Presented by Zia H Shah MD

Introduction

Homeopathy is a controversial system of medicine based on ultra-diluted remedies, which by conventional science contain no active molecules. Mainstream evidence has repeatedly found homeopathy’s effects to be indistinguishable from placebo bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com. Nevertheless, proponents often argue that homeopathy must work through more than placebo because benefits are reported in subjects considered non-susceptible to placebo – such as plants, animals, and infants (who cannot consciously “believe” in a treatment). This report examines the scientific literature and theoretical explanations for how homeopathic treatments appear to help these subjects despite the assumption of no true biological efficacy beyond placebo. We summarize key studies in plants, animals, and young children, and discuss alternative explanations including caregiver placebo-by-proxy effects, observer bias, natural recovery, misattribution of improvement, and flaws in study design.

Reported Effects of Homeopathy in Plants

Plants are an interesting test-bed for homeopathy because they lack beliefs or expectations. A few controlled experiments have claimed measurable effects of homeopathic preparations on plant growth or disease, but findings have been inconsistent and difficult to replicate. For example, an Italian lab in 1997 reported that arsenic-poisoned wheat seeds grew 24% taller when treated with an ultra-high dilution of Arsenicum album 45x, compared to untreated controlspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. However, a rigorous replication trial in 2005 found the opposite: wheat given Arsenicum 45x actually had 3% less growth than controls (a small but statistically significant inhibition)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The replicating researchers concluded that their result was a “reversal of the original study” and noted that while high dilutions might induce some statistical effects, “the magnitude and direction of these effects” seem to depend on unknown factorspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. In other words, any apparent benefit in plants could be a fluke or artifact of experimental conditions rather than a reliable effect of homeopathy.

Other plant experiments have likewise yielded mixed results. Some groups reported enhanced germination or disease resistance with homeopathic treatments, while others failed to confirm such benefitspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. A major challenge is ensuring rigorous blinding and controls in plant studies. If the experimenters know which plants got the “remedy,” they might unwittingly give them better care (e.g. slightly more water or favorable conditions), skewing results. Even subtle measurement bias can create an illusion of effect. In fact, a well-controlled animal experiment (in rats) demonstrated how lack of full blinding can generate false positives: under single-blind conditions, homeopathic remedies appeared to reduce inflammation in rats’ paws by 10–28%, but when the experiment was repeated under double-blind, fully randomized protocols, those effects disappeared entirelypubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The homeopathic anti-inflammatory benefit seen initially was not confirmed once rigorous blinding was in place, whereas a real anti-inflammatory drug (indomethacin) still worked in both setupspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This highlights that in any biological test system – including plants – experimental bias or poorly controlled methodology can make an inert treatment seem effective. Indeed, reviewers note that very few reproducible positive results exist for homeopathy in plant models, and overall systematic reviews have failed to find credible evidence that homeopathic preparations have consistent effects in agriculturebmcvetres.biomedcentral.com.

Possible explanations: In plant experiments, any observed “benefit” from a homeopathic solution is likely due to uncontrolled variables or experimental error rather than a true remedy effect. For instance, if a homeopathic preparation is made in an alcohol solution and the control is plain water, the alcohol itself (or differences in handling) could affect plant growth. Random chance is another factor – when dozens of plant traits are measured, some will vary significantly just by chance, especially in small samples, yielding false-positive results. Selective publication may play a role as well: a lone positive study might get attention, whereas failed replications or negative studies often remain unpublished, giving a skewed impression of efficacy. Thus, under the assumption that homeopathy has no real active mechanism, any apparent benefits in plants can be explained by methodological issues, bias, or the natural variability of biological systems rather than a genuine therapeutic effect.

Reported Effects of Homeopathy in Animals

Homeopathy is used in veterinary settings for pets and farm animals, and some trials have claimed benefits in animals ranging from livestock to laboratory rodents. Because animals presumably do not experience a conscious placebo effect, these cases are often cited by believers as proof of a beyond-placebo action. However, a closer look at the evidence and context suggests other factors at work.

Clinical trials in animals: The most notable positive study often cited is a 2010 trial in pigs: Camerlink et al. treated pregnant sows with a homeopathic E. coli nosode (Coli 30K) to prevent E. coli-diarrhea in newborn piglets. In this randomized placebo-controlled farm trial, 525 piglets were observed, and the homeopathy group indeed had significantly less diarrhea than the placebo group (p < 0.0001)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Diarrhea episodes in treated litters were shorter and less transmissible, especially in first-time mother sowspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. On face value, this suggests a dramatic benefit. Yet, independent evaluations urge caution. A systematic review of veterinary homeopathy noted that no trials (including such prophylaxis studies) were free of bias – in fact 16 of 20 trials had a high risk of bias, and none could be deemed reliable evidencebmcvetres.biomedcentral.com. Even the piglet diarrhea result was considered “statistically inconclusive” when data were scrutinized along with conventional co-treatmentsbmcvetres.biomedcentral.com. It is possible that randomization or blinding in that farm study was imperfect. For instance, if farm staff or veterinarians knew (or guessed) which sows received the nosode, they might have unconsciously managed the litters differently. Caregiver expectations can influence how diligently symptoms are recorded or how aggressively supportive care is given (e.g. extra hydration or cleanliness), which in turn affects outcomes. Thus, a caregiver placebo effect (sometimes called placebo-by-proxy) could produce real improvements in animal health that are incorrectly attributed to the homeopathic remedy. Notably, a follow-up trial by a different team (“Soto 2008”) using a similar design for piglet diarrhea did not find a clear advantage for adjunctive homeopathy, reinforcing that results are inconsistentbmcvetres.biomedcentral.com.

Beyond farm trials, laboratory research in animals has revealed the critical role of observer bias. The rat inflammation study mentioned earlier is a prime example: when researchers knew the treatment assignments (single-blind), they observed improvements with homeopathic dilutions, but under strict double-blind conditions the improvement vanishedpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The discrepancies in such experiments “are noteworthy” and call into question any effects seen without rigorous blindingpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This implies that earlier animal studies reporting homeopathic benefits might be false signals arising from subtle human influence on the animals or on data interpretation.

Caregiver placebo effect in animals: Importantly, while animals don’t have placebo responses in the human sense, their human handlers do. In veterinary medicine, researchers describe the “caregiver placebo effect,” wherein pet owners or observers perceive an improvement in the animal simply because they expect onenews.ncsu.edunews.ncsu.edu. The act of treating an animal – even with a sham therapy – can change the caregiver’s behavior and the animal’s environment in ways that lead to perceived or actual improvement. For example, an owner giving a pet a remedy may pay closer attention to the pet’s comfort, inadvertently providing more warmth, affection, or rest, which actually helps the animal recover fasternetzwerk-homoeopathie.infonetzwerk-homoeopathie.info. One veterinary clinician explains that “merely observing [an animal’s] behavior can change it, and any changes in daily routine, like administering medication, will affect the way you relate to that animal and change its behavior.”news.ncsu.edu. In other words, the owner’s hope and optimism can translate into better care and a calmer pet, indirectly improving the animal’s condition. This placebo-by-proxy effect has been documented in clinical trials: in one pain study, all pet owners – even those unknowingly in the placebo group – reported their cats improved when on “medication,” demonstrating how powerful caregiver bias can benews.ncsu.edunews.ncsu.edu. Only when an innovative trial design introduced a hidden placebo phase were researchers able to distinguish the real drug effect from the caregiver placebo effectnews.ncsu.edu.

It’s also worth noting that classical conditioning can play a role in animals. Pavlov’s early experiments effectively demonstrated placebo-like responses in dogs – animals can subconsciously associate a neutral stimulus (like a pill or a procedure) with a relief of symptoms and then respond physiologically to the ritual of treatmentberationable.com. Thus, if an animal has repeatedly received attention, treats, or other positive experiences along with a remedy, it might show conditioned improvements (e.g. less stress or symptomatic behavior) even if the remedy is inactive.

Given these confounding factors, systematic reviews of veterinary homeopathy have concluded that the evidence is indecisive and compatible with no effect beyond placebobmcvetres.biomedcentral.com. Most positive studies in animals suffer from small sample sizes, lack of proper blinding, or other biases. As one review summarized: “no trial [in veterinary homeopathy] had sufficiently low risk of bias to be judged as reliable evidence”bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com. In plain terms, the apparent benefits seen in animals can be explained by observer biases, caregiver-mediated effects, and the natural resolution of illness rather than any intrinsic efficacy of homeopathic dilutions.

Reported Effects of Homeopathy in Infants and Young Children

Pediatric use of homeopathy is common, often targeting infants or toddlers with colic, teething pain, ear infections, or diarrhea – ailments that are distressing but usually self-limitedsciencebasedmedicine.org. Babies and very young children have no belief in medicine nor knowledge of what they are receiving, yet many parents report that homeopathic remedies seem to soothe their little ones. Are these improvements placebo, or could something else be at play?

Clinical studies in children: A noteworthy set of trials by Jennifer Jacobs and colleagues examined individualized homeopathic treatment for acute diarrhea in children (age 6 months to 5 years) in developing countries. While each trial alone was small, a pooled analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled studies (total N = 242) found that children given homeopathic remedies had a shorter duration of diarrhea on average (3.3 days vs 4.1 days in the placebo group) – a difference of about 0.8 dayspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This result was statistically significant (meta-analysis p = 0.008) and was interpreted by the authors as evidence that homeopathy could “decrease the duration of acute childhood diarrhea” when used alongside standard rehydration therapypubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Similarly, some smaller trials in infant colic in the 1990s reported that certain homeopathic drops modestly reduced crying time, though findings were mixed and not consistently replicated in larger studies. Overall, high-quality evidence in pediatrics is scant. A 2019 review noted that homeopathy has an “abysmal track record” for efficacy and remains the least plausible therapy since it violates fundamental scientific principlessciencebasedmedicine.org. In practice, any perceived help with infant colic or teething often mirrors the natural course – these conditions improve with time and supportive care, regardless of the sugar pills given.

Placebo-by-proxy and caregiver effects: Infants cannot experience a placebo effect directly, but they exist in a dynamic feedback loop with their caregivers. The concept of placebo-by-proxy is well recognized in pediatric medicinenetzwerk-homoeopathie.infonetzwerk-homoeopathie.info. It refers to improvements in a child’s condition that arise from changes in the caregiver’s behavior or mindset when they believe the child is being treated. Extensive research has shown that the emotional state of parents profoundly affects babies and toddlers, who are exquisitely sensitive to nonverbal cuesnetzwerk-homoeopathie.infonetzwerk-homoeopathie.info. When a worried parent administers a homeopathic remedy, a few things often happen: The parent feels relief that they are “doing something” for the child, their anxiety diminishes, and they may interact in a calmer, more soothing manner. The infant in turn picks up on the caregiver’s calmer demeanor and extra attention, which can reduce the baby’s distress regardless of the pill’s pharmacological contentberationable.comnetzwerk-homoeopathie.info. As one source explains, “the child or animal does not need to know whether it is getting a real medicine or only homeopathy. But the parents/owners know it and change their expectations accordingly,” unconsciously signaling reassurance to the infantnetzwerk-homoeopathie.info. The result can be a truly calmer, less symptomatic child – essentially a placebo effect mediated through the caregiver. This mechanism can explain why a colicky baby seems to settle after getting a few drops of a homeopathic gripe water: the critical ingredient may be the parent’s touch and confidence rather than the (inert) dilution itself.

There are also straightforward physiological comforts that coincide with giving a baby a remedy. Many homeopathic products for infants are given in a sweet lactose/sucrose base or a sweetened solution. It is well documented that sweet taste has a calming, pain-relieving effect on infants – hospitals use oral sugar solutions to reduce babies’ discomfort during minor proceduresjamanetwork.comjamanetwork.com. Thus, a fussy baby given a sweet homeopathic syrup or sugar pill may genuinely cry less, but largely because of the sugar’s effect and the sucking/feeding-like comfort, not because of any mystical remedy. The ritual of care – being held, fed a dropper of liquid, gently talked to – would itself soothe many babies even if the liquid were just water.

Observer bias and outcome measures: In trials involving young children, outcomes are often reported by parents. This introduces potential observer bias, especially if blinding is imperfect. A parent who fervently hopes for a treatment to work might interpret their baby’s behavior more optimistically. For example, counting an infant’s “hours of crying” or rating their pain is somewhat subjective – a parent who believes their child received an effective remedy may subconsciously under-report crying or perceive symptoms as less severe. Adequate blinding is supposed to prevent this, but in practice blinding can be tricky. If a homeopathic remedy has a distinct dosing schedule or packaging, some parents might guess their child’s assignment. Moreover, those inclined to try homeopathy might be predisposed to notice positives (“He seems a bit better today!”) and overlook negatives, a form of confirmation bias. All these human factors can create an illusion of efficacy. Pediatricians point out that most conditions for which infants get homeopathic or natural remedies (colic, teething, colds) are self-limiting – they improve on their own as the child matures or the virus runs its course. The improvement would happen with or without the sugar pills, but credit is often given to the last intervention used. This is a classic case of misattribution: assuming post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). For instance, a teething baby given a homeopathic gel might feel better after a few days; in reality the tooth simply erupted or the painful phase passed, but the remedy gets the glory.

In summary, when we assume homeopathic pills have no direct biological activity, the apparent benefits in infants can be explained by the powerful interplay of caregiver and child. The parent’s reduced anxiety and increased attentive care (placebo-by-proxy) lead to a happier babyberationable.com. The natural resolution of pediatric ailments combined with normal comforting measures accounts for the rest. Scientifically, there is no robust evidence that homeopathy outperforms placebo in young children for any conditionsciencebasedmedicine.orgsciencebasedmedicine.org. What we observe as “it worked!” is the outcome of empathy, nurture, and nature – not the sugar pill.

Alternative Explanations and Critiques of the “Benefits”

Drawing on the above, several alternative explanations can account for why homeopathy might appear effective in plants, animals, and babies even if it has no genuine active effect:

• Caregiver Placebo-by-Proxy: The beliefs and expectations of the caregiver (plant researcher, pet owner, or parent) act as a conduit for placebo effects. The caregiver’s hopeful behavior, extra care, or relieved mindset can produce real changes in the subject’s well-beingnetzwerk-homoeopathie.infoberationable.com. For animals and infants, this indirect placebo can be especially potent because they are highly attuned to human cues and dependent on caregiver care. In one review, researchers emphasized that “the condition of the caregiver plays an enormous role” and that infants/animals keenly sense and mirror the “basic mood of familiar reference persons.”netzwerk-homoeopathie.info In practical terms, a confident, attentive caregiver often leads to a healthier, calmer subject.
• Observer and Confirmation Bias: Many reported benefits come from observations by people who know (or suspect) the treatment given. This can skew results. In experiments without proper blinding, researchers may unconsciously measure or interpret outcomes in favor of the expected effect. The rat study above clearly showed that an apparent homeopathic benefit vanished under double-blind conditionspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Likewise, pet owners and parents can unintentionally exaggerate improvements that align with their hopes. This bias is why rigorous trials use blinding and objective endpoints – unfortunately, not all homeopathy studies meet these standards, and some “positive” outcomes evaporate under tighter scrutiny.
• Regression to the Mean & Natural Course: Symptoms often fluctuate over time. People (and animals) tend to seek treatment when symptoms are at their worst; statistically, whatever one does at that point is likely to be followed by improvement (since extreme episodes usually moderate). This is called regression to the mean. Many illnesses also resolve naturally: an infection is cleared by the immune system, a colicky phase passes as the baby’s gut matures, a stressed plant recovers when conditions improve. Homeopathy is often given during these crises, and when improvement follows, it gets undeserved credit. As Professor Edzard Ernst notes, “regression towards the mean [and] the natural history of the condition” are powerful forces that can mimic a treatment effectberationable.com. In controlled trials, a placebo group usually captures this background improvement – and indeed, homeopathy trials often show both placebo and remedy groups getting better with time, with at most a minor difference between them.
• Poor Study Design and Bias: A recurring issue in pro-homeopathy research is methodological weakness. Small sample sizes, lack of randomization, inadequate blinding, and selective reporting can all produce false positives. For instance, some early studies reporting benefits in animals/plants were not published in mainstream journals and lacked replication. Systematic reviews of homeopathic trials frequently judge the majority of studies to be at high risk of bias, meaning their results cannot be trustedbmcvetres.biomedcentral.com. In Mathie et al.’s comprehensive vet trial review, 80% of trials had high risk of bias and none were rated as rigorous “reliable evidence”bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com. When studies with better quality have been conducted, they tend to show no effect beyond placebo. An infamous example was the 2005 Lancet meta-analysis (Shang et al.), which found that when only the highest-quality human trials were considered, homeopathy’s effects were compatible with placeboedzardernst.com. In pediatric homeopathy, too, the few rigorous trials often turn out negative or equivocal, whereas positive findings come from methodologically lenient studies. This pattern strongly suggests that the appearance of efficacy is an artifact of study flaws rather than a real therapeutic phenomenon.
• Publication and Reporting Bias: It is easier to find a few positive studies in favor of homeopathy if one does not consider the silent evidence – all the trials that found nothing and weren’t publicized. The literature on homeopathy in animals and children likely suffers from publication bias: experiments with null results ( “no difference between remedy and control”) may go unreported, while any trial showing a significant difference gets published and touted. Over time this can create a false impression that numerous studies found benefits, when in reality the published positive results are outliers. Reviews that account for these biases conclude that collectively the evidence “fail[s] to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy.”pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

To illustrate these points, Table 1 summarizes a few representative studies and the likely explanations for their findings under a placebo-only assumption:

Study (Subject)	Reported Outcome	Critical Appraisal / Likely Explanation
Camerlink et al. 2010 – Homeopathic nosode to prevent piglet diarrhea (farm trial, 525 piglets)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov	Homeopathy-treated piglets had significantly less E. coli diarrhea than placebo group (p<0.0001)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Diarrhea was shorter and less severe in treated litters.	Double-blinding and allocation procedures are unclear; potential caregiver placebo effect (farmers’ altered care). Could be a statistical fluke or due to unaccounted differences (e.g. parity or immunity of sows). A review flagged this result as inconclusive when considering study qualitybmcvetres.biomedcentral.com. Needs independent replication – subsequent attempts did not confirm a clear benefit.
Conforti et al. 2007 – Homeopathic remedies for rat paw inflammation (laboratory study, 720 rats)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov	Under single-blind measurement, some remedies showed 10–28% reduction in edema vs. placebo (suggesting anti-inflammatory effect). Under strict double-blind conditions, no effect of remedies was seen; only the standard drug indomethacin was effectivepubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.	Demonstrates observer bias: initial “benefit” vanished with proper blinding. The homeopathic effect was an artifact of expectations or measurement biaspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Highlights that rigorous controls eliminate purported effects – supporting that homeopathic remedies themselves had no intrinsic impact.
Binder et al. 2005 – Arsenic 45x on arsenic-poisoned wheat seedlings (plant experiment, 8 trials)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov	Original 1997 study found a +24% growth increase with Arsenic 45x remedypubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The 2005 replication found a –3% growth decrease with the same remedy (p = 0.01)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Authors noted the effect reversed and acknowledged results depend on unknown parameterspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.	Inconsistent outcomes indicate lack of reproducibility. The initial positive result was likely a false positive or influenced by uncontrolled factors. The follow-up showed the opposite, implying no reliable benefit – the direction of effect flipped, which is expected if results are essentially random noise. No robust mechanism or repeatable effect on plants was demonstrated.
Jacobs et al. 2003 – Meta-analysis of homeopathy for childhood diarrhea (3 trials, n=242)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov	Homeopathy group had average 0.8 days shorter diarrhea duration than placebo (3.3 vs 4.1 days, P = 0.008)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Authors conclude individualized homeopathic treatment may speed recovery in acute diarrhea.	Modest effect size (~20 hours difference) in a subjective outcome (parent-reported stool counts). Could reflect slight biases in reporting or care; e.g. parents giving remedies might adhere better to hydration and diet advice. Also, the result might be a chance finding – later larger trials on pediatric diarrhea did not replicate such clear benefits. Given diarrhea often resolves in ~3–5 days naturally, a <1 day difference is clinically marginal. Pediatric experts generally do not view this as robust evidence, citing overall lack of high-quality data for homeopathy in kidssciencebasedmedicine.orgsciencebasedmedicine.org.
(Many pediatric cases – e.g. colic, teething)	Parents frequently report babies seem calmer after homeopathic drops or teething tablets.	Likely placebo-by-proxy: parental reassurance and the soothing ritual have the real effectberationable.com. Additionally, many of these problems are intermittent – even an ineffective remedy will sometimes be given right before a natural lull in symptoms, creating an illusion that it caused relief. Controlled trials either show no difference from placebo or are inconclusive, consistent with no direct remedy action.

Table 1: Examples of reported homeopathic benefits in non-placebo-aware subjects, with critiques. In each case, alternative explanations (bias, chance, caregiver effects, etc.) provide a more parsimonious interpretation than assuming a mysterious therapeutic force at work.

Conclusion

Homeopathy’s apparent successes in plants, animals, and infants can be explained without invoking any implausible “memory of water” or supernatural mechanism. When we operate under the assumption that homeopathic remedies lack direct biological effects beyond placebo, we find that the context and psychology surrounding the treatment largely account for the observations:

• In animals and babies, the human factor – caregiver expectations, attention, and behavior – produces placebo-like benefits by proxynetzwerk-homoeopathie.infoberationable.com. The trust and care accompanying treatment can genuinely improve well-being, independent of the pill’s content.
• In plants (and lab models), any measurable differences often vanish under stricter controls, pointing to experimental bias or random variation as the source of earlier positive claimspubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
• Natural healing and time play a big role: because homeopathy is often tried on self-resolving conditions, improvement is incorrectly credited to the remedies.
• Flawed research designs and selective publishing have amplified false signals. High-quality trials tend to show no effect beyond placebo, and systematic reviews find no convincing evidence that homeopathy works in these domainsbmcvetres.biomedcentral.combmcvetres.biomedcentral.com.

In essence, homeopathy’s “benefits” in non-placebo-susceptible subjects are a mirage created by the power of care and belief (on the part of humans), coupled with the normal ebb and flow of biology. Observer bias and caregiver placebo effects can easily fool us into seeing a cure where there is none. As a result, once rigorous science is applied, homeopathy’s effects evaporate, reaffirming that no intrinsic healing mechanism is at work. All of this underscores a critical point: compassionate caregiving and the placebo effect can improve comfort, but relying on an inert treatment is risky if it delays real medical carenetzwerk-homoeopathie.info. The true lesson may be to harness the human elements of healing – empathy, attention, optimism – alongside effective therapy, rather than attributing such benefits to sugar pills.

Sources:

1. Mathie, R. T., & Clausen, J. (2015). Veterinary homeopathy: Systematic review of medical conditions studied by randomised trials controlled by other than placebo. BMC Vet Res, 11:236. – Discusses quality of veterinary homeopathy trials (most had high bias; evidence indecisive)bmcvetres.biomedcentral.combmcvetres.biomedcentral.com.
2. Gruen, M. et al. (2014). Countering the Caregiver Placebo Effect. NC State News. – Explains how owner expectations can bias pet trial outcomes; describes “caregiver placebo effect” in catsnews.ncsu.edunews.ncsu.edu.
3. INH (2017). Placebo by proxy – what does that mean? Information Network Homeopathy. – Explains placebo-by-proxy in infants/animals: caregiver’s relief and positive expectation transmits to patientnetzwerk-homoeopathie.infonetzwerk-homoeopathie.info.
4. Conforti, A. et al. (2007). Rat models of acute inflammation: a randomized controlled study on the effects of homeopathic remedies. BMC Comp Alt Med, 7:1. – Found homeopathic effects under single-blind conditions disappeared under double-blind conditions (observer bias)pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
5. Binder, M. et al. (2005). Reproduction trial of Arsenicum 45x on wheat growth. Forsch Komplementmed, 12(5):284-291. – Initial plant result (+24% growth) not reproduced; instead saw –3% growth, highlighting irreproducibilitypubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
6. Camerlink, I. et al. (2010). Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics in E. coli diarrhoea of piglets. Homeopathy, 99(1):57-62. – Reported significantly less diarrhea in piglets from treated sows vs placebopubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
7. Jacobs, J. et al. (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results of three trials. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 22(3):229-234. – Meta-analysis showing 0.8-day reduction in diarrhea duration with individualized homeopathy vs placebopubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
8. Jones, C. (2014). Reflexology for Babies? Science-Based Medicine. – Notes that pediatric homeopathy is widely used for self-limited issues (colic, teething) but has “abysmal” evidence and no plausible mechanismsciencebasedmedicine.orgsciencebasedmedicine.org.
9. Ernst, E. (2025). Interview on homeopathy, Rationable Podcast. – Discusses that placebo effects operate in children and animals via conditioning and by-proxy; mother’s reduced anxiety can calm babyberationable.comberationable.com.