Conventional Medicine, Industry, and Homoeopathy: Between Scientific Paradigms, Economic Interests, and Structural Prejudices

This article discusses the key epistemological, economic, and structural factors that contribute to the marginalisation of Homoeopathy within contemporary biomedical science. This integrates information from scientific literature, policy discussions, and historical sources addressing evidence hierarchies, trial design, funding patterns, and institutional determinants of scientific legitimacy in medicine. Examples from systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, pragmatic studies, and N-of-1 research frameworks are considered to contextualise how methodological models may favour or disadvantage specific therapeutic paradigms. Homoeopathy remains a contested field not only due to conflicting results in clinical studies, but also because classical randomised trial designs may fail to adequately capture individualised prescribing. While randomised controlled trials have historically been regarded as the primary benchmark of clinical validation, contemporary methodological debates increasingly recognise complementary designs—such as pragmatic and N-of-1 trials—as relevant in individualised medicine. Although heterogeneous outcomes have been reported, some evidence suggests effects beyond placebo under specific research frameworks. Comparisons with other complementary medicine systems highlight how institutional acceptance may vary according to cultural and political contexts. In summary, the marginalisation of Homoeopathy should be understood within a broader landscape of methodological constraints, epistemological tensions, and economic asymmetries, reflecting not only ongoing debates about evidence but also unequal structural conditions for evidence production.