A scientific consensus exists that homeopathy is a pseudoscience that just has a lot of believers. Thus, a number of researchers are still working on how to disprove homeopathy. The most recent study showed that homeopathy is not better than a placebo for 68 various illnesses.
Professor Paul Glasziou is a leading academic in evidence-based medicine at Bond University. He set out for the verification of 176 trials that dealt with 68 various illnesses to ascertain if homeopathy works or not. The review found ‘no discernible convincing effects beyond placebo’ and concluded, “there was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered”.
The results were, in fact, so convincing that Professor gave up following 57 systematic reviews when he failed to find even a single case where homeopathy proved fruitful. Professor Paul Glasziou said, ““As chair of the working party which produced the report I was simply relieved that the arduous journey of sifting and synthesizing the evidence was at an end. I had begun the journey with an ‘I don’t know attitude’, curious about whether this unlikely treatment could ever work… but I lost interest after looking at the 57 systematic reviews which contained 176 individual studies and finding no discernible convincing effects beyond placebo.”
Homeopathy is a system that was developed back in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann and was founded upon his doctrine of ‘like cures like’. What does it mean? It means that the very substance that can cause the symptoms of a disease in healthy folks will be able to cure similar symptoms in those who are suffering. Hahnemann believed that the underlying causes of the disease were phenomena that he called ‘miasms’.
Glasziou further says, “I can well understand why Samuel Hahnemann- the founder of homeopathy- was dissatisfied with the state of 18th century medicine’s practices, such as blood-letting and purging and tried to find a better alternative. But I would guess he would be disappointed by the collective failure of homeopathy to carry on his innovative investigations, but instead continue to pursue a therapeutic dead-end.”