Homeopathy
'Like cures like' · ultra-dilutions
Remedies diluted past the point of containing any active substance.
No Evidence evidence
🚫Debunked
Evidence tier
No Evidence
Research weight
Not supported
Citations
20 verified / 20
Classification
Debunked
⊘
What the evidence says. No credible human evidence supports the marketed claims — widely considered ineffective.
⊘
No credible evidence. The claims below are what marketers assert — not what science supports. This entry is included so you can recognise it.
What is Homeopathy?
Homeopathy ('Like cures like' · ultra-dilutions) is a debunked supplement marketed for treats almost any ailment. NutriDex grades the human evidence as No Evidence. Homeopathy is based on two 18th-century ideas — that a substance causing symptoms can cure them, and that extreme dilution increases potency. Most remedies are diluted so heavily that not a single molecule of the original ingredient remains. Large systematic reviews, including a comprehensive Australian government assessment, conclude there is no reliable evidence homeopathy works for any health condition beyond placebo. Its proposed mechanisms contradict basic chemistry and physics.
Marketed Claims (unproven)
✕(Claimed) treats almost any ailment
Dosing & Compounds
Use & Legality
Not applicable — products are diluted so far they typically contain none of the labeled ingredient.
Active Compounds
Safety & Cautions
The remedies themselves are usually inert. The real danger is indirect: using homeopathy in place of effective medical treatment can allow serious conditions to worsen. Some 'homeopathic' products have also been recalled for actually containing harmful amounts of active ingredients. Educational only — always check with your doctor or pharmacist before combining Homeopathy with any medicine.
Evidence & Risk Findings ★ 20 studies
Systematic review
Hofmann 2023 (Syst Rev)
✓ Source
Systematic review of meta-analyses of placebo-controlled homeopathy RCTs (search to April 2023) found a significant positive effect over placebo in 5 of 6 global meta-analyses, but flagged conflicting risk-of-bias results and only moderate-to-low evidence quality for non-individualized homeopathy.
Systematic review
Hamre et al. (Syst Rev) 2023
✓ PubMed
Pro-homeopathy systematic review of 6 meta-analyses (16-110 trials each) reported that effect estimates favoured homeopathy over placebo in all meta-analyses with data (5/5), with significance retained in high-quality subsets of 3/4. NOTE: 3 of 6 meta-analyses were rated high risk of bias (ROBIS) and authors had homeopathy-affiliated funding/conflicts; contradicts NHMRC/EASAC conclusions and warrants cautious interpretation.
systematic review / meta-analysis
Gartlehner 2022 (BMJ Evid Based Med)
✓ PubMed
Cross-sectional study and meta-analysis of registered homeopathy trials found ~38% remained unpublished and ~25% changed primary outcomes, indicating substantial reporting bias that inflates apparent efficacy estimates.
Systematic review
Stub/Kristoffersen 2021 (Complement Ther Med)
✓ PubMed
Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of homeopathy adverse effects found 87% of studies reported adverse events graded CTCAE 1-3, distributed roughly equally between intervention and control groups, with homeopathic 'aggravations' in 22.5% of studies.
Cochrane systematic review
Mathie 2015 (Cochrane Database Syst Rev)
✓ PubMed
Cochrane review of 6 RCTs (n=1,523) of homeopathic Oscillococcinum for influenza found no evidence it prevents flu and insufficient good-quality evidence to support any clinically useful treatment effect.
Systematic review
Mathie et al. (Homeopathy) 2019
✓ PubMed
Systematic review/meta-analysis of 17 RCTs of non-individualised homeopathy versus active comparators (other-than-placebo). Significant heterogeneity precluded firm conclusions; for the equivalence/non-inferiority trials the pooled effect was small and non-significant (SMD 0.08), with 14 of 17 trials at high risk of bias. No decisive evidence of comparative effectiveness.
Systematic review
Mathie et al. (Homeopathy) 2015
✓ PubMed
Model-validity assessment of 32 RCTs of individualised homeopathy: 19 judged 'acceptable', 9 'uncertain', 4 'inadequate' model validity, indicating the positive findings in this literature are not primarily explained by poor homeopathic-treatment modelling but remain undermined by internal-validity (risk-of-bias) limitations.
Meta-analysis
Mathie et al. (Syst Rev) 2014
✓ PubMed
Systematic review/meta-analysis of 22 RCTs of individualised homeopathic treatment found a small statistically significant pooled effect favouring homeopathy (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.22-1.91 across all 22 trials), but the effect was not robust: only 3 trials were judged reliable evidence and sensitivity analyses to higher-quality data weakened/removed significance.
regulatory guidance
FDA 2022 Final Guidance (Homeopathic Drug Products)
✓ Source
FDA finalized a risk-based enforcement policy treating all unapproved homeopathic drugs as illegal, prioritizing action against higher-risk products (injury reports, toxic/controlled ingredients, injectables, serious-disease claims).
Cochrane systematic review
Heirs 2007 (Cochrane Database Syst Rev)
✓ PubMed
Cochrane review of 4 trials (n=168) found no evidence that individualized or other homeopathy improves global or core symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children.
randomized controlled trial
COVID-Simile Study 2022 (Homeopathy)
✓ PubMed
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of homeopathic Natrum muriaticum LM2 for mild COVID-19 found no statistically significant difference versus placebo in symptom outcomes.
Agency / regulator
FDA Consumer Alert
✓ Source
FDA warns that some homeopathic products may put consumers at risk, citing reports of serious adverse events and unapproved products marketed for serious conditions, none of which are FDA-approved for safety or effectiveness.
Safety / toxicology
Theruvath/Philips 2023 (Hepatol Commun)
✓ Full text
Case series of 9 patients with severe homeopathy-related drug-induced liver injury from South India; probable DILI in 77.8%, predominantly hepatocellular, with 4 (44.4%) deaths at median 194-day follow-up, and toxicology revealing solvents, corticosteroids, opioids and heavy metals.
Observational
Philips/Theruvath 2025 (Medicine)
✓ PubMed
Comprehensive profiling of 134 commonly prescribed Indian homeopathic remedies ('Placebo Project') detected high ethanol (classical dilutions median 91.02% v/v) plus toxic heavy metals (arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium), industrial solvents and steroids even in supposedly ultra-dilute formulations.
Review
NHMRC 2015 (Australia)
✓ Source
Reviewed 1,800+ studies: no health condition for which homeopathy is effective.
case series
Theruvath 2023 (Hepatology Communications)
✓ PubMed
Single-center case series (n=9) from South India documented severe drug-induced liver injury from homeopathic remedies (often taken for COVID-19), with 44% mortality, demonstrating real harm despite ultra-dilution claims.
Authoritative scientific body statement
EASAC 2017 Statement (European Academies' Science Advisory Council)
✓ Source
Joint statement of EU national science academies concluded there is no robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathic products are effective for any condition beyond placebo, and warned of harm from delayed evidence-based care.
Study
Shang 2005 (The Lancet)
✓ PubMed
Effects of homeopathy are compatible with placebo.
NIH authoritative body
NCCIH (NIH) – Homeopathy
✓ Source
The US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health states there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that its core concepts conflict with established physics and chemistry.
Mechanism
Scientific consensus
✓ Source
No plausible mechanism; benefits attributed to placebo and natural recovery.