Second Prescription in Homoeopathy: Principles, Clinical Challenges, and Evidence-Based Insights

Second Prescription in Homoeopathy: Principles, Clinical Challenges, and Evidence-Based Insights – A Narrative Review

Abstract

Background:

Second prescription is a crucial yet complex aspect of homoeopathic practice. While the first prescription is based on individualization and similimum selection, the second prescription demands careful evaluation of remedy response, disease progression, and patient susceptibility. Misinterpretation at this stage may hinder or even reverse the curative process.

Objective:

To review and synthesize classical principles and contemporary perspectives on second prescription in homoeopathy, with emphasis on clinical decision-making and remedy management.

Methods:

A narrative review was conducted using classical homoeopathic literature, including Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine and works of Kent, Close, and Roberts, along with relevant modern publications and research articles. Key concepts related to remedy repetition, change of remedy, potency selection, and follow-up assessment were analyzed.

Results:

The review identifies essential criteria guiding second prescription, including assessment of patient response, direction of cure, appearance of new symptoms, and overall well-being. It highlights the importance of “wait and watch,” avoidance of premature repetition, and individualized decision-making. Both classical doctrines and modern interpretations emphasize that improper second prescription may interrupt the curative action of the initial remedy.

Conclusion:

Second prescription in homoeopathy is both a science and an art, requiring deep understanding of remedy action and patient response. Integrating classical principles with clinical experience can enhance therapeutic outcomes and minimize errors in management.

Keywords:

Second Prescription; Homoeopathy; Similimum; Remedy Repetition; Follow-up; Kent; Hahnemann

Introduction

Homoeopathy is a therapeutic system based on the fundamental principle of Similia Similibus Curentur, emphasizing individualized treatment through the selection of a similimum [1]. While considerable importance is given to the selection of the first prescription, the concept of the second prescription remains one of the most critical and challenging aspects of homoeopathic practice. The second prescription refers to the physician’s clinical decision following the patient’s response to the initial remedy, requiring careful interpretation of symptom changes, general well-being, and disease evolution [2].

Samuel Hahnemann, in the later editions of the Organon of Medicine, particularly in aphorisms 246–248, provided detailed guidance on repetition of doses and management after the administration of the first remedy [1]. He emphasized the necessity of observing the action of the remedy and cautioned against unnecessary repetition or premature change. Building upon Hahnemann’s principles, Kent strongly advocated for the “wait and watch” approach, highlighting that interference during the active phase of remedy action may disrupt the curative process [2]. Similarly, Close and Roberts elaborated on the importance of understanding remedy response and the direction of cure in determining the need for a second prescription [3,4].

In clinical practice, the second prescription encompasses several possibilities, including repetition of the same remedy, change in potency, selection of a new remedy, or withholding medication (placebo) [4,5]. The decision is guided by multiple factors such as improvement in general symptoms, appearance of new symptoms, intensity of aggravation, and adherence to Hering’s law of cure [6]. Accurate assessment at this stage is essential, as an inappropriate second prescription may antidote the action of the initial remedy or lead to suppression of symptoms.

Despite its importance, the second prescription often remains inadequately understood and is frequently a source of confusion among practitioners. Errors such as premature repetition, unnecessary change of remedy, and misinterpretation of aggravations are commonly observed in practice [2,4]. Moreover, with evolving clinical scenarios and increasing expectations for evidence-based practice, there is a need to revisit classical doctrines in light of contemporary perspectives [24,25].

Therefore, this review aims to critically analyze the principles governing second prescription in homoeopathy, integrating classical teachings with modern insights, and to provide a structured framework for clinical decision-making.

Historical Background

The concept of second prescription in homoeopathy originates from the foundational teachings of Samuel Hahnemann. In the earlier editions of the Organon of Medicine, Hahnemann emphasized the use of a single remedy in minimum dose and advised against frequent repetition [1]. However, in the 5th and especially the 6th edition, he refined his views and introduced more detailed guidelines regarding repetition of doses, particularly through aphorisms 246–248. He advocated that repetition should be guided by the patient’s response and the nature of the disease, rather than by fixed rules [1].

Hahnemann also introduced the concept of modifying the dose and potency, especially with the use of LM (50 millesimal) potencies, to ensure gentle and continuous action of the remedy without causing undue aggravation [1]. This marked a significant evolution in his approach, shifting from rigid dosing to a more dynamic and individualized strategy.

James Tyler Kent further expanded the philosophy of second prescription by strongly emphasizing the importance of observation. He stated that once a well-selected remedy is administered, the physician must wait and allow it to act fully before considering any repetition or change [2]. Kent warned that premature intervention could spoil the case and interfere with the natural curative process. His teachings laid great stress on the assessment of general improvement and the direction of cure.

Stuart Close contributed by systematizing the understanding of remedy action and patient response. He highlighted that the second prescription should be based on a thorough evaluation of symptom evolution, rather than on isolated or superficial changes [3]. Similarly, H.A. Roberts emphasized practical clinical guidelines, including the importance of distinguishing between true aggravation, amelioration, and disease progression [4].

Other stalwarts such as Nash and Dunham also provided valuable clinical insights. Nash focused on the practical application of remedy response in day-to-day practice, while Dunham stressed the scientific basis of therapeutic decisions [5,10]. Together, these contributions helped shape a more comprehensive understanding of second prescription, blending philosophy with clinical pragmatism.

Thus, the historical development of second prescription reflects a gradual refinement of principles—from Hahnemann’s foundational doctrines to the interpretative and clinical expansions by later authors—forming the basis of modern homoeopathic practice.

Concept of Second Prescription

The second prescription in homoeopathy refers to the physician’s decision-making process after evaluating the patient’s response to the first prescription. It is not merely the act of giving another medicine, but a critical assessment based on the totality of symptoms, general well-being, and the dynamic action of the previously administered remedy [2,3].

According to classical homoeopathic philosophy, the action of a well-selected remedy unfolds over time, influencing both subjective and objective parameters of the patient. Therefore, the second prescription must be guided by careful observation rather than routine or mechanical repetition [1,2]. Hahnemann emphasized that as long as improvement continues, no interference should be made, highlighting the importance of allowing the vital force to complete its curative action [1].

The concept of second prescription broadly includes four possible clinical decisions: repetition of the same remedy, change in potency, selection of a new remedy, or withholding medication (placebo) [4,5]. Each of these decisions depends on the nature and direction of the patient’s response.

When there is continuous improvement in general well-being, even if some local symptoms persist, the physician is advised to wait and avoid repetition [2]. Kent strongly advocated that any interruption during this phase may hinder the curative process. On the other hand, when improvement ceases or symptoms relapse after a period of amelioration, repetition of the same remedy may be indicated [2,4].

In cases where the symptom picture changes significantly or new symptoms arise that do not belong to the original remedy, a change of remedy becomes necessary [3]. This requires fresh individualization and careful analysis of the new totality. Close emphasized that the second prescription must always be based on the current state of the patient rather than past symptoms [3].

Potency selection also plays a crucial role in second prescription. Depending on the patient’s susceptibility and response, the physician may choose to repeat the same potency or ascend to a higher potency [1,4]. Improper potency selection may lead to aggravation or lack of response.

Another essential aspect is the understanding of the direction of cure, as described by Hering’s law, which states that healing progresses from within outward, from above downward, and in the reverse order of symptom appearance [6]. Correct interpretation of this direction helps in avoiding unnecessary changes in prescription.

Thus, the second prescription is a dynamic and individualized process that integrates classical principles, clinical judgment, and patient-specific factors. Mastery of this concept is essential for achieving consistent and successful outcomes in homoeopathic practice.

Principles of Second Prescription

The principles governing the second prescription in homoeopathy are deeply rooted in classical philosophy and require careful interpretation in clinical practice. Unlike mechanical or routine prescribing, the second prescription demands a dynamic understanding of the patient’s response to the initial remedy and the progression of the disease process. These principles, as laid down by Hahnemann and further elaborated by Kent and other stalwarts, emphasize restraint, observation, and individualization as the cornerstones of successful treatment [1,2].

One of the most fundamental principles is the concept of “wait and watch.” After administering a well-selected remedy, the physician must allow sufficient time for its action to unfold. Hahnemann clearly advised against unnecessary repetition, particularly when improvement is evident. Kent reinforced this idea by stating that interference during the active phase of the remedy can disrupt the curative process and lead to confusion in the symptom picture [1,2]. Therefore, as long as the patient shows improvement in general well-being, no change in prescription is warranted.

Closely related to this is the principle that the remedy should never be changed during ongoing improvement. Even if certain local symptoms persist, improvement in generals—such as better sleep, appetite, and mental state—indicates that the remedy is acting in the right direction. Changing the remedy at this stage may not only halt progress but may also complicate the case further [2].

Repetition of the same remedy becomes necessary when the improvement has ceased or when symptoms relapse after a period of amelioration. Hahnemann emphasized that repetition should not follow a fixed schedule but should be guided by the patient’s response and the nature of the disease. In chronic conditions, careful spacing of doses is often required, whereas in acute conditions, repetition may be more frequent depending on the intensity of symptoms [1].

A change of remedy is indicated when there is no response to the initial prescription, or when the symptom totality undergoes a significant change. The appearance of new symptoms that were not part of the original case may suggest that the remedy was either incorrect or has produced proving symptoms. In such situations, a fresh case-taking and re-evaluation are essential before selecting a new remedy [3,4].

Potency selection also plays a critical role in the second prescription. The decision to repeat the same potency or to move to a higher potency depends on factors such as the patient’s susceptibility, the depth of the disease, and the nature of the response to the previous dose. An appropriate change in potency can enhance the action of the remedy, whereas an inappropriate choice may result in aggravation or lack of response [1,4].

Another important consideration is the avoidance of unnecessary repetition. Frequent and indiscriminate dosing may lead to medicinal aggravations or proving, thereby complicating the clinical picture. Hahnemann’s principle of minimum dose must always be respected to ensure gentle and effective cure [1].

Finally, all decisions related to the second prescription must be guided by the principle of individualization. Each patient presents a unique response pattern, and no fixed protocol can substitute for careful clinical judgment. The direction of cure, as described by Hering, provides an additional framework for assessing whether the case is progressing favorably. A correct direction confirms the appropriateness of the prescription, whereas deviation may necessitate reconsideration [6].

Thus, the principles of second prescription represent a delicate balance between scientific reasoning and clinical intuition. Their proper application ensures continuity of the curative process and minimizes the risk of therapeutic errors.

Clinical Decision-Making in Second Prescription

Clinical decision-making in the second prescription represents the most critical phase of homoeopathic management, where the physician must interpret the patient’s response with precision and depth. Unlike the first prescription, which is largely based on symptom totality and individualization, the second prescription depends on the dynamic assessment of remedy action, patient susceptibility, and the evolving clinical picture [2,3].

A key element in this process is the evaluation of general symptoms. Improvement in generals—such as increased energy, better sleep, improved appetite, and enhanced mental well-being—takes precedence over local or particular symptoms. Kent emphasized that generals are the true indicators of curative progress, and their improvement often signifies that the remedy is acting at a deeper level, even if local complaints persist temporarily [2]. Therefore, decision-making should not be based solely on the persistence or disappearance of individual symptoms, but on the overall state of the patient.

Another crucial factor is the assessment of the direction of cure. Hering’s law provides a valuable guideline in this regard, indicating that true healing occurs from within outward, from more vital organs to less vital ones, and in the reverse order of symptom appearance [6]. When such a direction is observed, the physician can confidently continue with a wait-and-watch approach. Conversely, if symptoms shift in an unfavorable direction—such as from peripheral to central organs—it may indicate suppression or an incorrect prescription, requiring immediate re-evaluation.

The appearance of new symptoms must also be carefully interpreted. If these symptoms are mild and transient, they may represent a curative response or slight proving. However, if they are intense, persistent, and clearly unrelated to the original symptom picture, they may indicate an incorrect remedy. In such cases, a fresh case analysis becomes necessary before proceeding with a new prescription [3].

Relapse of symptoms after initial improvement is another common clinical scenario. This typically suggests that the remedy was correct but its action has been exhausted. In such cases, repetition of the same remedy is often indicated, either in the same potency or in a higher potency depending on the patient’s susceptibility and response pattern [1,4]. However, repetition should be done cautiously, ensuring that the original symptom picture still corresponds to the remedy.

The role of potency selection in decision-making cannot be overlooked. Patients with high susceptibility may respond well to higher potencies and require less frequent repetition, whereas those with lower susceptibility or advanced pathological changes may need lower potencies and more careful dosing. The physician must tailor potency selection based on individual response rather than following standardized protocols [1].

Follow-up plays a vital role in accurate decision-making. Detailed case records, including timelines of symptom changes and patient feedback, are essential for evaluating remedy action. Without proper follow-up, the physician may misinterpret the clinical picture and make inappropriate decisions regarding repetition or change of remedy.

Ultimately, clinical decision-making in the second prescription is a continuous and evolving process that requires integration of classical principles with practical experience. It demands patience, keen observation, and the ability to distinguish between remedy action and disease progression. Mastery of this process significantly enhances the effectiveness of homoeopathic treatment and ensures a more consistent approach to cure.

Challenges in Second Prescription

Despite its central importance in homoeopathic practice, the second prescription remains one of the most challenging and often misunderstood aspects of clinical management. The difficulty arises primarily from the need to accurately interpret the patient’s response to the initial remedy, which is not always straightforward. Variations in individual susceptibility, disease dynamics, and external influences further complicate the decision-making process [2,4].

One of the most common challenges is premature repetition of the remedy. Many practitioners tend to repeat the medicine as soon as symptoms persist or show slow improvement, without allowing adequate time for the remedy to complete its action. This approach contradicts the classical principle of minimum intervention and may lead to aggravation, proving symptoms, or confusion in the clinical picture [1,2]. Kent strongly warned against such interference, emphasizing that impatience can spoil an otherwise well-managed case.

Another significant difficulty lies in the misinterpretation of homoeopathic aggravation. A slight and temporary worsening of symptoms is often a favorable sign indicating that the remedy is acting. However, distinguishing this from actual disease progression requires experience and careful observation. Incorrect interpretation may lead the physician to unnecessarily change the remedy, thereby interrupting the curative process [3].

The appearance of new symptoms presents another diagnostic dilemma. These symptoms may represent either the natural evolution of the disease, a proving effect of the remedy, or the emergence of a new layer in chronic cases. Without proper analysis, there is a risk of overreacting and prescribing a new remedy prematurely. Close emphasized that every new symptom must be evaluated in relation to the totality before making any decision [3].

Confusion between suppression and cure is also a major challenge. In some cases, local symptoms may disappear rapidly while the patient’s general condition deteriorates. This indicates suppression rather than true healing. Failure to recognize this distinction may lead to false satisfaction with the treatment outcome and inappropriate continuation of the same line of management [6].

Another practical issue is the lack of proper follow-up. Incomplete or irregular case recording makes it difficult to assess the sequence and direction of symptom changes. Without a clear timeline, the physician may misinterpret the remedy response and make incorrect decisions regarding repetition or change of remedy.

External factors such as patient compliance, lifestyle influences, and concomitant medications further complicate the picture. These factors may alter the response to the remedy or mask the true progression of symptoms, making it more difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the prescription.

Finally, the tendency toward mechanical prescribing remains a persistent problem. Relying on fixed protocols or routine repetition, rather than individualized assessment, undermines the fundamental principles of homoeopathy. Each case presents unique challenges, and the second prescription must always be tailored to the specific clinical context.

In summary, the challenges associated with second prescription highlight the need for a balanced approach that combines theoretical knowledge with clinical experience. Careful observation, patience, and adherence to classical principles are essential to avoid common pitfalls and ensure successful therapeutic outcomes.

Evidence and Modern Perspectives

In recent decades, there has been a growing emphasis on evidence-based practice in homoeopathy, aiming to integrate classical principles with modern research methodologies. While the concept of second prescription is deeply rooted in traditional philosophy, contemporary studies have attempted to evaluate homoeopathic treatment outcomes, including follow-up strategies and remedy management, within structured clinical frameworks [24,25].

One of the key challenges in generating evidence for second prescription lies in the individualized nature of homoeopathy. Unlike conventional clinical trials that rely on standardized interventions, homoeopathic treatment—including decisions regarding repetition, change of remedy, and potency selection—varies from patient to patient. This inherent variability makes it difficult to design uniform study protocols and often limits the generalizability of findings [26,34].

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have explored the overall effectiveness of individualized homoeopathic treatment. Mathie et al. reported that individualized homoeopathy may show effects beyond placebo in certain conditions, although the quality of evidence varies [24,25]. Similarly, observational studies and pragmatic trials have demonstrated positive clinical outcomes in chronic diseases, where long-term follow-up and appropriate second prescription play a crucial role [29,38].

Research has also highlighted the importance of the patient–practitioner interaction in homoeopathy. The process of detailed case-taking, continuous follow-up, and individualized adjustments—including second prescription—contributes significantly to therapeutic outcomes [40]. This holistic approach, although difficult to quantify, is considered a key component of homoeopathic care.

At the same time, homoeopathy has faced criticism, particularly regarding the reproducibility and scientific plausibility of its principles. Some reviews have concluded that the effects of homoeopathy may not differ significantly from placebo [23,27]. However, proponents argue that such conclusions often arise from methodological limitations, including inadequate consideration of individualized prescribing and follow-up dynamics [28,35].

Modern perspectives increasingly advocate for the use of pragmatic and real-world study designs that better reflect actual clinical practice. These approaches allow for flexibility in prescribing, including second prescription decisions, and may provide more meaningful insights into the effectiveness of homoeopathic treatment [34,41].

In the Indian context, institutions such as the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) and the Ministry of AYUSH have undertaken various clinical and observational studies to evaluate homoeopathic interventions in different disease conditions [43,44]. Although specific research focusing exclusively on second prescription remains limited, its role is inherently embedded in the overall treatment protocol and follow-up methodology.

Thus, while high-quality evidence specifically addressing second prescription is still evolving, existing research supports the importance of individualized treatment, careful follow-up, and dynamic clinical decision-making. Integrating classical knowledge with modern research approaches may help strengthen the scientific understanding and acceptance of second prescription in homoeopathy.

Discussion

The concept of second prescription in homoeopathy represents a critical intersection between classical philosophy and clinical practice. While the foundational principles laid down by Hahnemann and later expanded by Kent, Close, and others provide a strong theoretical framework, their practical application requires a high degree of clinical judgment and experience. This review highlights that the success of homoeopathic treatment does not depend solely on the accuracy of the first prescription, but equally on the physician’s ability to interpret and manage the subsequent course of the case.

A key observation emerging from this analysis is that second prescription is fundamentally a response-based process rather than a symptom-based one. Improvement in general well-being, as emphasized in classical literature, remains the most reliable indicator of curative progress [2]. However, in modern clinical settings, there is often a tendency to overemphasize local symptoms or pathological findings, which may lead to premature or inappropriate interventions. This divergence from classical principles underscores the need for a balanced approach that integrates both subjective and objective parameters.

Another important aspect is the frequent misinterpretation of remedy action. Differentiating between homoeopathic aggravation, natural disease progression, and the emergence of new symptom layers remains a significant challenge. The findings of this review suggest that many of the common errors in second prescription—such as unnecessary repetition or early change of remedy—stem from inadequate understanding of these distinctions. This highlights the importance of continuous training and adherence to classical guidelines in clinical practice.

The role of potency and repetition also warrants careful consideration. While Hahnemann’s later teachings introduced flexibility in dosing, including the use of LM potencies, their application requires individualized assessment. Modern practitioners often adopt fixed dosing schedules, which may not align with the dynamic nature of homoeopathic prescribing. This gap between theory and practice may contribute to inconsistent clinical outcomes.

From an evidence-based perspective, the individualized and evolving nature of second prescription poses challenges for standard research methodologies. However, it also emphasizes the need for more pragmatic and patient-centered study designs that can capture the complexity of homoeopathic treatment. Observational studies and real-world data may offer valuable insights into the effectiveness of second prescription, particularly in chronic and multifactorial conditions [24,34].

Furthermore, the discussion brings attention to the importance of follow-up as an integral component of homoeopathic care. Accurate and systematic follow-up enables the physician to track the direction of cure, evaluate remedy action, and make informed decisions regarding subsequent prescriptions. Without this, even a well-selected remedy may fail to produce optimal results.

Overall, the second prescription can be viewed as both a science and an art. It requires not only knowledge of materia medica and repertory but also the ability to observe, interpret, and respond to subtle changes in the patient’s condition. Bridging the gap between classical doctrines and modern clinical demands is essential for improving consistency, reliability, and acceptance of homoeopathic practice.

Conclusion

The second prescription in homoeopathy is a pivotal component of successful case management, requiring a thorough understanding of remedy action, patient response, and the principles of individualization. While the first prescription initiates the curative process, it is the judicious application of the second prescription that determines its continuity and outcome.

This review underscores that the second prescription is not a routine or mechanical step, but a dynamic and interpretative process guided by careful observation and clinical reasoning. Principles such as “wait and watch,” avoidance of unnecessary repetition, and adherence to the direction of cure remain fundamental to effective practice. Misinterpretation at this stage may not only hinder recovery but also complicate the clinical picture.

Despite advancements in evidence-based approaches, the individualized nature of homoeopathy continues to present challenges in standardization and research. However, integrating classical knowledge with modern clinical insights and systematic follow-up can enhance both the reliability and acceptance of homoeopathic treatment.

In conclusion, mastery of the second prescription requires a balanced integration of scientific principles, clinical experience, and patient-centered evaluation. Strengthening this aspect of practice can significantly improve therapeutic outcomes and contribute to the advancement of homoeopathy as a rational and effective system of medicine.

References

1. Hahnemann S. Organon of Medicine. 6th ed. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2002.
2. Kent JT. Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2004.
3. Close S. The Genius of Homoeopathy. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2002.
4. Roberts HA. The Principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2005.
5. Nash EB. Leaders in Homoeopathic Therapeutics. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2001.
6. Boericke W. Pocket Manual of Homoeopathic Materia Medica. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2007.
7. Allen HC. Keynotes and Characteristics. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2003.
8. Hering C. Guiding Symptoms of Our Materia Medica. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 1999.
9. Boger CM. Synoptic Key of Materia Medica. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2002.
10. Dunham C. Science of Therapeutics. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2001.
11. Vithoulkas G. The Science of Homoeopathy. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2000.
12. Vithoulkas G. Levels of Health. Int Acad Classical Homoeopathy; 2010.
13. Ortega PS. Notes on the Miasms. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2003.
14. Sankaran R. The Spirit of Homoeopathy. Mumbai: Homoeopathic Medical Publishers; 1991.
15. Sankaran R. The Substance of Homoeopathy. Mumbai: Homoeopathic Medical Publishers; 1994.
16. Banerjea SK. Miasmatic Prescribing. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2006.
17. Tyler ML. Homoeopathic Drug Pictures. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2004.
18. Farrington EA. Clinical Materia Medica. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2002.
19. Clarke JH. Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2001.
20. Phatak SR. Concise Repertory of Homoeopathic Medicines. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2005.
21. Bellavite P, Signorini A. The emerging science of homeopathy. North Atlantic Books; 2002.
22. Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Conforti A. Immunology and homeopathy. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006;3(4):441–449.
23. Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Lancet. 2005;366:726–732.
24. Mathie RT, Lloyd SM, et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualized homeopathic treatment: systematic review. Syst Rev. 2014;3:142.
25. Mathie RT, Ramparsad N, et al. Homeopathy trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e016290.
26. Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:393–399.
27. Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;54:577–582.
28. Fisher P. Homeopathy and the Lancet. Lancet. 2005;366:690–691.
29. Witt CM, Bluth M, et al. Outcome and costs of homeopathic vs conventional treatment. Lancet. 2005;366:2081–2087.
30. Frei H, Everts R, et al. Homeopathic treatment of ADHD. Eur J Pediatr. 2005;164:758–767.
31. Jacobs J, Williams AL, et al. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics. 1994;93:719–725.
32. Taylor MA, Reilly D, et al. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Lancet. 2000;356:726–727.
33. Linde K, Clausius N, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Lancet. 1997;350:834–843.
34. Walach H, Jonas WB, et al. Clinical research in homeopathy. J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11:813–829.
35. Rutten L, Stolper E. The 2014 meta-analysis of homeopathy. Homeopathy. 2015;104:271–272.
36. Teixeira MZ. Evidence-based homeopathy. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2008;54:71–76.
37. Relton C, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ. Homeopathy service evaluation. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:132.
38. Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease. J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11:793–798.
39. Thompson EA, Reilly D. The homeopathic approach to symptom control. Palliat Med. 2002;16:227–233.
40. Milgrom LR. Patient-practitioner relationship in homeopathy. J Altern Complement Med. 2003;9:813–823.
41. Bell IR, Koithan M. Models for homeopathic research. Integr Cancer Ther. 2012;11:3–14.
42. Sharma B, et al. Role of individualized homeopathy. Indian J Res Homoeopathy. 2018;12:45–52.
43. Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy. Clinical research updates. New Delhi: CCRH; 2020.
44. Ministry of AYUSH. Homoeopathy research initiatives. Govt of India; 2021.