Three major tests since 1985 have scientifically proved that homeopathy works yet the medical establishment still cannot believe its eyes.

The latest, published in The Lancet last December, again let the medical establishment off the hook by concluding that the result may be down to the possibility of false positive results (wrong readings) which can be generated by clinical tests.

Presumably, on that basis, every medical test ever undertaken indeed, the entire foundation of orthodox medicine should also be discounted for the same reasons, although that is not volunteered by the researchers.

In an accompanying editorial, The Lancet says that the dilution principle of homeopathy is "absurd", and so the fact that people using homeopathy got better during the trial must be due to some other cause. Nonetheless, careful scientific work "should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers", it concludes.

The latest research, again conducted by David Reilly et al from the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Scotland, was based on 28 patients suffering from allergic asthma, most due to a sensitivity to the house mite. Half were given a homeopathic remedy to take orally; the rest were given a placebo. The homeopathic patients were showing an improvement within a week, and this was supported by respiratory and bronchial tests.

The researchers then took their findings and compared them with the results of two earlier tests of homeopathy, also conducted by David Reilly, and came to the same conclusion: homeopathy was better than placebo.