Homeopathy: A Complete Guide to History, Remedies, and How It Works

BRMI Staff

From Samuel Hahnemann's 18th-century laboratories to modern integrative clinics — a thorough examination of homeopathy's principles, its most widely used remedies, and how to find qualified care.

A History Written in Dilutions

In 1796, a German physician named Samuel Christian Friedrich Hahnemann made an observation that would divide the medical world for the next two centuries. Hahnemann, dissatisfied with the brutal medical practices of his era — bloodletting, purgatives, mercury treatments — had been translating a medical text by Scottish physician William Cullen when he came across Cullen's explanation for why quinine (cinchona bark) cured malaria. Cullen attributed it to the bark's bitter, astringent qualities. Hahnemann was skeptical.

He did what few physicians of his time would have dared: he took repeated doses of cinchona himself and recorded the results meticulously. The healthy Hahnemann began developing the very symptoms of malaria — fever, chills, joint pain — without being infected. When he stopped taking the bark, the symptoms vanished. He had stumbled upon what he would call the similia similibus curentur: "let like be cured by like."

Over the following decades, Hahnemann refined his system extensively, publishing Organon of the Medical Art in 1810 — a document that remains the philosophical foundation of classical homeopathy today. He developed a vast materia medica through a practice called "proving" (from the German Prüfung, meaning "test"), in which healthy volunteers took substances and documented every symptom they produced.

"The physician's highest calling, his only calling, is to make sick people healthy — to heal, as it is termed." — Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of the Medical Art, 1810

By the mid-19th century, homeopathy had spread rapidly through Europe and into North America. In the United States, homeopathic hospitals and medical schools multiplied, and during cholera epidemics of 1832 and 1854, homeopathic hospitals reported dramatically lower mortality rates than conventional institutions — a fact that won many converts.

At its peak in the late 1800s, the United States had 22 homeopathic medical schools, over 100 homeopathic hospitals, and roughly 15,000 practitioners. The American Institute of Homeopathy, founded in 1844, preceded the American Medical Association by two years. However, the Flexner Report of 1910, which standardized medical education and dramatically favored allopathic (conventional) medicine, led to the closure of most homeopathic institutions.

Homeopathy experienced a significant revival in the 1970s and 1980s alongside the broader growth of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Today, homeopathy is practiced in over 80 countries, is part of the national health systems of India, Brazil, Switzerland, and Mexico, and is used by an estimated 200 million people worldwide.

The Homeopathy Guide - The Core Principles

The Law of Similars

The foundational principle of homeopathy holds that a substance capable of producing symptoms in a healthy person can cure similar symptoms in a sick person. This parallels modern concepts in immunology (vaccination) and allergy desensitization, though homeopaths argue the mechanism operates on a more subtle energetic level. The "simillimum" — the one remedy whose symptom profile most closely matches the totality of the patient's symptoms — is the goal of homeopathic prescribing.

The Principle of Infinitesimals

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of homeopathy is the belief that diluting a substance not only removes its toxic effects but actually increases its therapeutic potency — a process Hahnemann called "potentization." This directly contradicts chemistry's Avogadro's limit (approximately 10²³ molecules per mole), beyond which no original molecules remain in solution. Hahnemann arrived at extreme dilutions partly to reduce side effects he observed in early provings, and partly through an evolving theoretical framework about vital force and medicinal energy.

The Vital Force

Classical homeopathy holds that the body is animated by a "vital force" (Lebenskraft in German) — an immaterial, dynamic principle that governs health and self-regulation. Disease, in this view, is a derangement of the vital force, and symptoms are its outward expressions. The goal of homeopathic treatment is to administer a remedy that resonates with and corrects this derangement, allowing the vital force to restore equilibrium. This concept is philosophically related to the Chinese concept of qi, the Indian prana, and the vitalist traditions in Western medicine.

Individualization

Classical homeopathy treats the whole person, not just the disease. Two patients with identical diagnoses — say, rheumatoid arthritis — may receive entirely different remedies based on the specific character of their symptoms, their emotional state, their constitutional type, their food cravings, their sleep patterns, and even their dreams. This radical individualization is both homeopathy's distinguishing feature and the source of significant difficulty in clinical research design, as it resists standardized treatment protocols.

Potentization: The Making of a Remedy

Homeopathic remedies are prepared through a standardized process of serial dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking). The starting material — which may be a plant, mineral, animal product, nosode (disease product), or even an imponderabilia (like moonlight or X-rays in some traditions) — is first dissolved in alcohol and water to create a "mother tincture."

Understanding Potency Scales

• X (or D) scale: 1 part substance to 9 parts solvent. 6X means diluted six times at 1:10. Still contains measurable molecules at lower potencies.

• C scale: 1 part substance to 99 parts solvent. 30C (common OTC potency) = dilution of 10⁻⁶⁰. 200C and higher are "high potencies."

• M scale: 1000C. Used by experienced practitioners for constitutional cases or acute crises.

• LM (Q) scale: Hahnemann's last and most refined scale, developed in his final years. Extremely gentle, used for sensitive patients or chronic conditions.

Between each dilution step, the vessel is struck firmly against a hard surface a prescribed number of times — this is succussion. Hahnemann believed succussion was essential; without it, he found diluted substances had little effect. Modern homeopathic proponents suggest succussion transfers the "energy pattern" or "memory" of the original substance into the water-alcohol matrix — a hypothesis that has generated significant research, most famously (and controversially) by Jacques Benveniste's 1988 Nature paper on water memory, which was later retracted.

The finished remedy is typically dispensed as small lactose or sucrose pellets ("pillules") impregnated with the potentized solution, or as liquid drops. Tablets, ointments, and creams are also available. Patients are typically instructed to dissolve pellets under the tongue away from food, coffee, and strong-smelling substances, which homeopaths believe can antidote remedies.

At a glance — how the scales compare

Scale	Ratio per step	Common potencies	Where available	Typical use
X / D	1 : 10	6X, 12X, 30X	Health stores, pharmacies	Tissue salts, topical, gentle acute
C	1 : 100	6C, 30C, 200C, 1M	30C widely OTC; 200C+ from homeopath	Acute illness, first aid, general use
M	1 : 100 × 1,000+	1M, 10M, CM	Practitioner only	Constitutional, deep chronic cases
LM / Q	1 : 50,000	LM1 through LM30	Practitioner only	Sensitive patients, daily dosing, chronic

Practical tip when buying remedies: If you are self-prescribing for an acute condition (a cold, a bruise, a headache), 30C is the standard starting point and is available at most health food stores and many pharmacies. For chronic conditions, constitutional types, or if you are unsure, consult a qualified homeopath — the choice of potency is as important as the choice of remedy.

Finding a Qualified Homeopath

Regulation of homeopathic practice varies considerably by country and jurisdiction. In some nations — India, Brazil, Mexico, and Switzerland among them — homeopathy is a formally licensed medical profession integrated into the national health system. In others, such as the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australia, it exists alongside conventional medicine with varying degrees of professional oversight.

Regardless of where you live, several universal principles apply when seeking a homeopathic practitioner. Always look for someone with formal training of at least three to four years from an accredited institution, current membership of a recognised professional body, professional liability insurance, and a clear commitment to working alongside — not in opposition to — your primary care physician. A reputable homeopath will never advise you to stop prescribed medications without medical supervision, and will always refer you back to a medical doctor when a condition warrants it.

United States. The United States has several pathways to qualified homeopathic practice, and understanding the credentials available will help you identify a well-trained practitioner.

The National Center for Homeopathy (NCH) at nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org maintains a searchable practitioner directory and is the largest homeopathic membership organisation in the country. The Council for Homeopathic Certification (CHC) grants the CCH (Certified in Classical Homeopathy) credential after rigorous written and practical examination — this is widely regarded as one of the gold standards of homeopathic certification in the United States. Look also for the designations RSHom(NA) (Registered Society Homeopath, North America) and DHANP (Diplomate of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians), the latter awarded to naturopathic doctors who have completed advanced homeopathic training.

The DiHom (Diplomate in Homeopathy) is an important credential to recognise, particularly for practitioners trained through the British Institute of Homeopathy or similar internationally recognised programmes. The DiHom designation indicates the completion of a comprehensive diploma-level programme in classical homeopathy, covering materia medica, case-taking, repertorisation, philosophy, and clinical practice. Many US-based homeopaths hold the DiHom alongside or instead of the CCH, and it is a well-respected qualification indicating serious, structured training. When evaluating a practitioner who holds a DiHom, ask about the specific programme through which it was awarded and confirm that it involved substantial clinical training hours.

Some conventionally licensed healthcare providers in the United States — medical doctors (MDs), doctors of osteopathy (DOs), naturopathic doctors (NDs), nurse practitioners, and physician assistants — also incorporate homeopathy into their practice. These practitioners bring the added advantage of conventional diagnostic training, which can be particularly valuable in ensuring that serious conditions are not overlooked. Look for additional homeopathic training or certification alongside their primary license.

United Kingdom. The Society of Homeopaths (homeopathy-soh.org) is the largest register of professional homeopaths in the UK. The Faculty of Homeopathy (facultyofhomeopathy.org) separately registers medical doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, and veterinarians who practice homeopathy alongside their conventional professional role. Look for the designations RSHom, FSHom, MFHom, and FFHom. The DiHom is also widely recognised in the UK, where the British Institute of Homeopathy is based, and many UK-trained practitioners hold this diploma as their primary qualification.

Canada. The Canadian Society of Homeopaths (homeopathy.ca) operates nationally. Ontario is currently the only province with formal statutory regulation: the Ontario College of Homeopaths (regulatedhomeopathyontario.ca) licenses practitioners under the Homeopathy Act, 2007. Look for the designations DHMHS, RHom, or confirmation of Ontario College registration. The DiHom is also recognised among Canadian homeopathic practitioners, particularly those who have trained through British Institute of Homeopathy programmes.

Australia. The Australian Homeopathic Association (homeopathyaustralia.org.au) maintains a national practitioner register and sets minimum standards of training and professional conduct for its members. Look for AHA membership alongside a recognised homeopathic degree or diploma from an accredited Australian institution.

India. India has the world's largest homeopathic infrastructure, with over 200,000 registered practitioners and more than 180 homeopathic medical colleges. The Central Council of Homeopathy (cchindia.com) regulates the BHMS (Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery) and MD (Homeopathy) degrees, overseen at government level by the Ministry of AYUSH. Look for BHMS or MD (Homeopathy) after the practitioner's name.

Europe. The European Committee for Homeopathy (homeopathyeurope.org) coordinates national associations across 25 countries and sets standards for homeopathic education and practice across the continent. Germany's DZVhÄ (Deutsche Zentralverein homöopathischer Ärzte), founded in 1829, is the world's oldest homeopathic medical association and has long served as a model for European professional standards.

International directories. The Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis (LMHI) at lmhi.org is the global umbrella organisation for homeopathic physicians, operating in over 70 countries. For a general international practitioner search, hpathy.com maintains a searchable database covering practitioners in many countries not listed above.

A note on online consultations: many qualified homeopaths now offer video appointments, making it possible to access experienced practitioners regardless of your location. The extended conversational format of homeopathic case-taking adapts well to video. Ensure any online practitioner holds the same credentials and professional registration you would require of an in-person practitioner.

Evidence, Controversy & Scientific Standing

The scientific status of homeopathy is one of the most actively contested questions in the landscape of complementary medicine, and any honest account must acknowledge both sides of the debate with equal seriousness. The existing body of clinical research presents a complex, sometimes contradictory picture — one that neither wholly supports nor definitively refutes homeopathy's efficacy beyond placebo for all conditions and all patients.

The theoretical challenge. The most fundamental scientific objection to homeopathy is not about clinical trials — it is about chemistry. At dilutions beyond approximately 12C on the centesimal scale, a solution has been diluted beyond Avogadro's limit, meaning that statistically no molecules of the original substance remain. A 30C remedy represents a dilution of 10⁶⁰ — a number so vast it defies ordinary comprehension. For homeopathy to produce effects at these dilutions would require a fundamental rewriting of physics and chemistry. The mainstream scientific community regards this theoretical implausibility as a decisive argument, independent of any clinical evidence. Proponents counter that the absence of a known mechanism does not constitute proof of absence of effect, and point to historical examples — aspirin and anaesthesia among them — where clinical efficacy was well established long before the mechanism was understood.

The Shang Lancet meta-analysis and its rebuttal. The landmark 2005 meta-analysis by Shang and colleagues, published in The Lancet, compared 110 placebo-controlled homeopathy trials with 110 matched conventional medicine trials and concluded that the evidence for homeopathy was consistent with a placebo effect. The paper's accompanying editorial, titled "The End of Homoeopathy," drew worldwide headlines. However, the rebuttal from the homeopathic research community was swift and specific. Peter Fisher, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Homeopathy and a physician at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, published a detailed response pointing out that Shang's decisive negative conclusion was based not on all 110 trials, but on just 8 — a subset selected by criteria that were never pre-specified in the study protocol. Fisher and colleagues demonstrated that if just one of those 8 trials was changed, the results reversed in favour of homeopathy — a finding they argued rendered the paper's conclusions scientifically unreliable. A subsequent re-analysis by Lüdtke and Rutten, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology in 2008, supported this criticism, concluding that the paper's findings were highly sensitive to which trials were selected and that the selection process lacked transparency. The international review board overseeing the Swiss government programme that had funded the Shang study issued a public statement protesting what it described as political interference in the scientific process.

The NHMRC 2015 review and its rebuttal. The 2015 systematic review by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which examined 176 studies across 68 health conditions and concluded there was no reliable evidence that homeopathy outperformed placebo for any condition, was widely reported as the most comprehensive negative evaluation ever conducted by a government health authority. The rebuttal, however, was equally significant. Freedom of Information requests subsequently revealed that the NHMRC had conducted the review twice — producing a first report in 2012 that found encouraging evidence for homeopathy in five conditions, including cancer therapy side effects, otitis media, and fibromyalgia, before suppressing it and commissioning a second review that produced the published 2015 findings.

Following public exposure of this suppressed first report, NHMRC Chief Executive Professor Anne Kelso issued a formal clarification stating that "contrary to some claims, the review did not conclude that homeopathy was ineffective." The Homeopathy Research Institute's scientific analysis further identified that the NHMRC had applied an unprecedented quality threshold requiring a minimum of 150 participants per trial — a standard used by no other research team before or since — which resulted in 171 of the 176 included trials being classified as unreliable and discarded, leaving only 5 trials on which the conclusions were based. Proponents also noted a potential conflict of interest: the chair of the NHMRC review committee had declared no affiliation with any organisation opposed to homeopathy, despite membership of a lobby group that had publicly campaigned against it. The Australian Homeopathic Association filed a formal complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, though the investigation was ultimately inconclusive.

The positive studies and the critics' response. The case for homeopathy is not built solely on rebuttal — there is an affirmative body of clinical evidence that proponents argue has been consistently underreported in mainstream coverage of the debate.

The Mathie et al. 2014 systematic review of 32 randomised controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment found results statistically significantly in favour of homeopathy over placebo, with patients receiving individualised homeopathic treatment 1.5 to 2.0 times more likely to experience a beneficial outcome than those receiving placebo.

The Reilly trials, conducted at the University of Glasgow and published across three successive papers in The Lancet (1986, 1994) and the British Medical Journal (2000), consistently found statistically significant benefits of homeopathic treatment over placebo in patients with allergic rhinitis — results that held up to combined meta-analysis across all three trials.

Jennifer Jacobs and colleagues produced three double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment for childhood diarrhoea in Nicaragua, Nepal, and Pakistan, each finding a statistically significant reduction in the duration of diarrhoea in the homeopathically treated groups — results published in Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, among the most respected journals in their field.

A large-scale observational cohort study by Witt and colleagues (2005), following 3,981 patients treated homeopathically at German university hospital outpatient clinics over eight years, found significant and sustained improvements across a wide range of chronic conditions.

Bell and colleagues (2004) published a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in the journal Rheumatology finding improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualised homeopathic remedies compared to placebo.

Critics have responded to this body of positive evidence by arguing that many of the trials are too small, that effect sizes are modest, that positive results have not been consistently replicated across independent research groups, and that when only the highest-quality trials with the largest sample sizes are analysed together — as Shang and the NHMRC attempted to do — the positive signal disappears.

Proponents counter that the replication argument cuts both ways: many well-established conventional treatments have similarly inconsistent replication records, and that the insistence on ever-larger trials disadvantages a therapy whose individualised nature makes large-scale standardised trials inherently difficult to design without compromising the very methodology being tested.

The methodological argument. Beyond challenging specific reviews, proponents have consistently raised a deeper point: that the standard randomised controlled trial framework is poorly suited to evaluating individualised homeopathic treatment. In classical homeopathy, two patients with identical diagnoses may receive entirely different remedies. Pooling the results of trials that tested different remedies for the same condition — as most meta-analyses do — is, proponents argue, the equivalent of pooling trials of entirely different pharmaceutical drugs and concluding that "drugs don't work." This is why the Mathie et al. 2014 systematic review, which restricted its analysis specifically to trials of individualised homeopathic treatment, found a statistically significant benefit over placebo, and why proponents regard it as the most methodologically appropriate assessment currently available.

Safety and where caution is warranted. There is broad agreement that homeopathic remedies are generally safe when used as complementary therapy alongside conventional medicine. At the dilutions involved in most remedies, there is no pharmacologically active substance present to cause direct toxicity. The serious safety concern is not the remedy itself but the potential for delayed or forgone conventional treatment. There are documented cases — some resulting in serious harm — where patients with conditions including cancer, meningitis, and insulin-dependent diabetes declined or delayed evidence-based treatment in favour of homeopathy alone. Responsible homeopathic practitioners explicitly acknowledge this boundary and refer patients for conventional care whenever the condition warrants it.

Where the debate stands. It would be inaccurate to characterise the proponents' rebuttals as merely defensive. Several of the specific methodological criticisms they raised — particularly regarding the undisclosed trial selection in the Shang paper and the unprecedented quality threshold in the NHMRC review — have been acknowledged as legitimate concerns by researchers with no particular stake in homeopathy's outcome. The suppression of the NHMRC's first report remains unexplained. What can be said with confidence is that the question of homeopathy's efficacy beyond placebo is not as scientifically settled as the headlines of 2005 and 2015 suggested. The honest position, for anyone engaging seriously with the primary literature, is one of continued inquiry rather than closed conclusion.

Let us know what you think of this homeopathy guide.

References

1. Hahnemann, S. (1842). Organon of the Medical Art, 6th edition. Translated by Wenda Brewster O'Reilly (1996). Birdcage Books, Redmond, WA.

2. Hahnemann, S. (1811–1821). Materia Medica Pura, Vols. 1–6. Dresden: Arnold.

3. Hahnemann, S. (1828). The Chronic Diseases: Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure. Dresden: Arnold.

4. Kent, J.T. (1905). Repertory of the Homeopathic Materia Medica. Chicago: Ehrhart & Karl.

5. Kent, J.T. (1900). Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy. Chicago: Ehrhart & Karl.

6. Boericke, W. (1927). Pocket Manual of Homeopathic Materia Medica. Philadelphia: Boericke & Runyon.

7. Vithoulkas, G. (1980). The Science of Homeopathy. New York: Grove Press.

8. Morrison, R. (1993). Desktop Guide to Keynotes and Confirmatory Symptoms. Albany, CA: Hahnemann Clinic Publishing.

9. Sankaran, R. (1991). The Spirit of Homeopathy. Mumbai: Homoeopathic Medical Publishers.

10. Scholten, J. (1993). Homeopathy and Minerals. Utrecht: Stichting Alonnissos.

11. Coulter, H.L. (1973). Divided Legacy: A History of the Schism in Medical Thought, Vols. 1–4. Washington DC: Wehawken Book Company.

12. Flexner, A. (1910). Medical Education in the United States and Canada. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

13. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2015). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Homeopathy for Treating Health Conditions. Canberra: Australian Government.

14. Shang, A., Huwiler-Müntener, K., Nartey, L., Jüni, P., Dörig, S., Sterne, J.A.C., Pewsner, D., & Egger, M. (2005). Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet, 366(9487), 726–732.

15. Linde, K., Clausius, N., Ramirez, G., Melchart, D., Eitel, F., Hedges, L.V., & Jonas, W.B. (1997). Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. The Lancet, 350(9081), 834–843.

16. Mathie, R.T., Lloyd, S.M., Legg, L.A., Clausen, J., Moss, S., Davidson, J.R.T., & Ford, I. (2014). Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 3, 142.

17. Reilly, D., Taylor, M.A., McSharry, C., & Aitchison, T. (1986). Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. The Lancet, 328(8512), 881–886.

18. Reilly, D., Taylor, M.A., Beattie, N.G.M., Campbell, J.H., McSharry, C., Aitchison, T.C., Carter, R., & Stevenson, R.D. (1994). Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? The Lancet, 344(8937), 1601–1606.

19. Jacobs, J., Jimenez, L.M., Gloyd, S.S., Gale, J.L., & Crothers, D. (1994). Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics, 93(5), 719–725.

20. Jacobs, J., Jimenez, L.M., Malthouse, S., Chapman, E., Crothers, D., Masuk, M., & Jonas, W.B. (2000). Homeopathic treatment of acute childhood diarrhea: results from a clinical trial in Nepal. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 6(2), 131–139.

21. Jacobs, J., Jonas, W.B., Jimenez-Perez, M., & Crothers, D. (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and meta-analysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22(3), 229–234.

22. Witt, C.M., Lüdtke, R., Baur, R., & Willich, S.N. (2005). Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3,981 patients. BMC Public Health, 5, 115.

23. Spence, D.S., Thompson, E.A., & Barron, S.J. (2005). Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11(5), 793–798.

24. Bell, I.R., Lewis, D.A., Brooks, A.J., Schwartz, G.E., Lewis, S.E., Walsh, B.T., & Baldwin, C.M. (2004). Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo. Rheumatology, 43(5), 577–582.

25. Benveniste, J., Davenas, E., Ducot, B., Cornillet, B., Poitevin, B., & Spira, A. (1988). Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. Nature, 333, 816–818. [Subsequently disputed and not independently replicated under blinded conditions.]

26. Chikramane, P.S., Suresh, A.K., Bellare, J.R., & Kane, S.G. (2010). Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: a nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy, 99(4), 231–242.

27. Kaptchuk, T.J., Kelley, J.M., Conboy, L.A., Davis, R.B., Kerr, C.E., Jacobson, E.E., Kirsch, I., Schyner, R.N., Nam, B.H., Nguyen, L.T., Park, M., Rivers, A.L., McManus, C., Kokkotou, E., Drossman, D.A., Goldman, P., & Lembo, A.J. (2008). Components of placebo effect: randomised controlled trial in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. British Medical Journal, 336, 999–1003.

28. Ernst, E. (2010). Homeopathy: what does the "best" evidence tell us? Medical Journal of Australia, 192(8), 458–460.

29. Relton, C., Cooper, K., Viksveen, P., Fibert, P., & Thomas, K. (2017). Prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide: a systematic review. Homeopathy, 106(2), 69–78.

30. World Health Organization. (2009). Safety Issues in the Preparation of Homeopathic Medicines. Geneva: WHO Press.

31. Faculty of Homeopathy, UK. (2023). Evidence Base for Homeopathy. Available at: facultyofhomeopathy.org.

32. National Center for Homeopathy. (2024). About Homeopathy. Available at: nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org.

33. Cochrane Collaboration. (2000–2024). Various systematic reviews on homeopathy. Available at: cochrane.org.

Bioregulatory medicine is a total body (and mind) approach to health and healing that aims to help facilitate and restore natural human biological processes. It is a proven, safe, gentle, highly effective, drugless, and side-effect-free medical model designed to naturally support the body to regulate, adapt, regenerate, and self-heal. BRMI is a non-commercial 501(c)(3) foundation and will expand and flourish with your support. Our goal is to make bioregulatory medicine a household term.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for the direct care of a qualified health practitioner who oversees and provides unique and individualized care. The information provided here is to broaden our different perspectives and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.