Homoeopathic therapy in Rhuematoid Arthritis;

Evaluation by clinical trial double blind  

 R.G Gibson. Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital 1980 

Summary
Twenty-three patients with rheumatoid arthritis on orthodox first-line anti-inflammatory treatment plus homoeopathy were compared with a similar group of twenty-three patients on orthodox first-line treatment plus an inert preparation.

There was a significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index, stiffness and grip strength
in those patients receiving homoeopathic remedies whereas there was no significant change in the
patients who received placebo.

 Two physicians were involved in prescribing for the patients and there were no significant
differences in the results which they obtained.

 No side effects were observed with the homoeopathic remedies.

All the patients selected for the trial satisfied the diagnostic criteria of the American Rheumatism Association for definite rheumatoid arthritis.

All the preparations were dispensed in identical powder papers and were indistinguishable from each other. Both the group receiving the placebo and the group receiving the active homoeopathic remedies continued their previous orthodox therapy unaltered.

The patients were not told that they were to be treated with homoeopathic remedies
but they were told that they were taking part in a double-blind trial and might receive inactive substances.

All were willing to take part. The two prescribing physicians were AM and RG.
AM had 20 patients, 10 on active remedy and 10 on placebo, while RG had 26 patients, 13 on active remedy and 13 on placebo. 

Both AM and RG obtained significant improvements in pain scores,stiffness, grip strength and functional index in their
patients on active homoeopathy whereas their patients on placebo did not vary significantly.

There were no statistical differences in the results obtained by the two doctors.

It would therefore seem that the differences observed were due to the remedies administered and not to any psychological interrelationship between patient and physician or to placebo response to the homoeopathic substances.
The fact that neither placebo group improved significantly is strong evidence that it is the drug and
not the doctor which is effective.

You can google Glasgow Homeopathic hospital, Homeopathic Arthritis study 1980. for a copy of the study.