Model Validity of Published Homeopathic Studies

Homeopathy, as a form of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), is increasingly used by consumers worldwide. Its effects are not well known and usually considered placebo by health care researchers and care providers within the rationalist tradition. Research studies have tested this and other aspects of homeopathy. However many research papers, while having reviewed a range of statistical issues for quality of research in the area of homeopathy, have avoided confronting the equally important phenomenological issue of the required principles and practice in homeopathy, thus raising questions of the validity of much of this research. It is the thesis of this study that the 'scientific' results reported have an ongoing impact within the health care infrastructure, in the perpetuation of a biased health model. This research uses the (Lewith, Walach, & Jonas, 2002) concept of model validity to seek evidence on the validity of evidence-base research, and applies T.S. Kuhn's paradigm theory as the possible explanation for the research problem. Using a template; content analysis on a random sample of studies on homeopathy over a six year period, it was found there was no measurable change towards an application of model validity in the research methods used in studies published from 1996-2001. These finding shows no evidence there is a change towards paradigm sensitivity using model validity in the research on homeopathy. From the Kuhnian perspective this result does not support a theory of a paradigm alteration. It is recommended that clinical trials of homeopathy apply homeopathic principles more rigorously in order to increase the validity of their findings. In addition, more specific longitudinal studies may present a clearer picture of what is happening for paradigm sensitivity in research on homeopathy