H:MC21 is a charity established to counter the unfounded propaganda against homeopathy by informing the public of the facts about homeopathy and its historical and scientific relationship to orthodox medicine.


It will do this through research, publication and campaigning.


Clicking on the links below will take you directly to various aspects of our campaign



Follow us on Twitter at @HMC21org





Nonsense, Not Science


 Halloween Science


Pilot survey of PCTs


Edzard Ernst interview


 Resource pack


CS&TC Report


CS&CT Evidence Check



Support the campaign


Make a donation


Order badges

Defending Choice in Medicine

HMC21 Logo medium 2a

Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century

Charity no. 1124711

Registered address: Poppyseed Cottage,

High Street, Stoke Ferry, Norfolk  PE33 9SF


All original material on this website is copyright of Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century, but may be freely used, if credited, in support of homeopathy

Donate Now

Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century

What are homogeneity and generalisability?

The only real scientific solution to this problem is to test potential treatments on healthy people in order to identify all their actual effects on individuals (which is what homeopaths do in provings), and then have a method of systematically relating this information about effects to the individual needs of patients which is what homeopaths do when selecting a remedy).



1.  Harris L Coulter, The Controlled Clinical Trial: An analysis (Washington (DC): Center for Empirical Medicine Project Cure, 1991), pp. 29-44

2.  Harris L Coulter, Homoeopathic Science and Modern Medicine (Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 1981), pp. 163-167.

3.  R.P. El Dib, A.N. Atallah, R.B. Andriolo, ‘Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care’, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 13 (2007), 689–692.

4.  http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/


Related pages:

Why it works

Orthodox medicine

<< Previous page Next page >>

People with the same disease may have symptoms in common, but they do not have identical symptoms, and they do not have identical responses. In setting up trials for orthodox drug treatments, this diversity has to be taken into account, but it creates conflicting demands:

  • For the drug to be shown to be effective for a known set of symptoms, the cases used in the trial must be as similar as possible (the group must be homogeneous), but a completely homogeneous group is impossible to find;

  • For the drug to have a general applicability for all those suffering the disease, the widest possible range of cases need to be included (the group needs to be general), but this increases variability in the responses and reduces the scientific value of the results.


There are several consequence of these conflicting demands:

  • There can be no such thing as a perfect trial, since trials inevitably involve a compromise between homogeneity and generalisability.

  • The results are only more or less scientific and only more or less applicable to people suffering the disease. [1]

  • Scientific accuracy may often be sacrificed for financial reasons. [2]

  • The individuality of response in patients means that drugs produce side effects, and these may not be identified during the trial.

As a result orthodox medicine recognises that controlled trial evidence alone cannot be relied on, but must be compared with evidence from clinical practice, a approach which forms the basis of evidence based medicine (EBM).


Evidence for the unreliability of medical RCTs was published in 2007. The table below is based on data obtained from an analysis of 1,016 systematic reviews of RCTs of conventional medicine (and therefore of many more than that number of RCTs in total). For comparison, information about trials of homeopathic treatment is included and there is a striking similarity of results. This suggests that the pattern of results relates to the method rather than to the type of medical approach used.