Very little- it sounds like a great idea and would probably give a better measure of homeopathy's effectiveness than a RDBPCT. A more important question - would this satisfy the scientific community? I suspect it would be criticised as not being totally objective.

However there are still problems even with this approach:

1. It is more a measure of the competence of the homeopath than of homeopathy's effectiveness. This would be true of any such trial. The homeopath should have a proven track record in the particular condition being treated with a satisfactory 'first precription success rate'.

2. It is VERY difficult to get consistently good results first time in homeopathy. Few homeopaths outside of India are able to achieve this. Sometimes it is impossible to differentiate between two remedies because the patient is not able to provide us with the information we need to differentiate- we have to teach some patients how to observe their symptomatology in greater detail and that takes time.

For example 'I have a headache' is not a symptom to a homeopath. 'I have a boring pain in the left temple extending to my left eye that gets worse when I bend down and is better after a hot bath' is more useful. I often ask the question what makes your headache better or worse? I often get the response 'painkillers make it better'. This is not what I was looking for!

It would more interesting if the homeopath could rate their level of confidence in their individualized prescription and this could be somehow incorporated into the results- but again, this would be criticized as being subjective and therefore invalid.

3. Some cases are incurable - a competent homeopath would be able to identify these cases and modify their prognosis.

4. Patient compliance could be a problem. How could we be sure that the subjects would take the remedies correctly and avoid all possible antidotes for the duration of a trial? It has been reported that one cup of coffee can antidote some remedies in sensitive people (although not in my experience).

5. To individualize 150 cases would be around 500 hours work for one homeopath and yet would only be considered a preliminary study to the scientific community.

Any audit of a competent homeopaths practice is all that is needed to verify homeopathy's theory and prove that infinitessimal medicines are effective. If a patient who has had eczema for 10 years despite the best efforts of their conventional doctor goes to see a homeopath and is eczema free three months later would one consider that convincing evidence? Any competent homeopath could provide many such cases and the grateful patients would be happy to verify it was so. Oh yes, I forget, this is anecdotal evidence and is therefore considered invalid.

Homeopaths do not have the resources or influence that pharmaceutical companies have. We are individual practitioners, not global corporations. Yet the fact that homeopathy is the second most popular system of medicine worldwide, that it is the fastest growing of all the non-conventional therapies, that a significant number of medically qualified doctors dedicate their professional lives to the study and practice of homeopathy, that millions of people are happy to pay for homeopathy when they could get free conventional treatment for their condition on the NHS... isn't this sufficient evidence in itself? Why homeopathy? Why not some other therapy? Because homeopathy is the Science of Medical Therapeutics and the Law of Similars is the Curative Principle in medicine.