We strongly approve of the inventory done by Gautam, Sahoo & Goel, organised by the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) in association with the National Commission for Homoeopathy, under the title ‘The Status of Knowledge, Awareness, Attitude and Practical Activity in Research among Homeopathy Interns in India’.[1] The number of responders was impressive and the outcome, in our view, encouraging.

Nearly all homeopathy interns search and read in medical journals and most of them participate in research projects and workshops. More than half of them even participated in writing research articles in medical journals and magazines.

In contrast, the authors worried about a ‘negative majority view of the need for research. More than half (56%) of the interns strongly disagreed with a requirement for research in homeopathy’. Many doubt that research will improve patient outcome and health care.

The authors think it is ‘alarming to find that a majority of interns strongly disagreed that research is required in homeopathy, given homeopathy's still deficient evidence base’. We think that this conclusion is not justified, given the present increasing doubts about evidence-based medicine of top medical scientists. The students' answers could be interpreted differently: they believe in research but doubt about the outcome. This doubt also exists among top scientists.

Ioannidis expressed ‘increasing concern that most current published research findings are false’,[2] and that most clinical research is not useful.[3] Greenhalgh et al noticed a ‘distortion of the evidence based brand’ and advocate ‘refocusing on providing useable evidence that can be combined with context and professional expertise so that individual patients get optimal treatment’.[4] Howick et al stated that ‘More than 9 in 10 healthcare interventions studied within recent Cochrane Reviews are not supported by high-quality evidence, and harms are under-reported’.[5]

From this perspective we should not be so negative about the evidence base for homeopathy. In 1991, Kleijnen et al concluded ‘The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications’.[6] Vandenbroucke & de Craen stated ‘A reflection on the scientific behaviour of adherents of conventional medicine toward one form of alternative medicine—homeopathy—teaches us that physicians do reject seemingly solid evidence because it is not compatible with theory’.[7]

Summarising the previous paragraphs, we can conclude that the evidence for homeopathy is not clearly inferior to that of conventional medicine and that the implausibility of homeopathy is the real problem. This cannot be solved by simply more randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We could improve the effectiveness of homeopathy, but the Indian interns rightfully expect that what is now identified with science (RCTs) will not improve patient outcome.

A realistic option would be what Greenhalgh et al proposed: research combined with context and professional expertise for individual patients. This kind of research is proposed as a solution for the shortcomings of conventional medicine.[8] Prognostic factor research (PFR) fits perfectly well in methods of personalised medicine such as homeopathy. Moreover, it has already been pursued in homeopathy for two decades.[9] The CCRH has also been involved in PFR for chronic cough.[10] A computer algorithm for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and acute infections (https://www.hpra.co.uk/) has been based on the experience of over a hundred homeopathic practitioners.[11]

The beauty of PFR is that it is research by homeopathic practitioners for homeopathic practitioners. It is what they have been doing for over two centuries. The difference is that science is applied to validate practical experience. When participating in PFR, homeopathic practitioners learn about heuristic bias and how to avoid it. They learn about the role of statistics ‘to separate the wheat from the chaff’ in their data. Science comes to life this way.

Six PFR studies have been done in India during COVID-19, identifying the 10 most frequently used homeopathic medicines and the symptoms that differentiate these medicines. The work of the participating doctors improved patient outcome within months. A group of Indian doctors analysed the treatment of over 1,200 patients with pain in the knee and assessed the relationship between homeopathic medicines and the symptom ‘motion ameliorates’.[12]

We have presented just a few examples of what is already going on in homeopathic PFR involving the work of many homeopathic doctors. In addition, there is so much more that can be done. Suppose that 300 out of the 300,000 homeopathic doctors in India were to contribute their 10 best cases to an ongoing project for a modern repertory based on best cases (https://www.bayesian-homeopathic-repertory.com/). A prototype of this repertory based on nearly 800 cases demonstrates that a modern repertory improves the differentiation of common symptoms.[13]

Doctors contributing to this kind of research have learnt more about science than years of theoretical education could achieve. They will see how research improves health care. Moreover, they can show the scientific basis of their work. We estimate that the negative opinion about the value of research for daily practice will turn over in a few years with PFR, without the immense costs of what was until recently regarded as research.

Received: 09 December 2025

Accepted: 15 December 2025

Article published online:
18 March 2026

© 2026. Faculty of Homeopathy. This article is published by Thieme.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany