The article entitled "Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea With Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Dual in Nicaragua" by Jacobs et al (Pediatrics. 1994;93:719-725) reported a study of the efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea. Children with diarrhea were entered into the study if the diarrhea was not severe (type C severe diarrhea patients were sent to a hospital). Oral rehydration therapy was begun, and subjects were randomly assigned to receive either homeopathic preparations or placebos. The preparations were determined by a computerized therapeutic scheme. This scheme depended on a family observer's answers to questions from an "experienced homeopathic practitioner." The article purports to show a statistically significant difference favoring the treatment group over the controls. The report has faults of 1) purpose, 2) method, 3) diagnosis and treatment selection, 4) results interpretation, and 5) authors' editorial comments. The reported difference between treatment and control groups are of dubious significance. This article argues that the study's conclusion that homeopathy is effective for childhood diarrhea is unwarranted.

Homeopaths claim that homeopathy is an "alternative" medical system. The authors justify their research in the hope that homeopathy would have public health importance. If true, one would presume the system to be equal to or better than oral rehydration therapy. Therefore, even if it were positive, this study would not prove homeopathy to be an alternative to the standard treatment of childhood diarrhea.