The researchers uncovered 186 studies, 119 of which were double-blind and/or randomized placebo-control trials, and 89 of which met pre-defined criteria for inclusion into a pooled meta-analysis. The reseachers found that by pooling the 89 trials together that homeopathic medicines had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo.

The Lancet concurrently published two critiques of the homeopathic research. One critique by Jan Vandenbroucke, MD, a Dutch professor, acknowledged, "The meta-analysis is completely state of the art." And yet, despite its results, he asserts that homeopathic medicines "cannot possibly produce any effect."

Because homeopathic medicines are often so small in dose that physicians and scientists commonly assert that they cannot work, an increasing number of controlled trials and an ever increasing public interest in homeopathy is proving them wrong.

The authors of the research include Klaus Linde, MD, German professor and author of the famed review of research on the herb, St. Johns wort, for depression, and Wayne Jonas, MD, head of the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine.

Dana Ullman, M.P.H., a leading spokesperson for homeopathy and author of numerous books, including The Consumer's Guide to Homeopathy, stated, "This research places homeopathy squarely in the arena of legitimate medical science. Homeopathy IS effec tive, but we now need to know simply how effective it is."

Another critic of this study was British professor M. Lang man who questioned whether it was appropriate to analyze a group of experiments which used disparate remedies for different condi tions. Ullman responded to this saying, "There are two simple reasons why grouping studies together makes sense. First, the question that this analysis sought to answer is: are the effects from homeopathic medicines primarily placebo? And second, this analysis sought to evaluate: does homeopathy as a medical system seem to work? I personally think that critics are most upset about the fact that this study shows that every means of evaluat ing the present data suggests that homeopathic medicines are effective. Skeptics now would rather not be persuaded by the evidence but by their own biases against homeopathy."

Ullman readily admits, "Even though we may not know precise ly how homeopathic medicines work, this has never stopped physi cians from using medicines or treatments that have been shown to be effective."

A new survey of primary care physicians who are members of the AMA revealed that an astonishing 49% of them expressed interest in training in homeopathy (British Homeopathic Journal, July, 1997). This survey was conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland. These same researchers also surveyed Maryland family practice doctors and discovered that 69% expressed inter est in homeopathic training (Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 1995, 8, 361-6). Both of these studies show an impressively high degree of interest in homeopathy.

A major reference book on homeopathic research is Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science (North Atlantic, 1995) au thored by a professor of pathology P. Bellavite, MD, and A. Signorini, MD.