homeopathy was also the report that was the most comprehensive review of research and had the least flaws in their analysis.

This article verifies that those skeptics who claim that there is “no scientific evidence that homeopathy works” are wrong and are basing their assumptions on flawed analysis.