Homeopathy

If you are in these fields, please look into these resources to become further educated about the cult indoctrination and recovery process. We know there is need in this area.
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Homeopathy

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »


Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today?s Pop Mysticisms
Robert M. Price

Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008

ISBN: 978 1 59102 608 2

370 pages, hardback

http://home.dejazzd.com/jszimhart/top_secret.htm

Review by Joe Szimhart, 2008 August

Interesting review. As I read it, I found myself nodding affirmatively and also shaking my head...good grief.

A curiously referenced analogy used was, "I agree only partially with Price because I have less sympathy for New Thought or New Thought religion (Church of Religious Science, Science of the Mind, Christian Science, Scientology, Unity) than he does. New Thought as metaphor still does not work for me. Homeopathy or chiropractic might qualify as useful medical metaphors under Price?s view but such pseudo remedies involve a lot of waste of time and money, if not health. The real cost is not a metaphor. And I would have to ask, ?What is New Thought without belief in supernatural forces and magical thinking?? Price seems to believe there would be something left to it. As I have gotten to know them over the years New Thought practitioners are particularly vulnerable to the ?alternative? healing modalities. This is not to say that my Christian or Jewish cousins avoid alternatives (I am Roman Catholic).

It might be time to read medical research information about the alleged "pseudo remedies" such as homeopathy. I won't address chiropractic, though I have nothing against it.

:wink:
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Article http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,71

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Scientific Evidence for Homeopathic Medicine

by Dana Ullman, MPH ?2005

(Excepted from Consumer's Guide to Homeopathy, Tarcher/Putnam)

Although the below article is excellent, it is somewhat dated (it was written in 1995!). For a more up-to-date and comprehensive review of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines, we highly recommend that you purchase a one-time download or a 2-year subscription to a special e-book written by Dana Ullman, MPH Homeopathic Family Medicine

Most people with a little experience in homeopathy have no doubt that these medicines work, though inevitably they will have some family members, friends, neighbors, and physicians who will be skeptical about it. One way to deal with these people's skepticism is to become familiar with research on the efficacy of homeopathic medicines (see also Chapter 5 for a discussion on how to respond to skeptics' remarks; sorry, not online at present). There is actually considerably more laboratory and clinical research on homeopathic medicine than most people realize. That said, it must also be recognized that more research is certainly needed, not simply to answer the questions of skeptics but to help homeopaths optimize their use of these powerful natural medicines.

Some skeptics insist that research on homeopathy is mandatory since the exceptionally small doses used do not make sense and there is no known mechanism for action for these drugs. While it is true that homeopaths presently do not know precisely how the homeopathic microdoses work, there are some compelling theories about their mechanism of action (see the discussion in Chapter 1, "The Wisdom and Wonder of Small Doses"). More important, there is compelling evidence that they do work, as this chapter will show. And although homeopaths may not understand how their medicines work, keep in mind that leading contemporary pharmacologists readily acknowledge that there are many commonly prescribed drugs today, including aspirin and certain antibiotics, whose mechanism of action remains unknown, but this gap in knowledge has yet to stop physicians from prescribing them.

Many conventional physicians express doubt about the efficacy of homeopathy, asserting that they will "believe it when they see it." It may be more appropriate for them to acknowledge that they will "see it when they will believe it." This is not meant as a criticism of conventional physicians as much as of conventional medical thinking. The biomedical paradigm has narrowed the view of, the thinking about, and the practice of medicine to the treatment of specific disease entities with supposedly symptom-specific drugs and procedures. An integral aspect of this approach to medicine is the assumption that the larger the dose of a drug, the stronger will be its effects. While this seems to make sense on the surface, knowledgeable physicians and pharmacologists know that it isn't true. There is a recognized principle in pharmacology called the "biphasic response of drugs."1 Rather than a drug simply having increased effects as its dose becomes larger, research has consisently shown that exceedingly small doses of a substance will have the opposite effects of large doses.

The two phases of a drug's action (thus the name "biphasic") are dose-dependent. For instance, it is widely recognized that normal medical doses of atropine block the parasympathetic nerves, causing mucous membranes to dry up, while exceedingly small doses of atropine cause increased secretions to mucous membranes.

This pharmacological principle was concurrently discovered in the 1870s by two separate researchers, Hugo Schulz, a conventional scientist, and Rudolf Arndt, a psychiatrist and homeopath. Initially called the Arndt-Schulz law, this principle is still widely recognized, as witnessed by the fact that it is commonly listed in medical dictionaries under the definition of "law."

More specifically, these reseachers discovered that weak stimuli accelerate physiological activity, medium stimuli inhibit physiological activity, and strong stimuli halt physiological activity. For example, very weak concentations of iodine, bromine, mercuric chloride, and arsenious acid will stimulate yeast growth, medium doses of these substances will inhibit yeast growth, and large doses will kill the yeast.

In the 1920s, conventional scientists who tested and verified this biphasic response termed the phenomenon "hormesis," and dozens of studies were published in a wide variety of fields to confirm this biological principle.2

In the past two decades there has again been a resurgence of interest in this pharmacological law, and now hundreds of studies in numerous areas of scientific investigation have verified it.3 Because these studies have been performed by conventional scientists who are typically unfamiliar with homeopathic medicine, they have not tested or even considered testing the ultra-high dilutions commonly used in homeopathy. However, their research has consistently shown very significant effects from such small microdoses that even the researchers express confusion and surprise.

Reference to this research on the Arndt-Schulz law and hormesis is important for validating homeopathic research because it demonstrates the evidence for the important biphasic responses and microdose effects that lie at the heart of homeopathy. This research is readily available to physicians and scientists yet is often ignored or not understood.

The amount of research on homeopathic medicines is growing, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore these studies, because they are now appearing in many of the most respected medical and scientific journals in the world. This chapter is not meant to be exhaustive (that would require a book or two of its own). It will include many of the best studies, most of which have been published in conventional medical and scientific journals. Some of the studies are discussed because of the impressive results they showed, and others are included for their implications for better understanding homeopathy and the healing process. The review of research is not simply to provide evidence of the efficacy of homeopathic medicine but also to enlighten readers on how to evaluate homeopathic research, whether positive or negative results are obtained.

To best understand the remaining part of this chapter, some definitions are helpful:

--Double-blind trials refer to experiments in which neither the experimenter nor the subjects know whether a specific treatment was prescribe or a placebo (a fake medicine that looks and tastes like real homeopathic medicines).

--Randomized trials are those in which subjects of an experiment are randomly placed either in treatment groups or in placebo groups. The researchers attempt to place people with similar characteristics in equal numbers in treatment and placebo groups.

--Crossover studies refer to experiments in which half of the subjects of a study are given a placebo during one phase of a study and then given the active treatment during the second phase, while the other half begin with the active treatment and then receive the placebo during the second phase. Crossover studies sometimes do not test a placebo and instead compare one type of treatment with another type of treatment.

Modern research is designed to evaluate the results of a therapy as compared to a placebo and/or another therapy. This type of study is valuable because many patients respond very well to placebos, and this "treatment" is so safe and inexpensive it is generally assumed that "real treatments" should have considerably better results than placebo medicine. One should note that placebo effects can be significant, and clinically, these effects can be very positive (some people think of them as a type of self-healing).

Double-blinding an experiment is important to research because experimenters tend to treat people who are getting the real treatment differently or better than those given a placebo, thus throwing off the results of the experiment. Research is randomized so that those people treated with the real medicine and those treated with the placebo are as similar as possible, making a comparison between real treatment and placebo treatment more accurate. Crossover studies allow researchers to compare the separate effects of a placebo and a treatment on all subjects in an experiment.

Statistics obviously are an important part of research. A treatment is thought to be considered better than a placebo if the results, according to statistical analysis, have no more than a 5% possibility of happening at random (the notation of this statistical probability is: P=.05). A study with a small number of patients (for example, 30 or less) must show a large difference between treatment and nontreatment groups for it to become statistically significant. A study with a large number of patients (for example, several hundred) needs to have only a small but consistent difference to obtain a similar statistical significance. This information is provided so that readers will know that all the studies described in this chapter are statistically significant, except when otherwise noted.

Clinical Research

People are often confused by research, not only because it can be overly technical but because some studies show that a therapy works and other studies shows that it doesn't. To solve this problem, a recent development in research is used, called a "meta-analysis," which is a systematic review of a body of research that evaluates the overall results of experiments.

In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal.4 This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.

The professors concluded, "The amount of positive results came as a surprise to us." Specifically, they found that:

* 13 of 19 trials showed successful treatment of respiratory infections,
* 6 of 7 trials showed positive results in treating other infections,
* 5 of 7 trials showed improvement in diseases of the digestive system,
* 5 of 5 showed successful treatment of hay fever,
* 5 of 7 showed faster recovery after abdominal surgery,
* 4 of 6 promoted healing in treating rheumatological disease,
* 18 of 20 showed benefit in addressing pain or trauma,
* 8 of 10 showed positive results in relieving mental or psychological problems, and
* 13 of 15 showed benefit from miscellaneous diagnoses.



Despite the high percentage of studies that provided evidence of success with homeopathic medicine, most of these studies were flawed in some way or another. Still, the researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. Of further interest, they found that 11 of the best 15 studies showed efficacy of these natural medicines, suggesting that the better designed and performed the studies were, the higher the likelihood that the medicines were found to be effective. Although people unfamiliar with research may be surprised to learn that most of the studies on homeopathy were flawed in one significant way or another,5 research in conventional medicine during the past 25 years has had a similar percentage of flawed studies.

With this knowledge, the researchers of the meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications."

There are different types of homeopathic clinical research, some of which provide individualization of remedies; which is the hallmark of the homeopathic methodology; some of which give a commonly prescribed remedy to all people with a similar ailment, and some of which give a combination of homeopathic medicines to people with a similar condition. While one can perform good research using any of these methods, there are certain issues that researchers have to be aware of and sensitive to in order to obtain the best objective results.

For instance, if a study does not individualize a homeopathic medicine to people suffering from a specific ailment and the results of the study show that there was no difference between those given this remedy and those given a placebo, the study does not disprove homeopathy; it simply proves that this one remedy is not effective in treating every person suffering from that ailment, each of whom may have a unique pattern of symptoms that requires an individual prescription.

In describing specifics of the following studies using homeopathic medicines, differentiation has been made between studies that allowed for individualization of medicines and those that did not.

Clinical Research with Individualized Care

Some people incorrectly assume that research using homeopathic medicines is impossibly complicated because each medicine must be individualized to the patient. The following studies disprove this simplistic belief.

A recent clinical trial evaluating homeopathic medicine was a unique study of the treatment of asthma.6 Researchers at the University of Glasgow used conventional allergy testing to discover which substances these asthma patients were most allergic to. Once this was determined, the subjects were randomized into treatment and placebo groups. Those patients chosen for treatment were given the 30c potency of the substance to which they were most allergic (the most common substance was house dust mite). The researchers called this unique method of individualizing remedies "homeopathic immunotherapy" (homeopathic medicines are usually prescribed based on the patient's idiosyncratic symptoms, not on laboratory analysis or diagnostic categories). Subjects in this experiment were evaluated by both homeopathic and conventional physicians.

This study showed that 82% of the patients given a homeopathic medicine improved, while only 38% of patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. When asked if they felt the patient received the homeopathic medicine or the placebo, both the patients and the doctors tended to guess correctly.

The experiment was relatively small, with only 24 patients. As noted, for statistically significant results, small experiments must show a large difference between those treated with a medicine and those given a placebo. Such was the case in this study.

Along with this recent asthma study, the authors performed a meta-analysis, reviewing all the data from three studies they performed on allergic conditions, which totaled 202 subjects. The researchers found a similar pattern in the three studies. Improvement began within the first week and continued through to the end of the trial four weeks later. The results of this meta-analysis were so substantial (P=0.0004) that the authors concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or controlled clinical trials do not. Because modern science is based on controlled clinical trials, it is a more likely conclusion that homeopathic medicines are effective.

Another recent study, published in the American journal Pediatrics, tested homeopathic medicine for the treatment of a condition recognized to be the most serious public health problem today, childhood diarrhea.7 Over 5 million children die each year as the result of diarrhea, mostly in nonindustrialized countries. Conventional physicians prescribe oral rehydration therapy (ORT, a salt solution that helps children maintain fluid balance), but this treatment does not fight the infection that underlies the diarrhea.

Conducted in Nicaragua in association with the University of Washington and the University of Guadalajara, this randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 81 children showed that an individually chosen remedy provided statistically significant improvement of the children's diarrhea as compared to those given a placebo. Children given the homeopathic remedy were cured of their infection 20% faster than those given a placebo, and the sicker children responded most dramatically to the homeopathic treatment. A total of 18 different remedies were used in this trial, individually chosen based on each child's symptoms.

A study of the homeopathic treatment of migraine headache was conducted in Italy.8 Sixty patients were randomized and entered into a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients regularly filled out a questionnaire on the frequency, intensity, and characteristics of their head pain. They were prescribed a single dose of a 30c remedy at four separate times over two-week intervals. Eight remedies were considered, and prescribers were allowed to use any two with a patient. While only 17% of patients given a placebo experienced relief of their migraine pain, an impressive 93% of patients given an individualized homeopathic medicine experienced good results.

A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed on 175 Dutch children suffering from recurrent upper respiratory tract infections.9 Children in the treatment group were prescribed a "constitutional medicine" for their overall health as well as acute medicines to treat the acute respiratory infections they developed. The study found that the children given homeopathic medicines had a 16% better daily symptom score than children given a placebo.

This study also found that the number of children given a placebo who had to undergo adenoidectomy was 24% higher than for the children given homeopathic remedies. A 54.8% reduction in the use of antibiotics in the children given homeopathic medicines was reported, while the children who received a placebo experienced a 37.7% reduction in antibiotic use. (This reduction in both groups was determined to be the result of the normal growth and development of the child, dietary changes? the study provided written nutritional advice to the parents? and the change in expectations as the result of being under medical care.)

The statistical possibility of these results happening by chance was 6% (P=0.06). Because statistical significance in science is recognized when there is a 5% or less chance of results happening at random, the researchers concluded that homeopathic medicine seem to add little to the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections. This more conservative conclusion appeared to be influenced by the fact that the authors sought and received publication of their study in the British Medical Journal. They should have more accurately said that homeopathic medicines provided benefit to children with upper respiratory infections, but there is a small chance (6%) that these good results happened at random.

Considering the closeness of these results to 5%, considering the other improvements in the homeopathic group's health, and considering the increasingly widespread desire to avoid antibiotics, it makes sense for physicians and parents to consider seeking homeopathic care for children's upper respiratory infections.

Another study that involved individualized homeopathic care was in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.10 The study involved 46 patients. Two homeopathic physicians prescribed individually chosen medicines to each patient, though only half of them were given the real remedy, while the other half were given a placebo. The study found that 82% of those given an individualized homeopathic remedy experienced some relief of symptoms, while 21% of those given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief.

One other very interesting trial that utilized semi-individualization of care was in the treatment of primary fibromyalgia (also called fibrositis).11 Patients with fibrositis were admitted into a trial in which homeopathic physicians chose between three possible remedies, Arnica, Rhus tox, and Bryonia. Half of the patients were given one of these remedies, and the other half were given a placebo. There was no discernible difference between these groups. However, as an integral part of the experiment's design, a panel of homeopaths evaluated the accuracy of each prescription. This analysis found that those patients whom the panel considered to have received the correct remedy experienced a statistically significant improvement in symptoms as compared to those patients given the "incorrect" remedy or the placebo.

These same researchers next conducted a more sophisticated trial in the treatment of primary fibromyalgia.12 This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial admitted only those patients who fit the symptoms of Rhus tox. The researchers found that this constituted 42% of the patients interviewed. One-half of these 30 patients were given Rhus tox 6c during the first phase of the experiment, while the other half were given a placebo. During the second phase, those patients initially given the medicine were given a placebo, and those patients initially given a placebo were now given the homeopathic remedy. Researchers determined at the beginning of the experiment that improvement in pain and sleeplessness were the outcome measures most important in evaluating the results of this trial, and the results showed that 25% more of the patients experienced pain relief when taking the homeopathic remedy compared to when they were given a placebo and almost twice as many had improved sleep when taking the remedy.

This type of crossover design is considered a sophisticated type of research because it compares each person when using a treatment with the same person when using a placebo. Most other research compares two supposedly similar groups of people, but researchers commonly acknowledge that it is difficult and perhaps impossible to get two exactly similar groups of people. The limitation of the crossover design for homeopathic treatment, however, is that most homeopathic medicines provide long-term benefits, so that once a person stops taking a homeopathic remedy he or she may still continue to improve, even in the placebo stage of the trial. Low-potency medicines, such as the 6c used in the above described experiment, generally have short-acting effects, while higher potency medicines generally have increasingly longer-term effects.

Clinical Research with Nonindividualized Care

In addition to the studies on homeopathy in which individualized remedies are prescribed, there is also a body of research testing single remedies to people given in a non-individualized manner. Such research is potentially problematic because homeopaths acknowledge that the remedies require some degree of individualization to be effective. The results of a nonindividualized study, either positive or negative, can be misunderstood by people who do not know basic principles of the homeopathic method.

One study using nonindividualized homeopathic treatment was sponsored by the British government during World War II and was conducted in 1941-42 on volunteers whose skin was burned with mustard gas.13 The study showed the efficacy of Mustard gas 30c as a preventive or Rhus tox 30c and Kali bichromicum 30c as therapy. The study was double-blind, placebo-controlled, and was conducted at two centers (London and Glasgow), both showing similarly positive results. A more recent analysis of the data further substantiated the statistical significance of this study.14

It should, however, be mentioned that the researchers also tested the efficacy of Opium 30c, Cantharis 30c, and Variolinium 30c, none of which provided any noticeable benefit. If this trial had tested only these medicines, the researchers might have concluded that homeopathic medicines were ineffective in treating mustard gas burns. Finding the correct remedy is the key to making homeopathy work.

Some skeptics and journalists inaccurately report that homeopathy is primarily used to treat minor health problems. Homeopaths today primarily treat various chronic ailments for which conventional medicine has not provided effective treatment. One example of a chronic and serious problem shown by a controlled study to be effective treated by homeopathy is diabetic retinitis15 (retinitis is a common complication of diabetes in which there is an inflammation of the retina causing impairment of sight, perversion of vision, swelling, discharge from the eye, and sometimes hemorrhages into the retina). This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 60 patients used Arnica 5c. The results of this study showed that 47% of patients given Arnica 5c experienced improvement in central blood flow to the eye, while only 1% of patients given the placebo experience this improvement. Further, 52% of patients given Arnica 5c experienced improvement in blood flow to other parts of the eye, while only 1.5% of those given the placebo experienced a similar degree of improvement.

The best-selling flu remedy in France is actually a homeopathic medicine. Anas barbariae 200c, commonly marketed under the trade name Oscillococcinum TM

, is also popular in the U.S. and is effective primarily at the first signs of influenza. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 478 patients suffering from influenza was conducted, making this the largest trial yet performed testing a homeopathic medicine.16 This trial showed that almost twice as many people who took the homeopathic remedy got over the flu after 48 hours as compared to those given a placebo.

Although this remedy was found to work for all age groups, it was considerably more effective for people under 30 than for those over 30. However, it was not found to be effective when subjects had severe flu symptoms. In severe cases of the flu, a more individualized homeopathic remedy may be indicated.

In addition to various studies on human health, there have also been some animal studies. British researchers have conducted trials showing that homeopathic medicines, specifically Caulophyllum 30c, could lower the rate of stillbirths in pigs.17 Pigs given a placebo had 103 births and 27 stillbirths (20.8%), while those given Caulophyllum 30c had 104 births and 12 stillbirths (10.3%).

Not all studies show efficacy of homeopathic medicines, not because they don't work but mostly because the studies were poorly designed. One such study tested a single homeopathic medicine in the treatment of osteoarthritis.18 This study consisted of 36 patients, of whom one third were given Rhus tox 6c, one third were given a conventional drug (fenoprofen, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug), and one third were given a placebo. Those patients given the conventional drug experienced some relief of symptoms, but those given the homeopathic remedy and the placebo had a similar lack of response to treatment. While some people would erronously conclude that homeopathic medicines are ineffective in the treatment of osteoarthritis, it would be more appropriate and accurate to conclude that Rhus tox 6c is an ineffective remedy when given without individualization to people with osteoarthritis.

One of the confounding variables from this trial was that 2 of the 12 patients given the homeopathic medicine were withdrawn from the trial because they experienced an aggravation of symptoms after taking the medicine. Because homeopathic medicines sometimes cause a temporary increase in chronic symptoms before significant improvement, it was disappointing that the researchers did not follow their status. Because this trial lasted only two weeks, it did not allow time for the homeopathic remedy to be adequately evaluated. If, for instance, these 2 patients experienced the significant relief that is common after an initial aggravation of symptoms, the results of the trial would have been different.

Further, it is unfair to compare a fast-acting conventional drug that has side effects with a slower acting homeopathic medicine that is considerably safer. Finally and of great significance is the fact that while Rhus tox is a common remedy for rheumatoid arthritis, it is less common for osteoarthritis.

Clinical Research with Homeopathic Combination Remedies

Homeopathic combination remedies are formulas in which several homeopathic substances are mixed together into one remedy. This untraditional approach to using homeopathic medicine is commercially popular in many countries. While these remedies are not thought by homeopaths to be as effective as individually chosen medicines, they do work and research has verified this. Yet, homeopaths consistently find that single homeopathic medicines have the potential to truly cure a person's disease, while combination medicines at best provide safe but temporary relief of symptoms.

The same researchers who conducted the study on asthma earlier described also performed a study on the treatment of hayfever.19 This double-blind, placebo-controlled study prescribed a 30c potency of a combination remedy made from 12 common pollens. The results showed that those subjects taking the homeopathic remedy had six times fewer symptoms than those given the placebo. Both groups of subjects were allowed to use an "escape" medicine (an antihistamine) if their remedy didn't work adequately. The study showed that homeopathic subjects needed this medicine half as often as did those given the placebo.

Another example of significant results from a homeopathic combination remedy was in the treatment of women during their ninth month of pregnancy.20 Ninety women were given the 5c potency of the following remedies: Caulophyllum, Arnica, Cimicifuga, Pulsatilla, and Gelsemium. They were given doses of this combination remedy twice daily during the ninth month. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that women given the homeopathic medicines experienced a 40% (!) shorter labor than those given a placebo. Also, the women given the placebo had four times (!) as many complications of labor as those given the homeopathic medicines.

One of the limitations of research on combination remedies is that the results do not reveal whether the effective treatment came from one specific medicine or from the unique combination of remedies. A recent study of 22 healthy women in their first pregnancies tested Caulophyllum, one of the medicines used in the study cited above, which was administered in the 7c potency during the active phase of labor (one dose per hour repeated for a maximum of 4 hours). The time of labor for those women given the homeopathic medicine was 38% shorter than for women given a placebo.21 This trial was not double-blind; however, the researchers recently completed a double-blind trial and confirmed their earlier results.22

A popular homeopathic external application marketed as TraumeelTM has been studied for its efficacy in the treatment of sprained ankles.23 This combination of 14 remedies in 2x to 6x potencies was given to subjects with sprained ankles. After 10 days, 24 of the 33 patients who were given the homeopathic medicine were pain-free, while 13 of 36 patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. This same medicine was also used in the treatment of traumatic hemarthrosis (joint swelling) and was shown to significantly reduce healing time as compared to a placebo. Objective measurements of joint swelling and movement and evaluation of the synovial fluid at injury were assessed.24

A study of 61 patients with varicose veins was performed double-blind and placebo-controlled.25 Three doses of a popular German combination of eight homeopathic medicines were given daily for 24 days. Measures were venous filling time, leg volume, and subjective symptoms. The study found that venous filling time improved in those given the homeopathic medicines by 44%, while it deteriorated in the placebo group by 18%. Other measures also had significant differences.

In addition to the various clinical studies on humans, there has also been some research using homeopathic medicines to improve the health of animals. German researchers have shown that dairy cows given Sepia 200c experienced significantly fewer complications of birth than those given a placebo.26 Low-potency (1x to 6x) combinations of Lachesis, Pulsatilla, and Sabina, or Lachesis, Echinacea, and Pyrogenium, along with Caulophyllum given to pigs had preventive and therapeutic effects on infections (inflammation of the breasts and the uterus) as well as on diarrhea in the piglets.27

Not all clinical studies on homeopathic combination medicines find efficacy of treatment, but there are often important factors that explain the failure. A Canadian study on the treatment of plantar warts is one such example.28 This randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 162 patients prescribed three medicines to each patient (Because the trial did not mix the remedies together, it is not completely accurate to call the use of these remedies a combination. It is more precise to consider it "polypharmacy," the use of several medicines). The remedies used were Thuja 30c, Antimonium crud 7c and Nitric acid 7c. Thuja was taken once a week, and the other two remedies were taken once a day. The trial lasted six weeks. The results showed that there was no noticeable difference between those subjects given the homeopathic medicines and those given a placebo.

Many homeopaths may be initially surprised at the result of this trial because they consider these remedies commonly effective in the treatment of warts. But while the remedies may be effective for treating warts, they are not necessarily effective for all types of warts or in all people. A recent study of homeopathic treatment for various types of warts found that 18 of 19 people with plantar warts were cured in, on average, 2.2 months.29 The most common remedy was Ruta, prescribed to 12 of the 19 patients. Thuja was prescribed for only 3 patients, and Antimonium crud was prescribed for 2 patients.

This study teaches us that individualization and the use of well-chosen remedies are necessary for most effective treatment.

One additional note about research using homeopathic combination medicines: The homeopathic literature refers to the fact that some remedies are antidoted by other remedies. While the medicines in the Canadian trial are not known to antidote each other, homeopaths acknowledge that our understanding of which remedies antidote each other is somewhat primitive (for a listing of which remedies antidote each other, see the appendix in Kent's Repertory or in the Indian edition of Boericke's Pocket Manual of Materia Medica with Repertory). Homeopathic research must, therefore, be aware of this possibility so that conclusions from research are not overstated.

Laboratory Research

As valuable as clinical studies are, laboratory research is able to show biological activity of homeopathic medicines that cannot be explained as a placebo response, a common accusation of skeptics. Laboratory research is also capable of shedding some light on how the homeopathic medicines may work.

Distinct from clinical research which seeks to measure improvement in the health of a person or an animal, laboratory research seeks to assess changes in biological systems (cells, tissues, organs, viruses, etc.). Typically, animal research can fit under either clinical or laboratory research, depending on the goal of the study. If the study seeks to test the efficacy of a treatment on the health of an animal, it can be considered an animal clinical study. If the study seeks to test the effects of a treatment on animals so that researchers can apply the information for human health or to understand biological phenomena, it can be considered a laboratory study.

Admittedly, while some of the animal studies discussed here are humane, others are not. Reference to these studies is not meant to suggest that this author condones all such research. Rather, discussion of these studies is intended to verify the benefits of homeopathic medicines, both to animals and to humans, and to encourage wider use of homeopathic remedies.

Some of this section is somewhat technical, though an effort has been made to describe the studies in a user-friendly manner.

Earlier in this chapter, reference was made to some important double-blind clinical research with homeopathic medicines conducted as far back as 1941. There were also some high-quality scientific laboratory studies investigating homeopathic microdoses as that time. One extensive and meticulously controlled study was performed in 1941-42 by a Scottish homeopath/scientist, W.E. Boyd.30 This work showed that microdoses of mercuric chloride had statistically significant effects of diastase activity (diastase is an enzyme produced during the germination of seeds). This research was so well designed and performed that an associate dean of an American medical school commented, "The precision of [Boyd's] technique exemplifies a scientific study at its highest level."31

There have been over 100 studies evaluating the prophylactic and therapeutic effects of homeopathic doses of normally toxic substances. A collaborative effort of scientists from German research institutions and from America's Walter Reed Hospital performed a meta-analysis of these studies.32 Like the meta-analysis described earlier on clinical trials using homeopathic medicines, most of the studies were flawed in some way. However, of the high quality studies, positive results were found 50% more often than negative results. What was particularly intriguing was that researchers who tested doses in the submolecular range (potencies greater than 24x) were found to have the best designed studies and more frequently found statisticially significant results from these microdoses. Specifically, several researchers gave, usually to rats, crude doses of arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, mercury chloride, or lead. The research showed that animals who were pretreated with homeopathic doses of these substances and then given repeated homeopathic doses after exposure to the crude substance, excreted more of these toxic substances through urine, feces, and sweat than did those animals given a placebo.

Several studies noted that pretreatment and treatment with potentized doses of substances different from those to which the animal was being exposed did not provide any benefit.

As horrible as this research may be for the animals tested, animal researchers claim that it can have considerable benefit for treating animals and humans exposed to toxic substances. Such studies cannot be performed humanely on human subjects, and because of the newness of the research, no computer models to simulate the effects of homeopathic medicines are presently possible. While public health measures must primarily focus on preventing exposure to toxic substances, medical treatment must be developed for healing if and when exposure takes place. The research suggests that homeopathic medicine may play a significant role in the treatment of toxicological exposure.

Homeopathic research has also explored the benefits of homeopathic medicines to protect against radiation.33 Albino mice were exposed to 100 to 200 rad of X-rays (sublethal doses) and then evaluated after 24, 48, and 72 hours. Ginseng 6x, 30x, and 200x and Ruta graveolens 30x and 200x were administered before and after exposure. When compared with mice given a placebo as treatment, mice given any of the above homeopathic medicines experienced significantly less chromosomal or cellular damage.

Albino guinea pigs were exposed to small doses of X-ray that cause reddening of the skin. Studies showed that Apis mellifica 7c or 9c had a protective effect and a roughly 50% curative effect on X-ray-induced redness of the skin.34 Apis mellifica (honeybee) is a homeopathic medicine for redness, swelling, and itching, common symptoms of bee venom.

In one very intriguing study, Thyroxine 30x (thyroid hormone) was placed in the water of tadpoles.35 When compared to tadpoles who were given a placebo, the study showed, morphogenesis of the tadpoles into frogs was slowed for those who were exposed to the homeopathic doses. Because thyroid hormone in crude doses is known to speed up morphogenesis, it makes sense from a homeopathic perspective that homeopathic doses would slow it down.

What makes this study more interesting is that additional investigations resulted in the same effect when a glass bottle of the homeopathic doses of thyroid hormone was simply suspended in the water with the lip of the bottle above the water line. This research was replicated at several laboratories, and results were consistent.

The implications of this study are somewhat significant, not only for verifying biological effects of homeopathic doses but for showing that these medicines have some type of radiational effect through glass. Some types of unconventional approaches to homeopathy have been developed over the past decades in which pupil reflex, pulse, muscle strength, and skin conductance have been changed as the result of simply holding on to a bottle of an individually indicated homeopathic medicine. While this approach may seem strange to classically oriented homeopaths, the above research provides some basis for its application.

One other interesting experiment dealing with water is worthy of mention. This study used nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), also called magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to determine whether high potencies of homeopathic medicines placed in water had any measurable effects.36 Without getting into the details of this highly technical study, the researchers found that high potencies of Silicea did, in fact, show a distinct difference as compared with placebo-treated water.

There have been several studies investigating very high dilutions of histamine (above 30x) on isolated guinea pig hearts, showing that this remedy increases blood flow through the heart. What is particularly interesting about these studies was that this effect was completely neutralized if the very high dilutions were exposed to 70 degrees Centigrade for 30 minutes or exposed to magnetic fields of 50 Hz for 15 minutes.37 Needless to say, it is unlikely that these microdoses could have only a placebo effect when known physical stresses to the medicine can halt its activity.

A professor of hematology at the School of Pharmacy of Bordeaux has carried out eight years of research on the effects of acetylsalicylic acid (the active ingredient in aspirin) on blood.38 It is known that crude doses of aspirin cause increased bleeding, while this research showed that homeopathic doses of acetylsalicylic acid shorten bleeding time in healthy subjects.

Two Dutch professors of molecular cell biology recently completed a significant body of experimentation which not only provided evidence of the effects of homeopathic microdoses on cell cultures but that also suggested that these microdoses are only effective when homeopathy's principle of similars is followed.39 Specific reference to the body of studies cannot be provided in this chapter, both due to the space necessary to describe this work and due to its highly technical nature.

A now famous study by respected French physician and immunologist Jacques Benveniste tested highly diluted doses of an antibody on a type of white blood cells called basophils (basophils increase in number when exposed to substances such as antibodies which cause an allergic reaction). This work was replicated at six different laboratories at four different universities (the University of Paris South, the University of Toronto, Hebrew University, and the University of Milano). Although the prestigious journal Nature published this study,40 it also published concurrently an editorial stating that they did not believe the results.41 The editor insisted on going to the primary researcher's laboratory at the University of Paris South to observe the experiment conducted in his presence along with two known experts in scientific fraud (one of whom was a magician).

The details of what followed require more detail and technical information than is appropriate for this book. In summary, the experiment did not show significant results, leading the Nature editor to pronounce in his journal that the original study was a fraud.42 The problem, however, was that the editor and the fraud experts were not immunologists, and thus, they did not seem aware that many studies in immunology require considerably more replication than could be done in the couple of days that the Nature team visited.

Another problem was in the study itself, which was very difficult to do. The researchers later simplified it, provided even greater scientific controls, and found significant results. Nature, however, chose not to publish these results, and this study was published instead in the Journal of the French Academy of Sciences.43

Evidence of the bias that "defenders of science" have against homeopathy is their refusal to publish or even comment on the increasing body of research accruing to homeopathic medicine.

Science is supposed to be objective, though both physicists and psychologists teach us that objectivity is impossible. Science's long-term antagonism to homeopathy is slowly breaking down but not without significant reaction, fear, anxiety, and sometimes downright attack against homeopaths.

Change is difficult, and significant change is even more difficult. Even though science grows from new knowledge, it tends to be resistant, often very resistant, to perspectives and knowledge that do not fit contemporary paradigms and scientific theories. The information presented in this chapter and in this book is not meant to overthrow science but to enlarge its perspective so that it more broadly and accurately describes and accepts many presently unexplainable phenomena of nature.

In Summary

This review of research is not meant to be complete. Readers are encouraged to review the books listed in the Resources section of this chapter for access to many other clinical and laboratory studies as well as to theoretical foundations of homeopathic microdoses.

Despite the now strong evidence that homeopathic medicines promote biological activity and clinical efficacy, there is still great resistance to them. Recently, the Lancet published the research on the homeopathic treatment of asthma.44 In a press release announcing this research, they emphasized that although homeopathic medicines may provide some benefit to people with asthma, conventional medicines offer greater benefit.

This was a strange statement for two reasons. First, the study didn't compare homeopathic and conventional medicine; it only compared homeopathic medicine with a placebo. Any other conjecture was not founded on the data presented. Secondly, the Lancet refused to openly acknowledge that homeopathic medicines may work after all.

One can't help but wonder whether if a man flew and science proved that he flew, the editors of some medical journals would remark: "But he doesn't fly as high or as fast as a jet plane!"

Despite the resistance to change in general and to homeopathy specifically, it is getting increasingly difficult for physicians and scientists to doubt the benefits that homeopathic medicines offer. Italian hematologist Paolo Bellavite and Italian homeopath Andrea Signorini's Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science is presently the most comprehensive resource of controlled studies on homeopathy. The authors conclude, "The sum of the clinical observations and experimental findings is beginning to prove so extensive and intrinsically consistent that it is no longer possible to dodge the issue by acting as if this body of evidence simply did not exist."45

They go on to say, "To reject everything en bloc, as many are tempted to do, means throwing out the observations along with the interpretations, an operation which may be the line of least resistance, but which is not scientific because unexplained observations have always been the main hive of ideas for research."

To ignore the body of experimental data that presently exists on homeopathic medicines and to deny the body of clinical experience of homeopaths and homeopathic patients, one would have to be virtually blind. One can only assume that this blindness is a temporary affliction, one that will soon be cured.
References

1A.R.D. Stebbing, "Hormesis: The Stimulation of Growth by Low Levels of Inhibitors," Science of the Total Environment, 1982, 22: 213-34. Also, Health Physics, May 1987. This entire issue was devoted to the increased effects of low doses.

2M. Oberbaum and J. Cambar, "Hormesis: Dose Dependent Reverse Effects of Low and Very Low Doses," in P.C. Endler and J. Schulte (eds.), Ultra High Dilutions, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1994. Stebbing, op. cit..

3Oberbaum and Cambar; Stebbing op. cit..; Health Physics op. cit..

4J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.

5Because much research on homeopathy has been performed by homeopaths who are primarily clinicians and are not adequately trained in research, they predictably committed errors in research design, analysis, and description of their studies.

6David Reilly, Morag Taylor, Neil Beattie, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?" Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.

7Jennifer Jacobs, L. Jimenez, Margarita, Stephen Gloyd, "Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua," Pediatrics, May 1994, 93,5:719-25.

8Bruno Brigo, and G. Serpelloni, "Homeopathic Treatment of Migraines: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Study of 60 Cases," Berlin Journal on Research in Homeopathy, March 1991, 1,2:98-106.

9E. de Lange de Klerk, J. Blommers, D.J. Kuik, et al., "Effect of Homoeopathic Medicines on Daily Burden of Symptoms in Children with Recurrent Upper Respiratory Tract Infections," British Medical Journal, November 19, 1994, 309:1329-32.

10R.G. Gibson, S. Gibson, A.D. MacNeill, et al., "Homoeopathic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Evaluation by Double-blind Clinical Therapeutic Trial," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1980, 9:453-59.

11P. Fisher, "An Experimental Double-Blind Clinical Trial Method in Homoeopathy: Use of a Limited Range of Remedies to Treat Fibrositis," British Homoeopathic Journal, 1986, 75:142-47.

12P. Fisher, A. Greenwood, E.C. Huskisson, et al., "Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis," British Medical Journal, August 5, 1989, 299:365-66.

13J. Paterson, "Report on Mustard Gas Experiments, Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1944, 37:47-50, 88-92.

14R.M.M. Owen and G. Ives, "The Mustard Gas Experiments of the British Homeopathic Society: 1941-1942, Proceedings of the 35th International Homeopathic Congress, 1982, 258-59.

15D. Zicari, et al., "Valutazione dell'azione Angioprotettiva di Preparati di Arnica nel Trattamento della Retinpatia Diabetica," Bolletino de Oculistica, 1992, 5:841-848.

16J.P. Ferley, D. Zmirou, D. D'Admehar, et al., "A Controlled Evaluation of a Homoeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndrome," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March 1989, 27:329-35.

17Christopher Day, "Control of Stillbirths in Pigs Using Homoeopathy," Veterinary Record, March 3, 1984, 114,9, 216. Also Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, December 1986, 779, 4:146-47.

18M. Shipley, H. Berry, G. Broster, et al., "Controlled Trial of Homoeopathic Treatment of Osteoarthritis," Lancet, January 15, 1983, 97-98.

19David Reilly, Morag Taylor, C. McSharry, et al., "Is Homoeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trial of Homoeopathic Potency, with Pollen in Hayfever as Model" Lancet, October 18, 1986, 881-86.

20P. Dorfman, M.N. Lasserre, M. and Tetau, "Preparation a l'accouchement par Homeopathie: Experimentation en double-insu versus Placebo," Cahiers de Biotherapie, April 1987, 94:77-81.

21P. Eid, E. Felisi, M. Sideri, "Applicability of Homoeopathic Caulophyllum thalictroides during Labour," British Homoeopathic Journal, 1993, 82:245.

22P. Eid, E. Felisi, M. Sideri, "Super-placebo ou action Pharmacologique? Une Etude en Double Aveugle, Randomisee avec un Remede Homeopathique (Caulophyllum thalictroides) dans le Travail de l'accouchement, Proceedings of the 5th Congress of the O.M.H.I. (Internatiional Organization for Homeopathic Medicine), Paris, October 20-23, 1994.

23J. Zell, W.D. Connert, J. Mau, et al., "Behandlung von akuten Sprung-gelenksdisotrionen: Doppelblindstudie zum Wirksamkeitsnachweis eines Homoopathischen Salbenpraparats," Fortschr. Medicine, 1988, 106:96-100.

24W. Thiel, and B. Borho, "Die Therapie von Frischen, Traumatischen Blutergussen der Kniegelnke (Hamartros) mit Traumeel N Injectionslogung," Biol. Medizin, 20:506.

25E. Ernst, T. Saradeth, K.L. Resch, "Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins: A Randomised, Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Trial," Phlebology, 1990, 157-163.

26A.V. Williamson, W.L. Mackie, W.J. Crawford, et al., "A Study Using Sepia 200c given Prophylactically Postpartum to Prevent Anoestrus Problems in the Dairy Cow," British Homoeopathic Journal, 1991, 80:149. See also by the same researchers: "A Trial of Sepia 200," British Homoeopathic Journal, 1995, 84:14-20.

27G. Both, "Zur Prophylaxe und Therapie des Metritis-Mastitis-Agalactic: Komplexes des Schweines mit Biologischen Arzneimitteln," Biologische Tiermedizen, 1987, 4:39.

28M. Labrecque, D. Audet, L.G. Latulippe, et al., "Homeopathic Treatment of Plantar Warts," Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1992, 146(10):1749-53.

29R. Gupta, O.P. Bhardwaj, and R.K. Manchanda, "Homoeopathy in the Treatment of Warts," British Homoeopathic Journal, April, 1991, 80,2:108-11.

30W.E. Boyd, "The Action of Microdoses of Mercuric Chloride on Diastase," British Homoeopathic Journal, 1941, 31:1-28; 1942, 32:106-11.

31Mock, D., "What's Going on Here, Anyway?? A Review of Boyd's 'Biochemical and Biological Evidence of the Activity of High Potencies,'" Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1969, 62:197.

32K. Linde, W.B. Jonas, D. Melchart, D., et al., "Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental Toxicology," Human and Experimental Toxicology, 1994, 13:481-92.

33A.R. Khuda-Bukhsh, S. Banik, "Assessment of Cytogenetic Damage in X-irradiated Mice and its Alteration by Oral Administration of Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Ginseng D200," Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1991, 1,4/5:254. Also Khuda-Bukhsh, A.R. Maity, S., "Alteration of Cytogenetic Effects by Oral Administration of Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Ruta graveolens in Mice Exposed to Sub-lethal X-radiation," Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1991, 1, 4/5:264.

34J. Bildet, M. Guyot, F. Bonini, et al., "Demonstrating the Effects of Apis mellifica and Apium virus Dilutions on Erythema Induced by U.V. Radiation on Guinea Pigs," Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1990, 1:28.

35P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, G. Kastberg, et al., "The Effect of Highly Diluted Agitated Thyroxine on the Climbing Activity of Frogs," Veterinary and Human Toxicology, 1994, 36:56. Also, P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, R. van Wijk, et al., "Transmission of Hormone Information by Non-molecular Means," FASEB Journal, 1994, 8, Abs.2313.

36J.L. Demangeat, et al., "Modifications des Temps de Relaxation RMN a 4 z des Protons du Solvant dans les Tres Hautes Dilutions Salines de Silice/lactose." Journal of Med. Nucl. Biophy, 1992, 16:35-45.

37J. Benveniste, "Further Biological Effects Induced by Ultra High Dilutions: Inhibition by a Magnetic Field," in Ultra High Dilution, P.C. Endler and J. Schulte, (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1994, 35. Also J. Benveniste, B. Arnoux, L. Hadji, "Highly Dilute Antigen Increases Coronary Flow of Isolated Hart from Immunized Guinea-pigs," FASEB Journal, 1992, 6:Abs.1610.

38C. Doutremepuch, O. de Seze, D. Le Roy, et al., "Aspirin at Very Ultra Low Dosage in Healthy Volunteers: Effects on Bleeding Time, Platelet Aggregation and Coagulation," Haemostasis, 1990, 20:99.

39Roeland van Wijk and Fred A.C. Wiegant, Cultured Mammalian Cells in Homeopathy Research: The Similia Principle in Self-Recovery, Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 1994.

40E. Davenas, F. Beauvais, J. Amara, et al., "Human Basophil Degranulation Triggered by Very Dilute Antiserum Against IgE," Nature, June 30, 1988, 333:816-18.

41J. Maddox, "When to Believe the Unbelievable," Nature, June 30, 1988, 333:787.

42J. Maddox, J. Randi, and W. Stewart, "'High-dilution' Experiments a Delusion," Nature, July 28, 1988, 334:443-47.

43J. Benveniste, E. Davenas, B. Ducot, et al., "L'agitation de Solutions Hautement Diluees n'induit pas d'activite Biologique Specifique, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 1991, 312:461.

44Reilly, et al., 1994. See note 6.

45Paolo Bellavite and Andrea Signorini, Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 1995.



Resources

--Paolo Bellavite and Andrea Signorini book, Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 1995.

--Harris L. Coulter, Homoeopathic Science and Modern Medicine: The Physics of Healing with Microdoses. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 1980.

--P.C. Endler and J. Schulte (editors), Ultra High Dilution: Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1994.

--M. Doutremepuich (ed.), Ultra-Low Doses. Washington, DC/London: Taylor and Francis, 1991.

--Gerhard Resch and Viktor Gutmann, Scientific Foundations of Homoeopathy. Munich: Bartel and Bartel, 1987.

--A.M. Scofield, "Experimental Research in Homoeopathy: A Critical Review," British Homoeopathic Journal, 73, 3-4, July-October 1984, 161-80, 211-26.

--Dana Ullman (ed.), Monograph on Homeopathic Research, volumes I and II, 1981, 1986.

--Roeland van Wijk and Fred A.C. Wiegant, Cultured Mammalian Cells in Homeopathy Research: The Similia Principle in Self-Recovery. Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 1994.

--British Homoeopathic Journal (2 Powis Place, Great Ormond St., London, WC1N 3HT, England)
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Quotes and Comments

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Federal Drug Administration Position on Homeopathy
December 1996
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html
The American Medical Association does not accept homeopathy, but it doesn't reject it either. "The AMA encourages doctors to become aware of alternative therapies and use them when and where appropriate," says AMA spokesman Jim Fox.
Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has no specific policy on homeopathy. If an adult asked the academy's Sanders about homeopathy, he would tell that person to "do your own investigation. I don't personally prescribe homeopathic remedies, but I would be open-minded."

Quote: ?I think it's only because we don't understand the mechanism of action of homeopathy that so many people have trouble accepting it."
FACT: There are theories about the mechanism of action re: homeopathy. Many allopathic, Big Pharma drugs that people take on a daily basis, throughout the country (at least) do not have their mechanism of action explained. They are PRESCRIBED, nonetheless. (Whatchamacallit)

There have been more than 180 scientific controlled studies and 118 randomized trials done on homeopathy. Every trial proved time and again that the results of homeopathic treatment went far beyond anything which could be explained solely by the placebo effect.
http://www.wddty.co.uk

Over 70% of patients in a study of 6,500, showed a complete cure or significant improvement in their symptoms after homeopathic treatment.
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Thermodynamics of Homeopathy

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

The Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Solutions - New Scientific Evidence for Homeopathic Microdoses
by Dana Ullman, MPH ?2005

"Homeopathy is the Rodney Dangerfield of alternative medicine because it simply doesn't get the respect that it deserves," asserts Dana Ullman, MPH, noted spokesperson for homeopathy. "However, recent research and this new study are changing attitudes toward the science and art of homeopathic medicine."

Scientists and physicians have maintained skepticism towards homeopathic medicine because of the exceedingly small doses used in this pharmacological specialty. Skeptics of homeopathy have asserted that there is "nothing" in the medicines because there are no molecules left in the highly diluted solutions. However, new research published in the prestigious Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (1999) suggests that there may be something active in homeopathic medicines after all.

Two Italian professors of chemistry, Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli measured the amount of heat emanating from plain double-distilled water and compared that with double-distilled water in which a substance was placed. Both the control water and the treated water underwent consecutive dilution between one to thirty times, with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, which represents the common pharmacological method in which homeopathic medicines are made.

The researchers conducted over 500 experiments, approximately half of which were made with double-distilled water that was mixed with a specific acid and base substance and half were in the control group of only double-distilled water. The researchers found that 92% of the test solutions with the added acid or base substance had higher than expected heat emanating from them (sodium chloride was one of the salt substances and a type of vinegar was one of the acid substances tested).

Dr. Vittorio Elia, the lead researcher, asserted, "We are setting the basis for a new science: the physics-chemistry of homeopathic water. These results make for a strong support to the hypothesis of the existence of a memory of water."

"This study confirms that there is something there in homeopathic water," affirmed Dana Ullman, MPH, author of Homeopathy A-Z and Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. "It should now be known that physicians and scientists who assume that there is nothing in homeopathic medicines are showing their own ignorance of the scientific literature."

Dr. Elia noted, "Although more investigations have been done on water than on any other liquid, there still remains uncertainty about details of its structure. This experiment will hopefully give a deeper insight into the nature of this extraordinary substance."

Ullman added, "Submarines communicate with their base and other submarines using very low frequencies. Perhaps information is best imparted through water in low or homeopathic doses, and considering the high percentage of the body that is water, homeopathic medicines may be one of the important delivery systems for pharmacology agents in the new century."

The authors of this study also reference to work of Dr. Shui-Yin Lo who conducted some fascinating research. Lo found that substances that were sequentially diluted in double-distilled water at least six times and then shaken in-between will create water clusters or ice crystals ("IE crystals") that maintain an electrical field and that do not melt in room temperature water.

Research conducted by 10 different professors in varying scientific fields have tested the biological effects of these IE crystals and have found remarkable effects. Benjamin Bonavida, PhD., professor and former head of UCLA's department of immunology and microbiology, found a two- to a hundred-fold increase in cytokines (mediators of immune function that protect against infection and tumor growth). Selim Senkan, PhD., head of UCLA's department of chemical engineering, found that IE crystals placed as a gas fuel additive reduce carbon deposits on engine piston tops. Various auto emissions have also been reduced from the IE crystals.

Other Interesting Research
Other interesting new research includes a series of studies conducted in four highly respected laboratories in Europe. A total of 3,764 measurements were taken, and significant biological effects were found from highly diluted doses of histamine. Specifically, doses of histamine that were diluted 1:100 15 to 19 times were found to have substantially significant effects on inhibiting degranulation of basophils (p<0.0001).
Conventional pharmacology assumes that drugs that are diluted 1:100 12 times should not in all probability have any remaining molecules. Homeopathic pharmacology is showing that this isn't accurate and that there is something about the process of sequentially diluting and shaking a solution that maintains and even increases its medicinal effect.

Ullman asserts, "Just as quantum physics extends our understanding of mechanistic physics, especially in predicting phenomena in very small or very large systems, homeopathic pharmacology extends our understanding of conventional pharmacology, especially in eliciting a healing effect in very small doses."

References:
Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli, "Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1999, 827:241-248.
Shui-Yin Lo, "Anomalous State of Ice," Modern Physics Letters B, 10,19(1996):909-919. See also, "Physical Properties of Water with IE Structures," Modern Physics Letters B, 10, 19(1996):921-930. A book containing a dozen experiments using IE crystals: S.Y. Lo and B. Bonavida (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on IE Water Clusters. Singapore: World Scientific, 1998.
P. Belon, J. Cumps, M. Ennis, et al., "Inhibition of Human Basophil Degranulation by Successive Histamine Dilutions: Results of a European Multi-Centre Trial," Inflammation http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,72
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

This article is older, but even THEN...

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Lancet Publishes Major Review of Research on Homeopathic Medicine
by Dana Ullman, MPH ?1998

The Lancet published the most significant and comprehensive review of homeopathic research ever published in its September 20, 1997, issue. This article was a meta-analysis of 89 blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. The authors conclude that the clinical effects of homeopathic medicines are not simply the results of placebo.

The researchers uncovered 186 studies, 119 of which were double-blind and/or randomized placebo-control trials, and 89 of which met pre-defined criteria for inclusion into a pooled meta-analysis. The reseachers found that by pooling the 89 trials together that homeopathic medicines had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo.

The Lancet concurrently published two critiques of the homeopathic research. One critique by Jan Vandenbroucke, MD, a Dutch professor, acknowledged, "The meta-analysis is completely state of the art." And yet, despite its results, he asserts that homeopathic medicines "cannot possibly produce any effect."

Because homeopathic medicines are often so small in dose that physicians and scientists commonly assert that they cannot work, an increasing number of controlled trials and an ever increasing public interest in homeopathy is proving them wrong.
The authors of the research include Klaus Linde, MD, German professor and author of the famed review of research on the herb, St. Johns wort, for depression, and Wayne Jonas, MD, head of the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine.

Dana Ullman, M.P.H., a leading spokesperson for homeopathy and author of numerous books, including The Consumer's Guide to Homeopathy, stated, "This research places homeopathy squarely in the arena of legitimate medical science. Homeopathy IS effec tive, but we now need to know simply how effective it is."

Another critic of this study was British professor M. Lang man who questioned whether it was appropriate to analyze a group of experiments which used disparate remedies for different condi tions. Ullman responded to this saying, "There are two simple reasons why grouping studies together makes sense. First, the question that this analysis sought to answer is: are the effects from homeopathic medicines primarily placebo? And second, this analysis sought to evaluate: does homeopathy as a medical system seem to work? I personally think that critics are most upset about the fact that this study shows that every means of evaluat ing the present data suggests that homeopathic medicines are effective. Skeptics now would rather not be persuaded by the evidence but by their own biases against homeopathy."

Ullman readily admits, "Even though we may not know precisely how homeopathic medicines work, this has never stopped physicians from using medicines or treatments that have been shown to be effective."
A new survey of primary care physicians who are members of the AMA revealed that an astonishing 49% of them expressed interest in training in homeopathy (British Homeopathic Journal, July, 1997). This survey was conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland. These same researchers also surveyed Maryland family practice doctors and discovered that 69% expressed interest in homeopathic training (Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 1995, 8, 361-6). Both of these studies show an impressively high degree of interest in homeopathy.


A major reference book on homeopathic research is The Emerging Science of Homeopathy (North Atlantic, 2002) authored by a professor of pathology P. Bellavite, MD, and A. Signorini, MD.
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,69
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Medical News Today

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Homeopathy: New Evidence
14 Nov 2008

The two new studies reconstructed the Lancet review and the main conclusions of that reconstruction are: That the results of the Lancet review were very sensitive to the definition of 'large' trials.

# Because of heterogeneity between the trials included in the review, its results are less definite than claimed. The conclusion that homeopathy is, and that conventional treatment is not, a placebo effect, was not based on a comparative analysis and is unjustified because of the heterogeneity of trials and lack of sensitivity analysis.

# The review did however, demonstrate that the quality of homeopathy trials was on average better than the conventional trials analysed.
'The review gave no indication of which trials were analysed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice. If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a 'larger trial', the conclusions change. This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable", said George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University

The background to the ongoing debate is as follows:

In August 2005, the Lancet published an editorial entitled 'The End of Homeopathy', prompted by a review comparing clinical trials of homeopathy with trials of conventional medicine. The claim that homeopathic medicines are just placebo was based on 6 clinical trials of conventional medicine and 8 studies of homeopathy but did not reveal the identity of these trials. The review was criticised for its opacity as it gave no indication of which trials were analysed or the various assumptions made about the data.

Sufficient detail to enable a reconstruction was eventually provided and these two new studies are based on such a reconstruction and challenge the Lancet review. Specifically these two studies show:

* Analysis of all high quality trials of homeopathy yields a positive conclusion.

* The 8 larger higher quality trials of homeopathy were all for different conditions. Homeopathy works for some of these but not others, implying that homeopathy is not placebo.

* The comparison with conventional medicine was meaningless.

* Doubts remain about the opaque, unpublished criteria used in the review, including the definition of 'higher quality'.

The Lancet review, led by Prof Matthias Egger of the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Berne, started with 110 matched clinical trials of homeopathy and conventional medicine, reduced these to 'higher quality trials' and then to 8 and 6 respectively 'larger higher quality trials'. Based on these 14 studies the review concluded that there is 'weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions'.

Due to a lack of funding, there are a limited number of homeopathic studies. As a result, it is quite possible to interpret homeopathic data selectively and unfavourably, which is what appears to have been done in the Lancet paper. If we assume that homeopathy does not work for just one condition (Arnica for post-exercise muscle stiffness), or alter the definition of 'larger trial', the results are positive. The comparison with conventional medicine was meaningless: the original 110 trials were matched, but matching was lost after the trials were reduced to 8 in one group and 6 in the other. Interestingly, the quality of homeopathic trials was better than conventional trials.

This reconstruction casts serious doubts on the Lancet review, showing that it was based on a series of hidden judgments unfavourable to homeopathy. An open assessment of the current evidence suggests that homeopathy is probably effective for a number of conditions including allergies, upper respiratory tract infections and 'flu, but more research is desperately needed.

Prof Egger has declined to comment on these findings.
----------------------------
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
----------------------------

References
L?dtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2008. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.015 Rutten ALB, Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy 2008. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09.008.

Source: Peter Gold
National Center for Homeopathy

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/129436.php

Main News Category: Complementary Medicine / Alternative Medicine

Also Appears In: Clinical Trials / Drug Trials,
Save time! Get the latest medical news headlines for your specialist area, in a weekly newsletter e-mail. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newsletters.php for details.
Send your press releases to pressrelease@medicalnewstoday.com
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printer ... sid=129436
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

and one more...

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

1: Homeopathy. 2008 Jan;97(1):28-33. Links
Homeopathy--quackery or a key to the future of medicine?
Gold PW, Novella S, Roy R, Marcus D, Bell I, Davidovitch N, Saine A.
National Center for Homeopathy, 801 North Fairfax Street, Suite 306, Alexandria, VA 22314, Virginia, USA.
This is an edited transcript of a debate held at the University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA on 25 October 2007. Homeopathy is a widely used but controversial form of complementary and alternative medicine. Six distinguished international speakers, including advocates and skeptics concerning homeopathy, debated the plausibility, theoretical principles, clinical and basic research evidence, ethical and other issues surrounding homeopathy.
PMID: 18194763 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related Articles
? ReviewA debate: homeopathy--quackery or a key to the future of medicine? [J Altern Complement Med. 2008]
? "Neurocranial restructuring" and homeopathy, neither complementary nor alternative. [Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003]
? ReviewHomeopathy. [Prim Care. 2002]
? ReviewHomeopathy. [Med Clin North Am. 2002]
? Review[Homeopathy confronted with clinical research] [Ann Pharm Fr. 2005]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18194763



Homeopathy Research Papers
http://www.raymondsevarhomeopathy.com/h ... papers.htm


Dr. Weil on Homeopathy
http://www.prevention.com/cda/article/d ... ew.weil.md
tree
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:31 am

Unread post by tree »

with all this in depth research,
I guess someone hit a homeopathic nerve. :shock:
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

LOL...there's more research if anyone wants it.

Call it controversial, and I will agree. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It has been made controversial, in part, due to the threat it poses to allopathic medicine. I have read a lot about this topic. It has been a brutal war that is even behind the conception of the A.M.A.. Most physicians do NOT belong to the A.M.A., by the way. It has a rather dicey history. I also know some physicians who know homeopathy works and have dual degrees in both allopathic and naturopathic/homeopathic medicine.

Call it quackery, and I'll have another viewpoint to share. It's valid medicine.

Someone showed me a magazine that is published by the Center for Inquiry. While I found some interesting information in there, I also found a cult-like quality mindset in there, too. They dismiss and attempt to marginalize anything and everything that even remotely smacks of being off the strictly traditional path. It's like the opposite of being staunchly set in the New Age mindset...or any mindset. I like the reference to brain-lock. We ALL have to be careful that the shoe does not fit US.

(Having said that, I want to be clear that I am disagreeing with an issue, NOT ANY PERSON =-)
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

homeopathetic

Unread post by joe sz »

raw nerve?? :shock: :wink:

Homeopathic remedies to me do less direct harm than common approved medicines because they also do little good in the long run beyond placebo, despite all that apologetic stuff you posted above, Watcha.

Here is a sample of how I see it from Dr Steven Barrett in 1987:
4.4: What is homeopathy?
Homeopathy is sometimes confused with herbalism. A herbalist
prescribes herbs with known medicinal effects. Two well known
examples are foxglove flowers (which contain digitalin) and willow
bark (which contains aspirin). Folk remedies are now being studied
extensively in order to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

Homeopathists believe that if a drug produces symptoms similar to
certain disease then a highly diluted form of the same drug will cure
the disease. The greater the dilution, the stronger this curative
effect will be (this is known as the law of Arndt-Schulz). Great
importance is also attached to the way in which the diluted solution
is shaken during the dilution.

People are skeptical about homeopathy because:

1: There is no known mechanism by which it can work. Many homeopathic
treatments are so diluted that not one molecule of the original
substance is contained in the final dose.

2: The indicator symptoms are highly subjective. Some substances have
hundreds of trivial indicators.

3: Almost no clinical tests have been done.

4: It is not clear why trace impurities in the dilutants are not also
fortified by the dilution mechanism.

Although homeopathy involves little more than doing nothing, it was
invented in the days when doing nothing was usually better for the
patient than conventional treatment
. It therefore represented a
significant advance in medical practice. Since then conventional
medicine has improved beyond recognition, while homeopathy is still
equivalent to doing nothing.

Reports of one scientific trial that seemed to provide evidence for
homeopathy until a double-blind trial was set up can be found in
Nature vol 333, p.816 and further, and the few issues of Nature
following that, about until November of that year (1988).

SI ran a good article on the origins and claims of homeopathy:
Stephen Barrett, M.D., "Homeopathy: Is It Medicine?", SI,
vol. 12, no. 1, Fall 1987, pp. 56-62"

There was a time in the 1980s when I tried homeopathic remedies for common ailments like a cold and muscle pain. I got zip/nada/nothing from the "treatments" beyond my doing nothing more than wating it out in the past, doing some massage, or chicken soup as I do now. That is why I wrote Homeopathy or chiropractic might qualify as useful medical metaphors under Price?s view but such pseudo remedies involve a lot of waste of time and money, if not health in that review.

As for chiropractic, it remains stuck in a foundation myth about "subluxations" as a source of disease that is now a failed hypothesis. Like homeopathy, there are some positive benefits for the believers due to TLC and a rather harmless treatment protocol, for the most part, but medical science has advanced far far beyond such 19th century medical myths.

I am not arguing with the apologetic research but I do find too many holes. I will not spend money or time on those treatments.
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

the science

Unread post by joe sz »

watcha
I know you are not arguing with me or any person but you are arguing with the medical establishment and science. have fun with that 8)
Here is a sample of what homeopathy is up against to this day:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1722 ... rom=pubmed

2000
Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment.Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E.
Department of Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Institute of Health and Social Care, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter EX2 4NT, United Kingdom. stesincro@yahoo.com

Many cancer patients use homeopathic approaches to increase their body's ability to fight cancer, improve their physical and emotional well-being, and alleviate their pain resulting from the disease or conventional treatments. Homeopathy is highly controversial as there is no plausible mode of action for these highly diluted remedies. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and critically evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic remedies used as a sole or additional therapy in cancer care. We have searched the literature using the databases: Amed (from 1985); CINHAL (from 1982); EMBASE (from 1974); Medline (from 1951); and CAMbase (from 1998). Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials including patients with cancer or past experience of cancer receiving single or combined homeopathic interventions were included. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed by Jadad score. Six studies met our inclusion criteria (five were randomised clinical trials and one was a non-randomised study); but the methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies. Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.

PMID: 16376071 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Unread post by joe sz »

forgot this from 2007 above link

Dantas F, Fisher P, Walach H, Wieland F, Rastogi DP, Teixeira H, Koster D, Jansen JP, Eizayaga J, Alvarez ME, Marim M, Belon P, Weckx LL.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Universidade Federal de Uberl?ndia, Brazil. dantasfla@gmail.com

BACKGROUND: The quality of information gathered from homeopathic pathogenetic trials (HPTs), also known as 'provings', is fundamental to homeopathy. We systematically reviewed HPTs published in six languages (English, German, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Dutch) from 1945 to 1995, to assess their quality in terms of the validity of the information they provide. METHODS: The literature was comprehensively searched, only published reports of HPTs were included. Information was extracted by two reviewers per trial using a form with 87 items. Information on: medicines, volunteers, ethical aspects, blinding, randomization, use of placebo, adverse effects, assessments, presentation of data and number of claimed findings were recorded. Methodological quality was assessed by an index including indicators of internal and external validity, personal judgement and comments of reviewers for each study. RESULTS: 156 HPTs on 143 medicines, involving 2815 volunteers, produced 20,538 pathogenetic effects (median 6.5 per volunteer). There was wide variation in methods and results. Sample size (median 15, range 1-103) and trial duration (mean 34 days) were very variable. Most studies had design flaws, particularly absence of proper randomization, blinding, placebo control and criteria for analysis of outcomes. Mean methodological score was 5.6 (range 4-16). More symptoms were reported from HPTs of poor quality than from better ones. In 56% of trials volunteers took placebo. Pathogenetic effects were claimed in 98% of publications. On average about 84% of volunteers receiving active treatment developed symptoms. The quality of reports was in general poor, and much important information was not available. CONCLUSIONS: The HPTs were generally of low methodological quality. There is a high incidence of pathogenetic effects in publications and volunteers but this could be attributable to design flaws. Homeopathic medicines, tested in HPTs, appear safe. The central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered, because of methodological weaknesses of the reports. Improvement of the method and reporting of results of HPTs are required. REFERENCES: References to all included RCTs are available on-line at.

PMID: 17227742 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1722 ... rom=pubmed
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

joe, i don't consider myself arguing with the medical establishment and science at all. there IS SCIENCE (not pseudoscience) that proves homeopathy's efficacy. i also respect where allopathic medicine does fit in to an overall health care plan WHEN it is truly needed. but to say that i'm posting apologetics is false. to say that homeopathy is no more than placebo is false. however, you are certainly entitled to that viewpoint.

you may or may not find this interesting:

"Myth No. 7 ? Cure with homeopathy is simply the Placebo Effect.

When Prince Charles treats his farm animals at Highgrove with homeopathic medicines do they know that a remedy has been put in the water they drink? Farmers successfully use homeopathic medicines for their cows suffering from mastitis. Does a tiny baby know when their fever drops dramatically using Belladonna or Aconite, that they have been given a homeopathic medicine?! As anyone who has treated animals and babies with homoepathic medicines will tell you, homeopathy works even better on animals and babies than it does on adults! If proof were needed, this is it. Not placebo.

Perhaps the most striking research on homeopathy that goes some way to debunking the placebo argument is when homeopathic remedies are tested on live tissue in a petri dish or studies involving animals (mice in this case) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3208528.stm "
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

http://www.zeusinfoservice.com/TruthAboutHomeopathy.html

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

this is long but well worth reading.

THE TRUTH ABOUT HOMEOPATHY

- Dispelling the MYTHS that Surround it!

26th May, 2008.

by Louise Mclean, LCCH MHMA, Editor, Zeus Information Service.


In this article, I would like to dispel a plethora of myths surrounding homeopathy which have been used to discredit this highly efficacious healing art and science. Homeopaths are given few opportunities in the media to defend their profession, so a lot of misconceptions abound. The medical profession in general presents a fierce and blinkered opposition, yet as Big Pharma is learning of all sorts of amazing cured cases, they are determined to stamp out competition

via EU regulation.





Myth No. 1 ? Homeopathic medicines cure nothing.



Homeopathy works by stimulating the body?s OWN healing mechanisms, through like for like. A substance that would cause symptoms in a healthy person can be used to cure the same symptoms in a sick person by giving a minute, highly potentised dose of that substance acting as a catalyst to jump start their own healing mechanisms. Everyone of us has our own natural innate healing powers. All that is needed is the correct stimulus to kick start it. In healthy people this may just be rest and good food but many people become 'stuck' in their physical, emotional or mental illness and cannot recover. Of course there are different levels of health and the choice of potency given should reflect that. Low potencies are given for very physically ill people and higher for those whose problems are emotional or of the mind. Homeopathy is very successful in treating emotional problems such as stress, anxiety and fears.





Myth No 2 ? Homeopathic medicines are just water



Homeopathic medicines are NOT made using only dilution. Dilution alone would do nothing whatsoever. Many homeopaths are getting tired of reading this highly inaccurate reporting in the media. All homeopathic medicines are made by a process of dilution and SUCCUSSION (potentisation through vigorous shaking - 100 shakes between each potency - i.e. between a 1c and a 2c, between a 2c and a 3c potency, between a 3c and a 4c, etc. etc.) Most homeopathic medicines can be bought in either 6c or 30c from Boots or from health shops. Higher potencies of 200c and 1m (1000c) can be obtained only from homeopathic pharmacies. Succussion is nowadays done by machines, originally by hand. Succussion brings out the formative intelligence of the substance and imprints it upon the 60% distilled water + 40% alcohol medium used to make homeopathic medicines - alcohol acting as a preservative.





Myth No. 3 ? homeopathic medicines are unscientific



Homeopathic medicines undergo a scientific 'Proving' where a control group of 50+ healthy volunteers ('Provers') are instructed to keep taking a remedy under trial until they develop symptoms which they must record in detail. Substances that have been rigorously tested include nearly everything on the Periodic Table - metals, minerals and gases as well as plants and even things like snake venom.



The Provers are given a bottle of a new remedy being tested in the 30c potency and must keep taking it until they develop symptoms, which must be carefully recorded and then submitted to a database. The Provers must be healthy and symptom-free to start with so that the symptoms they experience are new ones CAUSED by the remedy.

They must keep a careful daily note of what happens and not discuss it with any of the other Provers. Whatever symptoms the Provers all experienced in common become the black type symptoms of the remedy which are then added to the Materia Medica of homeopathic medicines and Homeopathic Repertory (encyclopedia of symptoms). Thus the curative indications of a remedy are obtained for clinical use.



Symptoms have also been obtained through historical records of accidental poisonings, such as Arsenic and Belladonna. For example, poisoning by Arsenic causes vomitting, diarrhoea, restlessness, anxiety and extreme chill. Therefore you might get a patient in this state (possibly after food poisoning) and Arsenicum in a homepathic tablet will quickly alleviate them.



There are more than 4,000+ homeopathic medicines including nearly everything on the periodic table. But of course all of the remedies tested have been diluted and succussed (potentised), so they are not toxic like modern drugs.



The Homeopathic Materia Medica and Repertory are extremely large books or divided into volumes. The Repertory is divided into sections in this order: Mind, Vertigo, Head, Eye, Vision, Ear, Hearing, Nose, Face, Mouth, Teeth, Throat, External Throat, Stomach, Abdomen, Rectum, Stool, Bladder, Kidney, Prostate Gland, Urethra, Urine, Male, Female, Larynx, Respiration, Cough, Expectoration, Chest, Back, Extremities, Sleep, Dreams, Chill, Fever, Perspiration, Skin, Generals. Obviously some sections are bigger than others!



In the various Repertories, remedies are listed alongside the full range of symptoms (rubrics) in abbreviated form - all information being systematically taken from Provings and clinical practice. Every human state of mind, emotions and body is listed. Symptoms that would mean nothing to a medical doctor can be looked up and the curative remedy found in these huge books. Homeopathy is a study of human nature, endlessly fascinating and how negative states of mind and emotions affect the physical body culminating in illness. Nowadays many homeopaths use computer software programmes which contain all this information.





Myth No. 4 ? homeopathic practitioners receive inadequate training



In fact all qualified homeopathic practitioners undergo a four year training course at accredited Colleges, which includes Anatomy and Physiology, as well as Pathology and Disease, Materia Medica, Homeopathic Philosophy and study of the Homeopathic Repertory. Yet medical doctors and nurses treat after much shorter homeopathy courses. To be really good, you need to study intensively for about 10 years. Homeopathy is a lifetime's work and you never stop learning.





Myth No. 5 - there are no studies that prove homeopathy works



In the past 24 years there have been more than 180 controlled, and 118 randomized, trials into homeopathy, which were analysed by four separate meta-analyses. In each case, the researchers concluded that the benefits of homeopathy went far beyond that which could be explained purely by the placebo effect. Another meta-analysis found that 65 of the 89 trials analysed had produced an effect way beyond placebo (source WDDTY www.wddty.co.uk )



A study of 6500 patients at the Bristol Homeopathic hospital was conducted showing that over 70% of patients reported complete cure or significant improvement of their symptoms. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4454856.stm



A study on the properties of water was performed by Dr. Rustrum Roy. This paper provides an interdisciplinary base of information on the structure of liquid water.

The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy

Rustum Roy1, W.A. Tiller2, Iris Bell3, M. R. Hoover4

Received: 2 August 2004 Revised: 6 September 2004 Accepted: 14

http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf

http://www.infiniteconferencing.com/Eve ... yback.html

Homeopathy can never be tested properly through conventional trials because each prescription is individualised as every person is unique. Therefore 10 people with arthritis, for example, may all need a different homeopathic medicine. So it is far from ideal to follow the allopathic trial paradigm to test homeopathy. In orthodox medicine trials, all are given the same medicine to be tested. In homeopathy all may be given different medicines!



Anybody who has an understanding of the principles of homeopathy can be left in no doubt that we are dealing with a scientific therapeutic method in the best possible sense: it is based on observation, facts and phenomena and follows the rules of inductive logic that can be tested in daily practice. It is a comprehensive and comprehensible mode of therapy, which in some countries is first line treatment for the whole range of acute and chronic conditions. It has been proven abundantly that it is superior in the treatment of epidemic diseases to allopathy.



It is amazing how people, who like to see themselves on the side of unprejudiced evaluation, can be so blinkered. People pass judgment on homeopathy who have never bothered to study it. Like any science it takes time to learn (especially to learn it correctly) and years of practice to master but the rewards for patients, practitioners and the NHS purse are great. Before those who preach pure science come down on therapies like homeopathy too heavily, they should ask themselves how many of the accepted treatments within the NHS have a scientific evidence base?



With every homeopathic medicine we know exactly the substance it was made from, unlike most modern drugs where we have no clue of the ingredients. This is ironic too as ALL natural health products, whether vitamin, mineral or food supplement must clearly state on the label every single ingredient. When we go to the supermarket or health food shop, we hold up the packet or bottle and read what is in the product, yet people happily swallow prescription drugs with no idea whatsoever what they have taken! They could contain cyanide or any poison and the patient would be none the wiser. With the new class of genetically modified drugs, such as the one used in the Northwick Park drug trial in London, the dangers of a massive allergic reaction, such as the drug testers experienced, are even greater.



Those, who claim to be scientists, should have the ability to at least try to understand different paradigms. If not, they look more like people who have settled on a comfortable view of the world which might soon look very outmoded indeed. As the great musician and conductor Sir Yehudi Menhuin once said: 'Homeopathy is one of the few specialised areas in medicine, which carries no disadvantages but only advantages.'.



Regarding the Horizon programme on homeopathy, Prof. Madeleine Ennis was not involved in the Horizon test. The test was carried out by Wayne Turnbull at Guys hospital, London. It has been conceded that the Horizon test was not an exact replica of Ennis' successful trials. Many of his protocols were different. You can read at this link where he added in an ammonium chloride lysis step which would have ended up killing the very basophils that were such an integral part of the test. http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,55
Ennis' original test was replicated in 4 different labs in 4 different countries.



Dr. Peter Fisher's article in PubMed discusses the 'End of Homeopathy' editorial and meta-analysis published in the Lancet of 26th August 2005 and how nearly 100 successful studies that showed homeopathy worked were thrown out and only a few that were inconclusive were used. Dr. Fisher is the Queen's homeopathic physician and heads the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital. (The vitriolic editorial was caused by the World Health Organisation bringing out a draft report in 2005 which was favourable towards homeopathy!)



"The final analysis which concluded that ?the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects? was based on just eight clinical trials of homeopathy. The Lancet's press release did not mention this, instead giving the impression that the conclusions were based on all 110 trials." "One of the most serious criticisms is the complete lack of transparency: we have no idea which eight trials were included in the final, damning, analysis." "The literature references are not given, nor any information on the diagnoses, numbers of patients, etc., nor can these be deduced from the article. Prof. Egger has refused several requests to disclose the identity of the eight trials. This is not even a matter of scientific method, but of natural justice: the accused has the right to know the evidence against him."

?The Lancet meta-analysis in 2005 of homeopathic trials was said to be based upon 110 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and 110 clinical trials of allopathy, which were said to be matched but were in fact reduced to 21 trials of homeopathy and 9 of conventional medicine and further reduced to 8 and 6 trials.?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1375230

Other Responses from the Homeopathic Community on the Lancet Article

http://www.ontariohomeopath.com/Response2.htm

from WDDTY

http://www.zeusinfoservice.com/Articles ... Truth.html



George Vithoulkas' 'Science of Homeopathy' is still considered an excellent exposition of the science.

http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/sci ... pathy.html

More scientific studies:

http://www.vhan.nl/documents/Scientific ... HNov04.pdf

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/7

http://www.positivehealth.com/research- ... jectid=134

Bizarre chemical discovery gives homeopathic hint
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -hint.html



Groundbreaking Research regarding Homeopathy using spectroscopy

Scientific Evidence? The Raw Data - NASA?s TRLs and Modern Medicine?s Immature and High-Risk Evidence http://www.jeggels.com/Scientific%20Evidence.htm







Myth No. 6 - homeopathic hospitals are a waste of money



There are 5 homeopathic hospitals in the UK - in London, Liverpool, Tunbridge Wells, Bristol and Glasgow. They cost the NHS around ?6 million a year. Compare that to the ?100 billion for the total 2008 annual NHS budget!! These homeopathic hospitals SAVE money for the NHS as the Smallwood report commissioned by Prince Charles has demonstrated.

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/mediace ... h_180.html



At one of the earliest debates on the NHS Act 1948 the Government pledged that homoeopathy would continue to be available on the health service as long as there were "patients wishing to receive it and doctors willing to provide it". Many people who depend upon it are alarmed at the possibility that Homeopathy may no longer be available on the NHS. Since the passing of the NHS Act in 1948, a provision has always been made for people to be treated at homeopathic hospitals in the UK and until PCTs began to stop referring patients, there had indeed been long waiting lists, some 6 months or more.



See this letter sent out to all Primary Care Trusts in 2006 signed by a group of professors hostile to homeopathy and putting pressure on PCTs not to refer patients to the 5 homeopathic hospitals in the UK. They wrote the letter on NHS headed paper!

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf ... letter.pdf





Myth No. 7 ? Cure with homeopathy is simply the Placebo Effect.



When Prince Charles treats his farm animals at Highgrove with homeopathic medicines do they know that a remedy has been put in the water they drink? Farmers successfully use homeopathic medicines for their cows suffering from mastitis. Does a tiny baby know when their fever drops dramatically using Belladonna or Aconite, that they have been given a homeopathic medicine?! As anyone who has treated animals and babies with homoepathic medicines will tell you, homeopathy works even better on animals and babies than it does on adults! If proof were needed, this is it. Not placebo.



Perhaps the most striking research on homeopathy that goes some way to debunking the placebo argument is when homeopathic remedies are tested on live tissue in a petri dish or studies involving animals (mice in this case) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3208528.stm





Myth No. 8 - homeopathic medicines contain no molecules



Any remedy under a 12c or a 24x potency still contains the original molecules of the substance and this is known as Avogadro's number. These low potencies are most suitable for physical illness of long duration as well as to heal specific organs that are not functioning properly.





Myth No. 9 ? ?Anecdotal Evidence? does not constitute scientific evidence!



Most medical, surgical procedures and drug usage are not backed by studies - only by anecdotal evidence. According to the US Government's Office of Technology Assessment (Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment: Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978), only 10-20% of all medical procedures and off-label drug usage are backed by clinical studies.

Strong anecdotal evidence among informed professionals is actually quite reliable - at least as reliable as clinical testing.

Many clinical tests come to diametrically opposed conclusions. You could say that the problem was discovered through anecdotal evidence - and merely confirmed through a peer reviewed study.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/peerReviewUnderTheSpotlight.php

The problem isn't with the use of anecdotal evidence. It's with the double standard applied by the establishment (medical and regulatory) that holds complementary medicine to an absurdly higher standard, allowing medical doctors to do pretty much whatever they want. If informed anecdotal evidence is allowable for 85% of all medical procedure and drug usage, why is alternative health held to an impossible 0% standard?



Millions of people worldwide testify that homeopathy cures their illnesses yet apparently that cannot be construed as 'evidence'.



If a person were to walk out of their house to the town centre and witness someone having their bag snatched or witness a car accident, then when they relay this information to the Police or to their friends and family, it is anecdotal evidence.



If someone go on holiday, stays at a nice hotel, eats delicious food, comes back home and relates the holiday to their friends, that is anecdotal evidence.



Does that mean that the above never happened? According to the detractors of complementary or alternative medicine, yes it does!



Millions of people have been cured of their diseases or afflictions using homeopathy, herbs, healing, vitamin supplements, special diets and on and on. Yet according to orthodox medicine all of these cures are anecdotal evidence and as such do not merit any further investigation, study, or validity. As far as orthodox medicine is concerned, these cures never happened.



Yet what if someone witnessed a car accident and the Police wanted them to make a statement? Would the statement in court be dismissed as anecdotal evidence? Would the police, even if they arrived at the scene of the accident to find the person still there comforting the passengers or trying to help, say they had not been there and their evidence is non existent? I don?t think so.



So how for so long have we put up with the top dogs in the medical establishment dismissing our cures as total nonsense, figments of our imagination, placebo cures, or outright lies?



How when millions are cured around the world using homeopathic medicines, can these cures be dismissed as unworthy of attention, simply ?anecdotal evidence?.



Orthodox medicine implies through this that all cures with alternative medicine are untrue or simply imagined. Even when all the evidence is put before them, they become angry and even aggressive, simply refusing to see or to listen.



All the case notes in the surgery show that Mr. A had arthritis for 5 years, had been on anti-flammatory medicines, yet after homeopathic treatment for 6 months, the arthritis is cured. The reaction of the doctor is either disbelief or an attitude where they will not talk about it and do not want to know.



Of course there are some orthodox doctors who practise acupuncture, homeopathy or herbs themselves and who do believe that these therapies cured the patient but they are in the small minority.



It is always the top cancer specialists and professors whose lives and vested interests are the most challenged by the idea that anything other than pharmaceutical drugs or surgical interventions can cure the patient.



Very often the doctor?s prognosis can create enormous fear in a patient making them much worse, striking terror in their hearts and creating a mental block to healing when told by ?experts? they will never get better.



Yet pharmaceutical drugs cure nothing. They merely SUPPRESS the symptoms driving them deeper into the body of the patient. Believe it or not, the disappearance of symptoms does not equal cure! Very often a new and deeper set of symptoms are created which are even more serious. Pharma drugs work through the Law of Opposites, eg. antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, anti-convulsants, anti-hypertensives, anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, etc. etc.



Hence the eczema patient whose skin symptoms have been suppressed, goes on to develop asthma. The arthritic patient whose joint pains are suppressed, eventually will go on to develop heart disease.



The doctor makes no connection whatsoever that their drugs have created these deeper illnesses but just goes on to give the patient more and more powerful drugs, making the patient sicker still. Then when they die, they say, ?We did everything we could?. Yes and you killed the patient!



So in conclusion, there is no question that dismissing cures as Anecdotal Evidence through the use of natural medicine, is nothing more than a whitewash and a desperate means of suppressing the knowledge of those cures to the public as a whole.







Samuel Hahnemann



Hahnemann was a doctor but gave up his practice because he was appalled at the poisonous side effects of most available medicine. He started experimenting and did something rather novel - he took some quinine, while perfectly healthy. He observed that the effect on him was identical to a malarial attack: alternating fever with heat and chills. This is where homeopathy started: a substance, given to a healthy individual, causes symptoms. If given to someone who suffers those symptoms, it will thus neutralise the sickness.



After his observations on quinine, Hahnemann went on to test hundreds of substances on himself and willing, healthy volunteers, used the tested substances for matching symptoms in his patients and all the while kept accounts of detailed observations.

Of course, Hahnemann had an antecedent, still well-known today because all doctors still swear an oath to him to promise best medical practice: Hippocrates. Hippocrates stated that there were two laws of healing ? the law of opposites (allopathy) and the law of similars (homeopathy). A Greek physician called Galen had laid these rules down in about 150 AD. Homeopathic theories are based on fixed principles of the Laws of Nature which do not change - unlike medical theories which are constantly changing! Homeopathy is both a science and an art.



Far from being ideas-based, this is completely evidence-based, empirical medicine an almost unique concept at the time. After some years of practicing like this, Hahnemann was still not satisfied. The substances he was using, while more effective than normal medical practice, were still having side effects. Or, if he reduced dosage too far, there was no effect. This is when he developed the concept of potentisation, the serial dilution that opponents of homeopathy deride.





Treating the Whole Person or Holistic Healing



We are not just a collection of parts to be fixed as doctors treat us but ALWAYS operating as a whole person ALL of the time. In other words medicines are chosen that treat the whole person and not just the part. This may seem strange to grasp and yet doesn't it in fact make total sense? Do we leave our sore throat on the desk of the physician as we leave the doctor's surgery? Or our arthritic knee behind. No, every single tiny function of our body operates as a WHOLE, all of the time. You cannot treat one thing and not affect the rest. That is why pharma drugs are so dangerous as for example, in treating a cancerous tumour, the medicine will affect and disturb the other systems of the body.



We are all energy beings. http://www.workingwithenergy.co.uk/energy_centres.htm

The electricity in our bodies transmits messages to all parts/systems of the body. Illness is caused when these messages are not getting through. All systems of the body are communicating with each other at all times. Water is a great conductor of electricity and it transmits the electrical current. This is how homeopathic mediums work ? by communicating a current/pattern/frequency of energy via the whole human body to jump start the body?s own inherent healing mechanisms.



Homeopathy treats different sorts of people with distinct characters and personalities as well as different physical looks and natures. It individualises each person treating their diverse pattern of symptoms looking at them AS A WHOLE.



Is it not true that no two people are alike? That every person is unique? This is why you could line up 20 people with asthma and they might all need a different homeopathic medicine. There are in fact about 250 homeopathic medicines for asthma but the correct one for each person must be selected taking into consideration such things as what makes the condition better or worse, what time of day it comes on, whether the person is hot or cold, worse for damp, need fresh air or prefer the windows closed and so on. You would be amazed how each person's symptoms are so different and yet they have all been diagnosed with asthma.



After homeopathic treatment, careful analysis is taken of the Direction of Cure of the patient?s symptoms. Constance Hering was a converted skeptic of homeopathy. As a young man in Germany in the early nineteenth century, Hering had been assigned the task of reviewing Homeopathy because his medical mentor (a fervent anti-homeopath) had been asked by a publisher to write a book exposing homeopathy as unworthy. Having been given this task, Hering conducted a detailed study but concluded the opposite from the requested results! He was the first to talk about the Law of Cure which says that symptoms are cured from above down, from the inside out and in the reverse order of their appearance. This has stood the test of time in clinical experience. A simple example would be after a curative remedy is given for eczema all over the body, we would see the eczema start to move down and when it is only on the ankles, we know it is nearly cured.



The other very important point about homeopathic treatment is that very often the appearance of an illness stems back to an important event in the life of the patient such as a shock, fright, loss or grief suffered by them. The homeopathic practitioner will always enquire whether there was a life changing event that severely affected the patient. It is extremely common to find that the onset of a condition coincided with a major event. The homeopath will select a remedy that corresponds to the way the patient reacted to that event, mentally, emotionally and physically in order to clear the state which caused the illness. In other words you treat the cause, to remove the effect.



Examples of remedies for people who have undergone severe shock would be the following: If a person becomes very tired after a shock it would be Phos. Ac. when they become indifferent to their surroundings and loved ones. If they are just sitting there, not moving, staring in front of them, not speaking ? it would be the homeopathic remedy Opium. If they become terribly restless and anxious it would be Aconite. Arnica is for shock when people say they are fine, when they are obviously not. Ignatia would be in floods of tears, hysterical, slamming doors and telling people to go away. Platina would be very proud, angry and indignant. These are all possible ways people can react from a shock and homeopathy must treat the individual. The trick is to work out how people are behaving and which one they need!



Homeopathy works on fixed principles that correspond with the Laws of Nature.



The body has its own intelligence. That is why the human race has survived. When a baby is conceived, Nature chooses the best genes from both parents in order to create a stronger, healthier human. If the parents are both taking drugs of any kind, whether legal or illegal, the health of the baby will be compromised.



Doctors should look at Nature in order to study disease. Doctors and scientists would find all the answers and instead of going against it, learn from it. They really need to study health first before they study disease. There is only one true science and that is the science of Nature.



The human race has survived because we all have an innate healing power in our bodies. In homeopathy for example, this is called the Vital Force. Homeopathy stimulates the vital force to heal the body, through like for like (using a potentised substance that would cause the symptoms but in a tiny dose acts as a catalyst for healing).



If people want to improve their looks, homeopathy does just that. When you are healthy and well, you obviously look better! Homeopathic practitioners believe in PREVENTION, having treatment can prevent illness rather than leaving it to the surgeon?s knife. There are thousands of homeopathic medicines which treat every ailment known to man, truly the most wonderful science on this planet.



Many people buy self help books or think they can treat themselves with over the counter remedies. This is a short term solution. The reason is as stated above. You cannot treat individual symptoms without taking into consideration the rest of you! Only a qualified and experienced homeopath who will spend 1-2 hours taking your full medical history and all of your symptoms can prescribe the remedy that fits best. In other words if you have hayfever, the homeopath will take into consideration all other physical symptoms a as well as your personality, to come to the correct prescription. Itchy, watery, red eyes, worse morning and evening would be Sulphur but only if all the other things about you fit the Sulphur picture. You cannot prescribe for yourself as you cannot take all of it into consideration at once. So if for example you buy Natrum Mur. for your hayfever (which is also an excellent remedy for this), it may work for a bit if you are healthy but the hayfever will come back, will not be cured for good, because it was not the remedy that fitted best.



The only exception to this rule is in the treatment of first aid and even then it often has to be individualised. An example of when it does not is having a molar removed at the dentist. Firstly you would take Arnica for bruising of the gums, secondly Hypericum for the pain as the anaesthetic wears off (will remove pain completely), thirdly Ledum for injection and fourthly Calendula (the remedy not the cream!) for fast healing of the gums (or any other injury). Symphytum is the great healer of broken bones.



Homeopaths believe that illnesses manifest for three reasons: firstly they are genetically inherited from our parents, grandparents, forefathers. Secondly, they can be caused by an traumatic event such as death of a loved one, divorce, job loss - any event that has a serious impact upon the person. Thirdly they can be caused from drugs taken by our parents (passed onto the foetus) or by ourselves. There is also of course accidents and injury.



Inherited disease can be traced back to one or more of what homeopaths call MIASMS - these are syphilis, gonorrhoea, psora (scabies), tuberculosis and cancer. We are all a mix of all of these as especially TB, dates back thousands of years. However one or more of the miasms is uppermost in a person and is an important aspect of the case-taking to determine the appropriate medicines.



So many people are in ignorance of the VAST amount of study needed to become an expert in this field. Also there are hundreds of homeopathic books only available at specialist bookshops, many printed in India where homeopathy is more popular than orthodox medicine.





Attacks on Homeopathy



After the ever increasing attacks on alternative medicine in the media and in particular homeopathy, once again Professor Edzard Ernst, the 'first professor of complementary medicine' (whose qualifications for the job are still in question) discredits homeopathy. Yet in an interview with Geoff Watts in 2003

http://www.studentbmj.com/issues/04/01/careers/25.php

entitled 'A Scientist in the Alternative Camp', Professor Ernst stated:

"Our family doctor in the little village outside Munich where I grew up was a homoeopath. My mother swore by it. As a kid I was treated homoeopathically. So this kind of medicine just came naturally. Even during my studies I pursued other things like massage therapy and acupuncture."

"As a young doctor I had an appointment in a homoeopathic hospital, and I was very impressed with its success rate. My boss told me that much of this success came from discontinuing mainstream medication. This made a big impression on me."



The truth is that homeopathy is getting ever more popular and the drugs companies are putting out their spin in overdrive through their science and media PR operation outlets to counteract this in any way they can.



The reason there is this incessant assault in the press against homeopathy is because Pharma wields enormous power over the media and because the popularity of homeopathy has been increasing due to side effects of modern medicine. Also, unlike other natural therapies, it is pills and in direct competition.



At leat six million people use complementary treatments each year in the UK, which offers clinically-effective and cost-effective solutions to common health problems faced by NHS patients.



The attacks against alternative medicine sometimes try to imply that it is dangerous. Yet compare the number of insurance claims against natural health therapies to those in conventional medicine. A top insurance company was asked how many claims had been filed against homepathic practitioners and said there had been hardly any, ?only a couple in the last 10 years?!





Historical Facts



In view of the highly inaccurate reporting and vitriolic attacks in the recent press coverage on homeopathy, I would like to point out some little known historical facts concerning homeopathy.



The practice of homeopathic medicine flourished in both Europe and the US during the 1800s and early 1900s and was spectacularly popular with European royalty and the British aristocracy, American entrepreneurs, literary giants, and religious leaders.



John D. Rockefeller referred to it as 'a progressive and aggressive step in medicine' and was under homeopathic care throughout the latter part of his life living to 99 years of age. A strong advocate of homeopathy, major grants of between $300-$400 million he intended for homeopathic institutions were instead used for orthodox medical institutions in the early 1900s, under pressure from his son and his financial advisor, Frederick Gates. (Source Dana Ullman)



In the United States in the early 1900s there were 22 homeopathic medical schools and over 100 homeopathic hospitals, 60 orphanages and old people's homes and 1,000+ homeopathic pharmacies. Members of the American Medical Association had great animosity towards homeopathy after its formation in 1847 and it was decided to purge all local medical societies of physicians who were homeopaths. This purge was successful in every state except Massachusetts because homoepathy was so strong among the elite of Boston.



The AMA wanted to keep homoepaths out of their societies and discourage any type of association with homeopaths. In 1855 the AMA established a code of ethics which stated that orthodox physicians would lose their membership if they even consulted with a homeopath. If a physician lost his membership, it meant that in some States he no longer had a licence to practice medicine.



Drug companies were antagonistic towards homeopathy, collectively trying to suppress it. The medical journals they published were used as mouthpieces against homeopathy and in support of orthodox medicine.



At an AMA meeting, a respected orthodox physician said: 'We must admit that we never fought the homeopath on matters of principles; we fought him because he came into the community and got the business.' Economic issues played a major role in what was allowed to be practised.



Homeopathy attracted support from many of the most respected members of society in the US, such as William James, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Louisa M. Alcott, Mark Twain, former American Presidents James Garfield and William McKinley. In Britain among its supporters were George Bernard Shaw, Charles Dickens, W.B. Yeats, William Thackarey, Benjamin Disraeli, Yehudi Menuhin. Other famous supporters were Dostoevsky, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Mahatma Ghandi.



Nowadays, celebrities using and supporting homeopathy are many and include among others : Catherine Zeta-Jones, Tina Turner, Whoopi Goldberg, Pamela Anderson, Jane Fonda, Cher, Rosie O'Donnell, Martin Sheen, the Chilli Peppers, Jane Seymour, Lesley Anne Warren, Mariel Hemingway, Lindsay Wagner, Paul McCartney, Axl Rose, Linda Gray, Susan Blakely, Michael Franks, Cybil Sheppard, Dizzy Gillespie, Vidal Sassoon, Angelica Houston, Boris Becker, Martina Navratilova, David Beckham, Priscilla and Lisa Marie Presley, Cliff Robertson, Jerry Hall, Diane von Furstenberg, Ashley Judd, Naomi Judd, Olivia Newton-John, Julianna Margulies, JD Salinger, Blythe Danner, Pat Riley (coach of the Miami Heat). The list of famous people who supported homeopathy is endless.....



See 'The Homeopathic Revolution' by Dana Ullman MPH www.homeopathicrevolution.com



The aristocratic patronage of homeopathy in the UK extending well into the 1940s and beyond can be easily demonstrated. In the Homeopathic Medical Directories there are lists of patrons of the dispensaries and hospitals. They read like an extract from Burke?s or Debrett?s.

(See A History of Homeopathy in Britain by Peter Morrell, Honorary Research Associate in the History of Medicine, Staffordshire University, UK.)
http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference ... tory.shtml



Homeopathy is practised nowadays in countries all over the world and is especially popular in France, South America and India where there are around 250,000 homeopathic doctors! In a recent Global TGI survey where people were asked whether they trust homeopathy the following percentages of people living in urban areas said YES: 62% in India, 58% Brazil, 53% Saudi Arabia, Chile 49%, United Arab Emirates 49%, France 40%, South Africa 35%, Russia 28%, Germany 27%, Argentina 25%, Hungary 25%, USA 18%, UK 15%.

http://www.tgisurveys.com/documents/TGI ... _Jan08.pdf



.....Louise Mclean





Zeus Information Service
Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com

Copyright ? Louise Mclean 2008
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Presenting 55 Facts About Homeopathy
By Louise Mclean, LCCH MHMA.
http://www.zeusinfoservice.com/Homeopat ... TSLIST.pdf
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

New evidence for homeopathy

Two new studies conclude that a review which claimed that homeopathy is just a placebo, published in The
Lancet, was seriously flawed.

http://www.physorg.com/news144951047.html

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/1 ... homeopathy

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=42412
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

From PhysOrg:

http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=105191502


The memory of water is a reality

A special issue of the journal Homeopathy, journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy and published by Elsevier, on the ?Memory of Water? brings together scientists from around the world for the first time to publish new data, reviews and discuss recent scientific work exploring the idea that water can display memory effects. The concept of memory of water is important to homeopathy because it offers a potential explanation of the mechanism of action of very high dilutions often used in homeopathy.


Guest editor Professor Martin Chaplin of the Department of Applied Science at London South Bank University, remarks: ?There is strong evidence concerning many ways in which the mechanism of this ?memory? may come about. There are also mechanisms by which such solutions may possess effects on biological systems which substantially differ from plain water.?

The concept of the memory of water goes back to 1988 when the late Professor Jacques Benveniste published, in the international scientific journal Nature, claims that extremely high ?ultramolecular? dilutions of an antibody had effects in the human basophil degranulation test, a laboratory model of immune response. In other words, the water diluent ?remembered? the antibody long after it was gone. His findings were subsequently denounced as ?pseudoscience? and yet, despite the negative impact this had at the time, the idea has not gone away.

In this special issue of Homeopathy (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journa ... escription), scientists from the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, USA as well as the UK present remarkably convergent views from groups using entirely different methods, indicating that large-scale structural effects can occur in liquid water, and can increase with time. Such effects might account for claims of memory of water effects.

Commenting on the special issue, Professor Chaplin said: ?Science has a lot more to discover about such effects and how they might relate to homeopathy. It is unjustified to dismiss homeopathy, as some scientists do, just because we don?t have a full understanding of how it works.? In his overview he is critical of the ?unscientific rhetoric? of some scientists who reject the memory of water concept ?with a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of the full body of evidence.?

Professor Chaplin and Dr Peter Fisher, editor-in-chief of the journal, agree that the current evidence brings us a step closer to providing an explanation for the claims made for homeopathy and that the memory of water, once considered a scientific heresy, is a reality. ?These discoveries may have far reaching implications and more research is required,? comments Dr Fisher.
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

What Science and History May Owe to Homeopathic Medicine

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

From: Medical News Today


What Science And History May Owe To Homeopathic Medicine
15 Dec 2007
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printer ... wsid=91606

A new scholarly written book describes hundreds of well-known and respected physicians, scientists, politicians, corporate leaders, and literary greats who used or advocated for homeopathic medicine. Eleven U.S. Presidents, seven popes, Sir William Osler, J.D. Rockefeller, Charles Kettering, and C. Everett Koop are among those famous people who were known to have benefited from homeopathy. Perhaps most surprisingly is the evidence of Charles Darwin's use of homeopathic medicines and the significant results he received from them.

In the new book, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (North Atlantic Books, 2007), Dana Ullman presents strong evidence derived primarily from Charles Darwin's own letters about the treatment he received from a homeopathic physician. Ullman suggests that Charles Darwin would not have lived long enough to have completed his seminal work, The Origin of Species, in 1859 if he didn't get homeopathic treatment ten years previously.

It is well known that Darwin became very ill during his trip to South America in the late 1830s. His health continued to decline, and he was so ill that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral in 1848. He suffered from severe and constant nausea, heart palpitations, widespread boils, and trembling for 12 years, and by 1849, he had suffered from fainting spells and spots before his eyes for two years. According to Darwin's letters, he was not able to work one day in every three.

Finally, in 1849, he sought the treatment from Dr. James Manby Gully, a homeopathic physician who owned a hydrotherapy spa. Although Darwin was skeptical of homeopathy, he obediently took the prescription of homeopathic medicines his doctor gave him, and within a month, his health was considerably better. Darwin didn't have nausea for a month, gained some weight, took a seven mile walk (which he was previously unable to do), and then wrote to a friend, "I am turning into a mere walking and eating machine." After just a month of treatment, he had to admit that Dr. Gully's treatment was not quackery after all.

Ullman also has uncovered some of Darwin's own experiments using extremely small "homeopathic" doses of various ammonia salts and watched their significant effects on insect-eating plants (Drosera rotundifolia). He was so shocked by his experiments that he had his son replicate them, and ultimately, he felt embarrassed to have to report on their surprising findings. Although Darwin provided details about the exceedingly small doses he tested, he never used the word "homeopathic" when referring to these experiments. He wrote, "I am quite unhappy at the thought of having to publish such a statement" about these results. An endorsement of homeopathy by Darwin at that time might have led to great antagonism against his new theories about life and evolution.

Many famous people benefited from Dr. Gully's care, including Charles Dickens (novelist and writer), Alfred, Lord Tennyson (poet), Florence Nightingale (famed nurse), George Eliot (British novelist), Thomas Carlyle (Scottish essayist, satirist, and historian), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (British novelist, playwright, and politician), Thomas Babington Macaulay (first Baron Macaulay, poet and politician), and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Further, three prime ministers sought Dr. Gully's care, including William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, and George Hamilton-Gordon, as well as Queen Victoria herself. Hamilton-Gordon described Dr. Gully as "the most gifted physician of the age."

According to Ullman's book, other leading physicians and scientists who used and/or advocated for homeopathy, including Sir William Osler (the "father of modern medicine"), Emil Adolph von Behring (the "father of immunology"), August Bier, MD (the "father of spinal anesthesia"), Harold Griffith, MD (founding president of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists), Charles Frederick Menninger, MD (founder of the Menninger Clinic), and C. Everett Koop, MD (former Surgeon General of the United States).

Besides physicians and scientists, this book uncovers biographical information about many cultural heroes of the past 200 years, including various literary greats (Emily Dickinson, Louisa May Alcott, Washington Irving, Goethe, George Bernard Shaw, Lord Alfred Tennyson, Gabriel Garcia Marquez), sports superstars (David Beckham and Martina Navratilova), musicians (Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Tina Turner, Cher), politicians (11 U.S. presidents, Gandhi, Tony Blair), clergy (seven popes and leading rabbis and Muslim clerics), and corporate leaders (JD Rockefeller, Charles Kettering).

Besides the personal stories from history and the present day, this book also reviews modern high quality clinical research and evaluates both positive and negative outcomes. Ultimately, the preponderance of scientific and historical evidence shows how the placebo effect is an inadequate explanation for the clinical results from homeopathic treatment. Ullman also reviews recent basic science evidence that provide new insights into how homeopathic nanodoses may have biological activity.
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

I already posted this from another source...but here is another science resource that is also citing the same data.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/1 ... homeopathy

e! Science News
Your daily dose of Eureka!Spread the word about Science! News Archive Contact Bookmark Us!RSS Feeds Tell your friends and colleagues Automatically updated less than a minute ago Learn moreAstronomyBiologyClimateHealthMathPaleontologyPhysicsPsychology New evidence for homeopathy
Published: Monday, November 3, 2008 - 17:22 in Health & Medicine
Learn more about: george lewith homeopathic medicines homeopathy works matthias egger new evidence university of berne
Two new studies conclude that a review which claimed that homeopathy is just a placebo, published in The Lancet, was seriously flawed. George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University comments: 'The review gave no indication of which trials were analysed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice. If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a 'larger trial', the conclusions change. This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable.'
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Brand New Homeopathy Book !!!!

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Science of Homeopathy
By George VITHOULKAS


Printed in USA, 331 pages, paperback

#195, $32.00
Add to cart
Or for help ordering call 800-663-8272 (from United States and Canada) or 604-597-4757 or email orders@minimum.com


Information from the cover or publisher

"About twenty-five percent of the physicians in the United States were homeopaths at the turn of the century. In The Science of Homeopathy, George Vithoulkas provides an objective and concise treatise of this approach, focusing upon the basic principles and clinical applications of' homeopathy. Through the integration of homeopathic and allopathic medicines, a true system of health care can evolve with an emphasis upon the individual as an integrated organism."
-Kenneth R. Pelletier, PhD

University of California School of Medicine. San Francisco.

Homeopathy, the "energy medicine," is a branch of medical science based on the principle that disease can be cured by strengthening the body's defense mechanism with substances selected for their energy-giving properties. In homeopathy, derived from the words "homeo" and "pathos," meaning "similar suffering," a cure is selected which, in its crude form, would produce in a healthy body the same symptoms found in a sick person suffering from the specific disease. But this crude substance, selected from herbs, minerals, or chemicals, is diluted and purified beyond the point of harm to its quintessential state of energy. In contrast to traditional (allopathic) medicine, by which symptoms are treated with toxic drugs which weaken the body, homeopathic medicine aims to change the body's energy levels which lie at the root of disease. Founded in the nineteenth century by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, for whom Philadelphia's Hahnemann Hospital is named, the practice of homeopathy has, over the last ten years, experienced a resurgence of interest, as more and more enlightened doctors and patients discover the powers of natural curative energies.

In The Science of Homeopathy, George Vithoulkas has compiled a clear and comprehensive text outlining both the theory and practice of this important medicine. In Section One, "The Laws and Principles of Cure," Vithoulkas sets forth the principles of electrodynamic energy, the "vital force," predisposition to disease, and the selection of homeopathic remedies. In Section Two, "Practical Application," he gives a detailed explanation of the methods of diagnosis, and the preparation, administration, and evaluation of homeopathic cures. Written in clear, concise language, with ample illustrations, references, and case studies, The Science of Homeopathy is an excellent reference for homeopathic physicians and an informative introduction for the interested lay person.

George Vithoulkas, one of the world's leading practitioners and teachers of homeopathy, is the author of Homeopathy, Medicine of the New Man.

http://www.minimum.com/b.asp?a=science- ... vithoulkas
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Nanotechnology & Homeopathy

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Another interesting article.

http://www.newhope.com/nutritionscience ... opathy.cfm

Homeopathic Medicine:
Making The Case For Nanopharmacology
Dana Ullman, M.P.H.

Homeopathic medicine is so widely practiced by physicians in Europe that it may no longer be appropriate to consider it "alternative medicine" there. However, this is certainly not the case in the United States, where it might be considered the Rodney Dangerfield of medicine because it simply does not get any respect. This disrespect among many physicians and scientists stems from the extremely small doses used in homeopathic medicines. These skeptics question whether homeopathic remedies can have any effect at all, other than a placebo effect.

What is inadequately appreciated about homeopathy is that the extremely small doses will not have any biological effect or clinical result unless the patient's symptoms are similar to those that the medicine has been found to cause when given in toxic doses. It is not as though small doses of any medicine will elicit therapeutic results; such small doses can and will initiate a healing response only when a person is hypersensitive to a specific medicine.

Basic principles of physics teach us that hypersensitivity exists when there is resonance. Homeopathy is based on resonance and is commonly referred to as the "principle of similars." Even the word homeopathy is derived from two Greek words, homoios, which means similar, and pathos, which means suffering or disease. The principle of similars is simply a practical basis for finding the substance to which a person is hypersensitive.

Nanotechnology
The evolution of computers provides evidence that smaller and smaller units (chips) can carry more and more information. The term nanotechnology refers to the study and application of such hyper-miniaturized technologies. Likewise, scientists have pursued the discovery of smaller and smaller particles of matter, from tissues to cells to intracellular matter to molecules to subatomic particles to quarks, and one can only assume that we will continue to discover even smaller units of matter and energy.

In our conventional medical paradigm, we assume that larger and larger doses of pharmacological agents will create increasingly significant biochemical reactions, but such reactions do not necessarily lead to better health. In fact, increasing doses of most drugs generally leads to increased side effects. While most drugs have primarily been developed to replace, suppress, minimize, or interfere with specific biochemical functions, the discovery of synthetic pharmaceutical medicines to augment a person's immune system has been an elusive?and usually ignored?goal.

Ironically, the few medicinal agents used in conventional medicine today that do anything to enhance a person's immune system are immunization and allergy treatments, both of which are based on the homeopathic principle of similars. Despite the obvious similarity between these conventional treatments and homeopathic regimens, there are also significant differences, namely that homeopathic doses are considerably smaller and are individualized to the person, not aimed at a disease.

The homeopathic principle of similars makes further sense when one considers that modern physiologists and pathologists now recognize that disease is not simply the result of breakdown or surrender of the body, but that symptoms are instead representative of the body's efforts to fight infection or adapt to stress. Fever, inflammation, pain, discharge, and even high blood pressure are but a small number of the common symptoms that the body creates to defend and heal itself.

Largely as a result of the AIDS epidemic, it has made sense to look for drugs that strengthen a person's immune system rather than those that minimize symptoms. However, most physicians and scientists do not have a conceptual framework for seeking or using such pharmacological agents. Most allopathic physicians have no knowledge of the 200-year-old system of medicine known as homeopathy.

Homeopathic Medicine: A Nanopharmacology
Homeopathic medicine presents a significantly different pharmacological approach to healing. Instead of using strong and powerful doses of medicinal agents that have a broad-spectrum effect on a wide variety of people with a similar disease, homeopaths use extremely small doses of medicinal substances that are highly individualized to a person's physical and psychological symptoms, not simply an assumed localized pathology.

Homeopathic doses are so small that it is appropriate to include them in the newly defined field of nanopharmacology. (The prefix nano is Latin for dwarf, but today the prefix is used to refer to technologies or substances that are extremely small, at least one-billionth of a unit, designated as 10-9.) To understand the nature and the degree of homeopathy's nanopharmacology, it is helpful to understand how homeopathic medicines are formulated.

Most homeopathic medicines are made by diluting a medicinal substance into double-distilled water. Physicists who study the properties of water commonly acknowledge that it has many mysterious and amazing properties. Modern scientists assert that water dynamics do not conform adequately to Newtonian physics but are greatly influenced by quantum electrodynamics.1

Each substance is diluted, most commonly one part of the original agent to nine or 99 parts double-distilled water. The mixture is then vigorously shaken. The solution is then diluted again 1:9 or 1:99 and vigorously stirred. This process of diluting and stirring is repeated three, six, 12, 30, 200, 1,000, or even 1 million times.

Homeopathic medicines are extremely diluted; this is called potentization and refers to the specific process of sequential dilution with vigorous stirring. Each consecutive dilution infiltrates the new double-distilled water and imprints upon it the fractal form of the original substance used. (Fractal refers to the specific consecutively smaller pattern or form within a larger pattern).

Homeopaths acknowledge that for extremely small doses of medicinal agents to have any effect at all, the person taking them must have a hypersensitivity to the medicine. A person will be hypersensitive if and when he or she exhibits the symptoms the homeopathic substance causes in toxic doses.

Still, it is difficult to initially accept the possibility that such nanopharmacological doses can have any effect at all. Yet a significant body of conventional scientific research has verified that various extremely low concentrations of biological agents can exhibit powerful biochemical effects. Beta-endorphins are known to modulate natural killer-cell activity in dilutions of 10-18. Interleukin-1, an important part of the immune system, has been found to exhibit increased T-cell clone proliferation at <10-19. And pheromones, which are hormones externally emitted by various animals and insects, result in hypersensitive reactions with even a single molecule.2 (Scientists presently have no way to assess the effects of less than a molecule.)

Homeopathic doses are still in the molecular dose range, and as such they do not create cause for a revolution in science or medicine. However, few scientists and physicians understand the power and potential of nanopharmacological doses. This is particularly disappointing because scientists commonly observe that organisms experience a biphasic response to various chemicals; that is, extremely small doses of a substance exhibit different and sometimes opposite effects from what they cause in high concentrations. For instance, it is widely recognized that normal doses of atropine block the parasympathetic nerves and cause mucous membranes to dry up, but exceedingly small doses of atropine cause increased secretions to mucous membranes.3

That drugs can have two phases of action (hormesis) depending on their concentration is a little-known and rarely questioned observation. In fact, many medical and scientific dictionaries refer to hormesis, or the Arndt-Schulz law, as the observations that weak concentrations of biological agents stimulate physiological activity, medium concentrations of agents depress physiological activity, and large concentrations halt physiological activity.

Although there are hundreds of studies conducted on this subject by conventional scientists, none mentions homeopathy.4,5 The journal Health Physics even devoted its entire May 1987 issue to hormesis. Despite the research on hormesis, researchers have not investigated the ultra-molecular doses used in some homeopathic medicines. But, it is only a matter of time before physicians and scientists learn that homeopathic medicine presents a rich heritage to use as a basis for exploring and exploiting the power of the infinitesimal.

The Clinical Evidence
A group of researchers at the University of Glasgow and Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital in Scotland has conducted the majority of clinical research on homeopathy, and it is consistently recognized as the highest-quality research on the subject. They conducted four studies on people suffering from various respiratory allergies (hay fever, asthma, and perennial allergic rhinitis).6 In total, they treated 253 patients and found a 28 percent improvement in visual analogue scores among those given a homeopathic medicine compared with a 3 percent improvement in patients given placebo (p=0.0007).

In the hay fever study, researchers created homeopathic doses of various flowers that are known to create pollen that initiates hay fever symptoms. In the other studies, the researchers conducted conventional allergy testing to assess to which substance each person was most allergic. The researchers then prescribed the 30C (100-30) of this allergic substance (house dust mite 30C was the most commonly prescribed homeopathic medicine).

In another study, an independent group of physicians and scientists evaluated clinical research prior to October 1995. They reviewed 186 studies, 89 of which met the predefined criteria for their meta-analysis. They found that, on average, patients given a homeopathic medicine were 2.45 times more likely to clinically benefit than patients treated with placebo.7

Three separate groups of researchers have conducted clinical trials involving Oscillococcinum 200C for influenzalike syndromes. Each trial involved a relatively large number of subjects (487, 300, and 372, respectively), and all were multicentered, placebo-controlled, and double-blinded (two of the three trials were also randomized). Each of these trials showed statistically significant beneficial results.8-10

Explaining Homeopathy
One example that helps explain how and why extremely small doses of medicinal agents work comes from present knowledge of modern submarine radio communications. Normal radio waves do not penetrate water, so submarines must use an extremely low-frequency radio wave. However, "extremely low" is inadequate to describe this action because these radio waves are so low that a single wavelength is typically as long as a submarine itself or even tens of miles long. By comparison, a standard FM wavelength is generally less than one yard long.

If one considers that the human body is 70 percent to 80 percent water, perhaps the best way to provide pharmacological information to the body and into intercellular fluids is with nanopharmacological doses?the conceptual equivalent of low-frequency doses.

Homeopathy has been practiced for more than 200 years. Although no one knows precisely why homeopathic remedies work, it is conjectured that highly potentized nanopharmacological doses can more deeply penetrate cells and the blood-brain barrier than less potentized medicines. Although there is no consensus on why these ultramolecular doses work more deeply, there is anecdotal consensus from patients that they do.

Quantum Medicine
Quantum physics does not disprove Newtonian physics, rather it extends our understanding of extremely small and extremely large systems. Likewise, homeopathy does not disprove conventional pharmacology, but it extends our understanding of extremely small doses.

The founder of homeopathic medicine, Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., updated his seminal work on the subject six times, each time refining his observations. Homeopaths continue to refine this system of nanopharmacology and admit that there is not always consensus on the best ways to select the correct remedy or the best dosage. That said, homeopathy provides a solid foundation from which clinicians and researchers can explore nanopharmacologies and effectively treat patients.

Hahnemann is buried in P?re Lachaise, the most famous cemetery in Paris. On his tombstone are the Latin words aude sapere: dare to taste and to understand. Such is the challenge that homeopathy and nanopharmacology present to us.

Sidebars:
Homeopathy Is No Cure For Anthrax



Dana Ullman, M.P.H., is author of six books, including Essential Homeopathy (New World Library, 2002), Homeopathy A?Z (Hay House, 1999), and Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century (North Atlantic, 1991). He is an advisor and teacher on alternative medicine at Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Arizona schools of medicine.

References

1. Del Giudice E, et al. Water as a free electric dipole laser. Phys Rev Letter 1988;61:1085-8.

2. Eskinazi D. Homeopathy re-revisited: is homeopathy compatible with biomedical observations? Arch Intern Med 1999 Sep 27;159:1981-7.

3. Goodman L, Gilman A. The pharmacological basis of therapeutics. Fifth Ed. New York: Macmillan; 1975.

4. Stebbins A. Hormesis: the stimulation of growth by low levels of inhibitors. Sci Total Environment 1982;22:213-34.

5. Oberbaum M, Cambar J. Hormesis: dose-dependent reverse effects of low and very low doses. In P.C. Endler and J. Schulte, ed. Ultra high dilutions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1994. p 5-19.

6. Taylor MA, et al. Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. BMJ 2000 Aug 19;321:471-6.

7. Linde K, et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997 Sep 20;350:834-43.

8. Ferley JP, et al. A controlled evaluation of a homeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza-like syndrome. Brit J Clin Pharmacol 1989 Mar;27:329-35.

9. Casanova P, Gerard R. Bilan de 3 annees d'etudes ranomisees multicentriques oscillococcinum/placebo. Oscillococcinum rassegna della letterature internationale. Milan: Laboratiores Boiron; 1992.

10. Papp R, et al. Oscillococcinum in patients with influenza-like syndromes: a placebo-controlled double-blind evaluation. Brit Homeopathic J 1998 Apr;87:69-76.
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Professor Proves Homeopathy

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

THE HOMEOPATHIC PRINCIPLE: Sensational study of University of Leipzig Compiled By Dr Anmol Arora

Karen Nieber, a professor of pharmacology, merely wanted to prove that homeopathy doesn?t work. She argued that with potencies higher than X 23 not a single molecule of the original tincture could possibly be present, mathematically speaking, and that no pharmacological effect would be possible.

In the search for an experimental setup in which any possible placebo effect can be ruled out, she had a brilliant idea: she put a rat?s intestine in a fluid culture medium and used organic threads to fix it to a sensor so that she could measure any shortening of the intestine caused by cramps. Then she added a stimulant (atropine) to the fluid culture medium to produce severe cramps in the rat?s intestine. The intestine shrank and the scales showed a strong traction.

When she then added belladonna X 90 to the culture medium, the intestine relaxed and the scales showed less traction. This proved that homeopathy is effective in the absence of any material substances - and in 2003 she won the ? 10,000 Hans Heinrich Reckeweg award.

http://www.anmolarora.com/?p=200#more-200
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Did you fall asleep ? giggle

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

If ya'll are still with me here, reading these posts...

I sincerely find them all fascinating and just wanted to share them.

Anyone who finds the information of interest and worth reading, certainly can take their time in doing so. I know it's a lot to read.
User avatar
G2G
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:09 am
Location: Planet Earth

Unread post by G2G »

Whatcha - I have to read your articles - they are fascinating so if I repeat something you've addressed - mea culpa. The hospital I first trained at had begun, so many years ago, as a homeopathic hospital. I remember the displays of the old bottles, etc. You have certainly done an enormous amount of research, Whatcha, and thank you so very much for the information! Even though we are mainstream medically-trained, my husband's family has a background in ayuervedic medicine, something he keeps in the back of his mind while treating his patients. Mainstream medicine alone simply cannot answer all. When treating my pets, my cat for example, for "excitement," I use "Rescue Remedy." Nothing else worked. Also, I use "Chinaberry" for my Schutzhund when he's experiencing digestive problems. I've found these to be effective in treating them, and we're talking about a dog and a cat here. Do they know what they've been given? No.

Anyone here ever receive "allergy" shots as a child? Have any idea what that is? What about the injectable polio vaccine? It's an "attenuated" virus, as is the tetanus/diphtheria (we refused to allow our kids to have the very crude pertussis vaccine since it was contraindicated with our family history). So, was the idea for "mainstream" immunizations a byproduct of homeopathy?

Mainstream med, at a major medical center in a city you and I both know a bit about...::wink:: is now investigating and using homeopathy in various treatments. And the circle just goes round and round....and begins again.

We think we know it all. Then oops! :shock:
I think I'm going to print out your posts so I can sit back and read it all. It is fascinating.
"I never really understood religion - it just seemed a good excuse to give" - Ten Years After circa 1972
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

G2G,

I would like to give the free advertising to the person I'm going to refer to, but I'm not going to identify him.

One of my children (years ago) had a bacterial infection that was not clearing up properly (it's a long story). I was fed up, so I took my kid to a licensed medical doctor, who later became a homeopath. For one thing, he cleared up her condition with Mercurius.

Aside from that, I was quite curious about why this traditionally trained allopath, returned to yet more schooling, and became a homeopath. He told me this story; he was at a social gathering of allopaths. A friend-colleague of his was terminally ill, because this person had exhausted medical options for treatment. Standing in a small group, talking about "Now what?", someone said to meet a woman...

...well, long story short, both of them went to meet a woman...well, she was a backwoods, organic, earthy momma type of person. She gave this ill man some concoction but he didn't care. He had nothing to lose. He was cured.

I haven't a clue what the condition was. MY impression was, "What happened to cause such a turn around in this physician?" His friend's healing did it for him. He told me he realized there was a lot he thought he knew, but didn't. So, he went back for more.

It is my strongly held opinion (not to be confused with right/wrong), that BOTH allopathic medicine and naturopathic/homeopathic medicine not only work, but treat the WHOLE person.

Okay, so you mentioned vaccines...you want me to start a thread on THAT, too ? I won't be mainstream there, either :D :D :wink:

If I were to place a bet, I would wager that nanotechnology will eventually be able to explain, along with quantum physics, the mechanism of action for homeopathy.

Let's see...EMF expands to talk about other controversial issues...LOL ! Hot Topics...

Vaccines
Circumcision
Breast vs Bottle Feeding
Family Bed vs. Nursery
Homebirth vs. Hospital Birth
Cults, Religions, Atheism
Public, Private, Homeschools

What else is there ? Politics ? Momma said don't talk about that, either, but I didn't listen. What the hay...EMF isn't non-controversial, so why stop with RSE ? ROFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's my dear David ? He's going to duct tape me. I feel it. evil grin

G2G, allergy shots...yes, a very similar principle. Vaccines are based upon a similar principle, but...oh, don't get me going on THAT, too !

I had a cup of coffee at 11:30 p.m. Now, it's 3:49 p.m., and I'm still awake. My son has a bunch of buddies over for a sleepover. They're finally asleep, so I think I need to be, also

:twisted: :wink:
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

Unread post by joe sz »

watcha
I am aware of most of the basic arguments--believe me, and I did look into this years ago and the new ones you posted are also interesting and seemingly convincing.
But this is my problem with homeopathy, whether in diluted form or in untraceable amounts in the remedies:

If I drink a glass of water, any common spring water will do, before, after and during taking H remedies, how do you or can you tell that a miniscule trace of something in the water is either dramatically kick-starting my immune system or the homeopathic remedy is? I mean, I drink water every day?

And what about trace substances in the air that is carried by the ubiquitous dust that we breath constantly? Surely there are endless combinations of substances in trace amounts that, according to Hahneman's hypothesis, should have dramatic effects on my body--the smaller the more powerful, eh? By all accounts if some H substances have a powerful effect on cerian diseases, then there must be others that can actually kill me if this hypothesis works.
Do you know of any Homeopathic substance in ether a nano-trace or subtly diluted [the most powerful] amount that can kill someone? Is there proof of any Homeopathic remedy killing anyone or any animal?

Now I realize that the claims of healing come on the heals of actually taking the doses according to prescription, but this still does not rule out my observations. Air and water are much cheaper and they work fine for me.
Joe
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

darwin

Unread post by joe sz »

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/08 ... pathy.html

Unfortunately, his trust and friendship in Dr Gully took a turn to the tragic. His daughter Annie, who he adored, became very ill with extreme vomiting. Fearing she had the same illness as himself, he put her in the care of the Dr Gully. The anguish in Darwin is plain in his letter to his wife,

Sometimes Dr. G. exclaims she will get through the struggle; then, I see, he doubts.? Oh my own it is very bitter indeed. Despite all of Gully's quackery, little Annie died. It was a turning point in Darwin's life. No longer could he believe in a benevolent god. Intellectually, he was ready to publish his life's work that would provide the underpinning of modern biology.

Dana Ullman's claim is that Darwin was cured by a homeopath and without homeopathy we would have no Origin. The truth is that homeopathy may have played a pivotal role, but only in its utter failure to save the life of Darwin's precious daughter. Darwin was torn with doubts whilst working on his theory about the effect it would have on his wife, who was devout, and on the religious authority and structures in society in general. Having his own faith ripped away was an important removal of a barrier to publication.
joe sz
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:43 am
Location: Birdsboro, PA
Contact:

review of dana ullman's book

Unread post by joe sz »

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/12 ... llman.html
here is a sample from the review:

"One part of Ullman's analysis I thought was particularly misleading. He says,

After just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully's treatments were not quackery after all.I emailed Dana to ask for a reference for this and to state how he came to this conclusion. He did have a reference, but it was quite clear that Darwin was talking specifically about the hydrotherapy treatments and made absolutely no mention of homeopathy. Darwin's opinions of the sugar pills appears to have been steadfast.

Ullman goes on to explore an area I did not; that is Darwin's research on the response of the insectivorous plant Drosera (sundew) to dilute ammonia salt solutions. Darwin was shocked at the response of the plant's tentacles to ever increasingly dilute solutions. Ullman pounces on this as proof of Darwin wanting to research homeopathic solutions. There are three things wrong with this: one, Darwin never says anything about his research being homeopathic in nature; two, homeopaths tell us that dilute solutions are not homeopathic - succussion is necessary (apparently); and thirdly, the solutions are still light by homeopathic standards - homeopaths dilute beyond the point that the original chemical will be present. Ullman makes a similar error on his own websites and elsewhere in his book when he calls homeopathy the science of nanopharmacology. Now diluting to the nano level (a billionth) is still well within the realms of standard analytical physical chemistry. Measuring dosages at the nano-mole level is now standard laboratory practice. Homeopathic dilutions make nano doses look positively gargantuan. I have no idea why Ullman wants to insists on such terminology when it is so obviously misleading."
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Joe,

Will respond more later. Like some of your points.

With regard to Annie's death, it's a tragedy that any person dies from ineffective doses of WHATEVER they are taking that's intended to help them; remedies or antibiotics (or other allopathic drugs). That's a given. I wasn't under the impression that they all had to be successful all of the time.

I don't think that the reference to Annie's death is the point, nor does it prove that homeopathic remedies are quackery or solely placebo. It might point to some fanaticism, however. I will give you that. That's part of knowing the right way to go, given the medical condition, or symptom profile. I know people in my life right now (friends) who flat out refuse certain treatments, and/or who eat only raw foods...and to me, that just seems extreme and unnecessary. I would expect that there are allopathic and naturopathic/homeopathic extremists, also. That doesn't mean that EITHER system does not work much of the time, however. Therein lies the necessity of proper diagnosis and treatment planning, which can be problematic since MISdiagnoses occurs in either field.

I'll reference only this one quote to make a point that anyone can research for themselves and find tons of information. Either medical error on the part of the practitioner administering it, causes death, and as anyone can research, the actual drugs kill many people each year, also.

JAMA reports over 106,000 drug reaction deaths, and over 2 MILLION patients who suffer from drug side effects. So, that playing field is leveled. It's not the correct debate point, imo. Also, for clarity, I am not saying that homeopathy is THE answer. Clearly, it will not work if the incorrect remedy is given. That's why a homeopath will talk to a patient for up to several hours during a visit, to correctly match the symptom profile with the correct remedy.

"According to the groundbreaking 2003 medical report Death by Medicine, by Drs. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, 783,936 people in the United States die every year from conventional medicine mistakes. That's the equivalent of six jumbo jet crashes a day for an entire year. "
http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html

Sorry this is a bit fragmented, and is jumping from here to there...I'm in a rush to get off, and go teach my (waiting for me) birthday girl how to sew her first nightgown out of an adorable flannel with froggies on it. She's going to make a matching one for her American Girl doll, too, for a 4-H fair entry. Last year, she won several blue ribbons for her sewing and quilting. Proud momma. If only she'd make her bed and clean her room without being nagged to death. Gotta go.

:wink:
User avatar
G2G
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:09 am
Location: Planet Earth

Unread post by G2G »

Whatcha, we can add to that the cleverly-designed cosmetic lines now using fruits, veggies, the whole bit. I do know one thing. Turmeric mixed with a bit of water will definitely withdraw a splinter. Done deal. Also, yogurt and turmeric mixed together work as an excellent exfoliant. It's used as part of a ceremony prior to Hindu weddings. The groom is plastered, in fun, from his relatives with a mixture of yogurt and turmeric, but there is a reason for this. They are 'cleanising' the skin, cleansing the individual, prior to marriage. It can get a bit frenzied and the groom winds up with this pasty mixture all over himself. Then it's off to the shower and the skin has had the impurities removed from the pores. Hm. Consider trying it on one's face. So what if I look a little jaundiced :!: :lol:

I'm just waiting for the next wave of skin-care. Just look in your pantry - not, don't look at that cheese grater either. :lol: It's not that difficult.
:lol:

Immunizations? Oh man. I'm mainstream trained, again, but we refused a good bit. One family friend pediatrician actually attempted to inject our child with the DPT instead of the DT in our presence. Had I not been watching him and going over, picking up the bottle to see what he'd withdrawn, he would have injected our child with the crude DPT. I questioned him and he became indignant and told me to fill the syringe myself. Needless to say, we found another pediatrician, who also concluded along with what we already knew, the pertussis vaccine is contraindicated within our family. My nephew had a reaction, and we used the same pediatrician. She would not allow another round of the DPT for my nephew or any for my niece once she was born, as a result. I located a national group back then, "Dissatisfied Parents Together," who were activists on this issue. I really shouldn't get started here either.

Back to Joe, and I always thank you, Joe, for your input and expertise. Without going into too much detail, I am what is known as "the canary in the coal mine." Years back, I began experience symptoms of cholinesterase inhibition (muscular fasciculations, slurred speech, severe abdominal cramping, diaphragmatic pain, salivation, etc.) after the friendly neighborhood lawn-care company performed its routine duties. Fast forward. I carry atropine with me, since as med pros we were able to provide medical evidence that established my baseline levels, and then have testing done after I was exposed. The company, of course, claimed their product was safe and the amounts of the pesticides they used were so minute, no one could possibly be harmed. NOT. After repeated exposures to these minute amounts, I became "sensitized," and have reactions to very small amounts of cholinesterase-inhibitors (used to kill insects and also known as "nerve gas" aka neurotoxins). I was on many state-appointed committees and task forces, and the clincher is that the very agency which regulated the use of these substances within my state were VERY much aware of the problem and in fact, I learned in the meetings they had their own employees who couldn't be within a mile of the substances, due to drift, etc.

So who the heck knows what's in the air. Hang around me and I know when there are neurotoxins, and I can't even walk into a lawn and garden shop, let alone go near the aisles where these products are sold in larger stores. I'm a proven (hated those nerve conduction studies) example and have testified before the US congress on this issue, of someone who is extremely sensitive to very small amounts of these substances in the air (hence the atropine syringe in my bag).

::shrug:: I'm not the only one. There's now a registry in many states which require a doctor's signature. The registry mandates people within a certain radius who are on the registry must be notified when such an application is made within a designated area of their home, business, school, etc. Not all states have the legislation, and it varies among those which do. It is recognized as fact. Truth is, we don't have a clue what we're breathing, or what is casusing that annonying headache sometimes during the middle of June - when so many think everything growing in their yards must be perfect. I prefer a version more akin to an oriental rug on our property. It's much more interesting. :) :) :)
"I never really understood religion - it just seemed a good excuse to give" - Ten Years After circa 1972
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

If I drink a glass of water, any common spring water will do, before, after and during taking H remedies, how do you or can you tell that a miniscule trace of something in the water is either dramatically kick-starting my immune system or the homeopathic remedy is? I mean, I drink water every day?

Well, three things.

1) Perhaps there is some trace something in the water you drink every day that has an effect on your health, positively or negatively. Then, the problem would be that the substance would have to coincidentally be matched to what cured or killed you.

Homeopathics do not kill people BY taking them. Taking any remedy/med that is the wrong one, can cause death by not having the correct remedy; but that?s not to be confused with the wrong remedy/med ITSELF causing death.

2) Now, in city water, you get additives such as flouride (linked to Type II diabetes, amongst other unwanted health conditions), and chlorine (an allergen for some people like myself, and also linked to unwanted health conditions).

3) The difference is that with a H remedy, there is a known intent and purpose behind the design of what you?re taking. A person takes the remedy that will match the symptom picture they are having that they want to eliminate. Regular drinking water would be a variable for just about anyone who took a H remedy, so either the H is going to work, or it is not. At best, the body?s water volume would enhance the H; at worst, it would have a negating effect. If the latter were the case, it would prove itself quickly because the H wouldn?t ever work.

The Great Search for the mechanism of action is ongoing. If you check the PDR, you will see (and you probably already know this, that MANY allopathic drugs don?t come full with an explanation of their mechanism of action, either. Why do stimulants work for ADHD ? There you go. Why do many psyche meds work ? The mechanism of action is largely unknown. Still, we take the meds if the believe we need them, or we are given them (children, elderly, etc).

My point is, as I?ve posted before on cult-related topics, in my opinion, we should be cautiously optimistic as these things are being researched. We don?t lose our savings, time with our families, get brainwashed, etc, by remaining undecided, but cautiously optimistic about the efficacy of homeopathy. There is no harm in ongoing research, whether it is to discover the mechanism of action for allopathic or homeopathic methods. We have much to learn. I don?t choose to make either ?wrong?, though neither are without flaws, either. The amount of money, relative to allopathic medicine, that is allotted to homeopathic research is appalling. We should (general ?we?), be after the truth; the entire story of what works, why, when and take that information to expand, wherever it comes from. If homeopathy is bogus trash, let it be proven. If statins are unsafe (benefit/risk ratio), let it be proven?you see my point. I want to know the full story and I want the truth, not to be ?right? or ?wrong?. We all benefit when we?re on the truthful track for information.

One study done in 2004 researched (for years), NMR spectra, in a search to find specific peaks from measuring H remedies, that would explain the ?active? portion of the remedy. Bottom line of the extremely long abstract, is that it was not found that NMR spectra showed anything of the sort. However, they are also quick to note that the equipment may not be sensitive enough to measure the range needed to see the results they were looking for. They did find consistent presence of some small, common organic molecules, at levels too low to be problematic. The researchers also said,

?Finally, there are also several non-cluster-based hypotheses that have been proposed to explain homeopathy. These include isotopic patterning, coherence, and chaos-based explanations [41]. These explanations do not require any long-lived H-bonds and do not predict that "unexpected" discrete peaks would be seen in the NMR spectra of remedies.?
To view the LONG, full abstract: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=534805


And what about trace substances in the air that is carried by the ubiquitous dust that we breath constantly? Surely there are endless combinations of substances in trace amounts that, according to Hahneman's hypothesis, should have dramatic effects on my body--the smaller the more powerful, eh?

Point well taken. However, we would have to have the exact remedy needed to match a specific symptom picture, randomly floating about in the air or water we intake. If that did happen, we wouldn?t know the difference, because we?d be ?healthy? before we knew we were sick, anyway. How likely is that to happen (having the right stuff when ya need it), in the correct remedy form, in the correct location where we reside, when we need it ? Not likely.

With regard to smaller being more powerful and what is in the air, here is the explanation for why it?s apples and oranges. Free floating atmospheric particles would not be succussed. The theory goes, that the succussion is what affects the bond length and ?activates? the remedy. A study that was done on this?the control group had no change, but the succussed remedies did show change.

Now, as for air and water, we have pollution and we have toxins like flouride and chlorine added to city water. They do have a negative impact on the human body, and have been linked to conditions such as Type II diabetes. I won?t digress there, unless someone wants to ?go there?.


By all accounts if some H substances have a powerful effect on cerian diseases, then there must be others that can actually kill me if this hypothesis works.
Do you know of any Homeopathic substance in ether a nano-trace or subtly diluted [the most powerful] amount that can kill someone? Is there proof of any Homeopathic remedy killing anyone or any animal?


As best I know, nobody has died from a homeopathic remedy. Why would a H be able to kill you, when it wouldn?t be taken to do that ? It would only be taken to intentionally affect specific symptoms. What H would create the symptoms of ?death?, to be cured ? Death isn?t an illness, it?s a state. H works on symptoms.
Now I realize that the claims of healing come on the heals of actually taking the doses according to prescription, but this still does not rule out my observations. Air and water are much cheaper and they work fine for me.
Joe

Well, that?s about choice, not about homeopathy?s validity. Choice: as it should be. If someone has a documented medical condition, gets H care and remedies and they are restored to health,

I?m going to post another article that addresses the increased strength of the more diluted remedies, due to the bond length and increased strength it takes in order to hold those hydrogen bonds together. Those bond lengths are also within the range of human cell bond lengths, too. The bond lengths can/do change according to the energy they have.
(Abruptly ended here)
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

http://www.tldp.com/issue/11_00/208_11_ ... y_Work.htm

Natural Pharmacy
How Does Homeopathy Work?
by Allen M. Kratz, PharmD
This is a question I am often asked, particularly by fellow pharmacists, physicians and health care professionals. The direct answer is?we don't know. That said, and before you stop reading, let me ask you a question. How many drugs do you recommend or prescribe with an unknown mechanism of action? Check your PDR or favorite pharmacology textbook and you may be very surprised.
There are several theories of how homeopathic drugs work. Let me present what I perceive to be the most plausible of possible explanations.
Hormesis
Edward J. Calabrese, PhD at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst has written extensively on this subject in very conventional journals. The hormesis hypothesis states that most, if not all, chemical and physical agents, such as radiation, have the capacity to stimulate biological effects at doses below the toxicity threshold, while causing toxicity at doses above the threshold.1 This concept is validated by the Arndt-Schulz Law of pharmacology which essentially says the same thing and is often used to explain the beneficial effects of microdoses of potentially toxic substances that are often used in homeopathy.
Can water remember?
A second theory is the systemic memory mechanism of water, which simply states that water can remember. It can be imprinted with the memory of a substance.2 This may explain the effects of homeopathic drugs well beyond Avogadro's number (12C or 24X). This concept is also being researched with modern analytical procedures. There is much that we still do not know about something so apparently simple as water. Stay tuned.
Other possible mechanisms of action
The American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists (AAHP) in their pharmacy c.e.u. program, an Introduction to Modern Concepts of Homeopathic Pharmacy3 presents the following "possible mechanisms of action" of homeopathic drugs:
The human body is wonderfully adaptive and is constantly maintaining its equilibrium and harmony. This process of adjustment is continuous. For example, on a hot day we sweat and in the cold we shiver. These simple examples are good illustrations of the constant adjustments being made due to the environment or specific stimuli. The endocrine and nervous systems are involved in mediating these adjustments, though all of the body's systems are involved in a complex process designed to maintain homeostatic equilibrium.
When the stimuli is weak, the body's response is moderate; the resulting changes are minimal or pass without our notice at all. When the stimuli is great, then the body's response must be equally strong or the body will be overwhelmed and the changes which occur to our body can be equally dramatic.
These adjustments are our "symptoms." We may not think of perspiration as a symptom, but it is the body's way of cooling itself. When we fall and bruise ourselves, the area becomes tender and discolored. These symptoms, while mild, are the healing processes for the damage done to the injured tissue. Inflammation occurs, damaged cells collect, the lymphatic system and lymphocytes mobilize to phagocytize dead cells and debris and remove it from the area. In the case of a viral infection, the same process of inflammation occurs, the immune system is activated, antibodies are formed and systems develop. The symptoms may include fever, runny nose, sneezing, cough, headache, body aches. All of these symptoms represent the body's efforts to overcome and eliminate the viral infection.
Symptoms are therefore a positive phenomenon. They are the body's way of telling us that it is coping with stimuli or stress being applied to it. Homeopathy utilizes these symptoms to assist the body in its efforts to regain its balance and state of health through the application of the "law of similars."
Many of the concentrations used in homeopathic drugs may at first glance seem to be so dilute as to have no possible physiological effect. But it is important to put these concentrations in perspective by comparing them with the normal concentrations at work in our bodies. Our body typically deals with ion concentrations in lymphatic fluid and serum of 10-3 g/ml. Hormone concentrations range from 10-6 to 10-18 g/ml depending upon the hormone and the tissue where it is being measured. From this it is apparent that most of the lower homeopathic potencies correspond with the natural physiological concentrations found in the body. Higher homeopathic potencies, which correspond to extremely low concentrations, utilize mechanisms for their actions that are not understood. While controversy surrounds the effectiveness of high dilutions, there is research which reports that these very highly diluted solutions do have physiological effects on a variety of natural systems.
In a series of experiments continued over 35 years, Kolisko4 reported that wheat seed growth was promoted by low dilutions of various metallic salts, inhibited by somewhat higher dilutions, and stimulated again at dilutions higher than Avogadro's number. Another experiment5 tested the effect on guinea pigs of daily doses of sodium chloride prepared in 30X, 200X, 400X, 600X, 800X, 1000X, 1200X and 1400X dilutions (all well past Avogadro's number). The trial, lasting six months, was repeated two years in succession. Controls received distilled water. Test animals lost weight and appetite, had dull shaggy coats, and dull watery eyes, were less active than controls, gave birth to young weighing less than the controls and had a higher mortality and lower reproduction rates than the controls.
Other experiments, using techniques from physics, have also reported that homeopathically dilute substances display measurable differences that may seem paradoxical due to the small concentrations present. Nuclear magnetic resonance experiments6 conducted in 1963 measured three solutions: a) 87% ethanol in water, b) sulphur 12X (prepared with succussion at each step, and c) an equivalent dilution of sulphur 12X prepared without succussion. The authors were able to distinguish the properly prepared sulphur 12X from the others, and concluded "some form of energy is imparted by succussion to a homeopathic drug, resulting in a slight change of the alcohol in these dilutions. There is a structural change in the solvent as the potency is made from the tincture to a higher dilution."
A more recent experiment7 measured the changes in hydroalcoholic solutions prepared with serial dilution and succussion. Dilutions of sulphur from 5X to 30X were prepared using succussion, vial rotation and neither succussion nor rotation. Measurable and characteristic changes in the spectra were found at each stage of dilution with succussion. These characteristics were absent in analogous solutions prepared without succussion or solute.
A number of theories have been attached to homeopathy in an attempt to explain how these dilute solutions work. The effects of homeopathy can be clinically evident and the physiological changes that homeopathic remedies create in the body have been measured. However, the exact mechanisms for how homeopathy interacts with the body's systems remain unknown.
One possibility is that homeopathic dilutions assist the body to reactivate enzyme and endocrine systems by interacting with regulatory and biofeedback mechanisms. Homeopathic concentrations are in the proper range for interacting with the receptor sites at the level of cellular membranes, enzymes and neural synapses.
Researchers have stated that the length of the bond between molecules increases in length with repetitive succussion sites. Bond length is a measure of bond strength since it takes more energy to hold the molecules together at greater distances. The kinetic energy of the succussion process becomes transformed into potential energy held within the molecules in the form of molecular bonding.
Current thought is that low dilutions (1X-12X) work on organs and tissue and are used in acute conditions or for drainage. Drainage remedies facilitate or enhance the function of the detoxifying organs, such as liver, kidneys or lymphatic systems. They are claimed to have a stimulatory effect on the system. The intermediate dilutions (12X-30X) are thought to act in a regulatory fashion, with a slight stimulation of intermediary metabolism in order to achieve homeostasis. Potencies above 30X are used for emotional and mental symptoms or for the constitutional nature of the individual.
Some individuals feel that homeopathic medicines work in a manner similar to vaccines. Others claim that their action is due to the specific resonance that each drug possesses. There is a specific and consistent energy pattern under electromagnetic resonance imaging. Technology allows resonant frequency to be measured, so this may be part of the answer. Still others claim an action similar to the phytotherapeutic effect for low dilutions of herbs. All of these ideas may be true. However, if the symptoms of the body are viewed as total disregulation, and an attempt is made to find the appropriate homeopathic drug(s) based on similarity with symptoms, it could be theorized that homeopathics are able to affect receptors in a way to reestablish normal function. The bottom line is that the exact mechanism of action in homeopathy has not yet been determined.
References
1. Developing insights on the nature of the dose-response relationship in the low dose zone: Hormesis as a biological hypothesis, Biomedical Therapy. 1998; 3: pp. 235-240.
2. The plausibility of homeopathy: The systemic memory mechanism, Integrative Medicine. 1998; 1: pp. 53-59.
3. Possible mechanisms of action for homeopathic medicines, Introduction to Modern Concepts of Homeopathic Pharmacy. 1999; pp.23-24.
4. Physiological and physical results of the effects of diluted entities, 1923-1959. Abstracted as: A Physiological Proof of the Activity of Smallest Entities, Spring Valley, Mercury 11, Journal of the Anthroposophical Therapy and Hygiene Association. 1991.
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

I can't speak for Ullman, but it's common for the word "nanotechnology" to be used as an umbrella term for the very small. Actually, nanos (whatever "it" is) is measured on a specific nanoscale and to qualify, "it" must be at least .1 to 1 nm, which is 10 to the neg7 through 10 to the neg10th m. More precisely 10 to the neg 9th through 10th m.

That is also in the gamma and ultraviolet frequency range. If homeopathy becomes "proven" en masse at some point, and overcomes the particular political adversities that it suffers in the U.S.A., despite that not being the case in many other countries, we may learn that at those nano levels, H work at an energetic level, after all.

That we do not have all of the answers at this time, still doesn't mean that it's not effective.

It just means we're not as smart as we might like to think we are. Keeping our humility and ignorance in position as we continue to research, is a good thing.

Remember the DRUG companies...many of their highly touted medicines do NOT come complete with explanations for their mechanism of actions, either. That, with HUGE sums of money pumped into the system, which is NOT the case with homeopathy.

In any case, contacting Ullman and calling him out on that "nano" issue, is worth an attempt.
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

This is interesting...here's an opposing viewpoint to the article I cited earlier.


The Structure of Liquid Water; Novel Insights from Materials Research; Potential Relevance for Homeopathy

- Rustum Roy, W.A. Tiller, Iris Bell, M.R. Hoover.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:1Swz ... cd=3&gl=uk



http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf





'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated

Homeopathy should not be labelled a fraud. Those who study water know the critics are wrong, says Rustum Roy

Wednesday December 19, 2007
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 46,00.html

Ben Goldacre excoriates the practice of homeopathy (A kind of magic?, November 16). For the record, I have never studied or held a position for, or against, the clinical effectiveness of homeopathy. However, I am a materials chemist who has written one of the most cited papers in materials science, on aqueous solutions.

Having recently studied the extraordinary biological properties of ultradilute aquasols (water with one part per million of solid particles) and written a long review on the structure of water, I accidentally also discovered a new social disease, "homeophobia" - that is, a phobic reaction (mainly by scientists) to the word "homeopathy", the virulence of which is exemplified by Goldacre.

A major bugaboo for "homeophobes" is the concept that a solution where the solute is extremely diluted (beyond Avogadro's number) absolutely cannot, they believe, be any different from the original solvent. Hence homeopathy must be a fraud. This has been the anti-homeopathy crowd's trump card for more than 100 years.

But let us turn to scientists who specialise in water's properties. Prof Martin Chaplin of London's South Bank University, a leading expert on the (molecular) structure of water, says: "Too often the final argument used against the memory of water concept is simply 'I don't believe it' ... Such unscientific rhetoric is heard from the otherwise sensible scientists, with a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of the full body of evidence, and reflects badly on them."

As it happens, there is agreement among all those who have studied liquid water that it is, in fact, the critics, who are totally wrong. Proof? Diamond is the planet's hardest material; graphite one of the softest. They are absolutely identical in composition, and they can be interconverted in a millisecond with zero change of composition.

Prof Eugene Stanley of Boston University, the leading expert on the physics of water, has catalogued 64 highly anomalous property changes in pure water. According to the first law of materials science, that means that there must be the same large number of different structures in liquid water - what he called "polymorphism" of water. This year Prof Chaplin, in the journal Homeopathy, discussed in detail how water could retain a "memory".

But the main thrust of Goldacre's argument is the role of the "placebo effect". Yes, this works. And, yes, it is without doubt present in every homeopathic intervention; but it is far more powerfully present in orthodox medical pills because they are advertised so widely in billion-dollar campaigns.

Goldacre is accurate in pointing out the high rates of positive v negative outcomes in many of the homeopathy studies. But there are enormous discrepancies in any set of randomised controlled trials on the same orthodox pills.

Does Goldacre seriously suggest that a homeopathy paper with a positive outcome would be treated fairly in any mainstream journal?

? Rustum Roy is Evan Pugh professor of the solid state, and research professor of materials at Arizona State University rroy@psu.edu

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 46,00.html



High sensitivity 1H-NMR spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies made in water

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/4/15
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Last Post....LOL...

This is one of my favorite articles, from the National Institute of Homeopathy in VA


http://homeopathyusa.org/homeopathy-now.html
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Just want to share a couple of tidbits that I got...a new article...

Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
Attitudes to nanotechnology may be determined by religious and cultural beliefs, suggest researchers writing in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

They say religious people tend to view nanotechnology in a negative light.

The researchers compared attitudes in Europe and the US and looked at religious and cultural backgrounds.

They say the findings have implications for scientists and politicians making policy decisions to regulate the use of nanotechnology.

'Religosity'

The researchers compared attitudes to nanotechnology in 12 European countries and the US.

They then rated each country on a scale of what they called "religosity" - a measure of how religious each country was.

They found that countries where religious belief was strong, such as Ireland and Italy, tended to be the least accepting of nanotechnology, whereas those where religion was less significant such as Belgium or the Netherlands were more accepting of the technology.

Professor Dietram Scheufele from the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin, who led the research, said religious belief exerted a strong influence on how people viewed nanotechnology.

"Religion provides a perceptual filter, highly religious people look at information differently, it follows from the way religion provides guidance in people's everyday lives," he said.

The US was found to be the most religious country in the survey, and also the least accepting of nanotechnology.

Cultural beliefs

The researchers say it is understandable that there would be a conflict between religious belief and nanotechnology, especially when looking at what they call "nano-bio-info-cogno" (NBIC) technologies, the potential to create life at a nano scale without divine intervention.

"It's not that they're concerned about not understanding the science, more that talking openly about constructing life raises a whole host of moral issues," said Professor Scheufele.

A similar study in the US looked at attitudes to nanotechnology and wider cultural and political beliefs.

People were asked about their views on a range of subjects, including risk from the internet, genetically modified food, nuclear power and mad cow disease.

Broadly, if they thought these were risky, they thought nanotechnology was too.

The researchers say their finding support the idea that underlying cultural beliefs have a stronger influence on opinions formed about nanotechnology than science based information about its potential and pitfalls.

Professor Scheufele says the findings have implications for policymakers trying to regulate nanotechnology.

"How do we regulate something where we have different moral ideas from the public?

"We need to get to grips with the idea that the exact same piece of information can have a different meaning to different people, its the age-old dilemma for science about what could be done versus what should be done."


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/s ... 767192.stm

Published: 2008/12/08 10:50:48 GMT

? BBC MMVIII
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?news

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Whatcha's note: Nanotechnology is frequently used as an umbrella term for all things very small, though a nanometer is only in a narrow range of measurement, smaller than "small". It's confusing and not uncommon that the term is precisely, misrepresented. In any case, an interesting article that is not about homeopathy at all...or at least, not yet. Time will tell.



Nanotechnology "Culture War" Possible, Says Yale Study
08 Dec 2008

Rather than infer that nanotechnology is safe, members of the public who learn about this novel science tend to become sharply polarized along cultural lines, according to a study conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School in collaboration with the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. The report is published online in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

These findings have important implications for garnering support of the new technology, say the researchers.

The experiment involved a diverse sample of 1,500 Americans, the vast majority of whom were unfamiliar with nanotechnology, a relatively new science that involves the manipulation of particles the size of atoms and that has numerous commercial applications. When shown balanced information about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, study participants became highly divided on its safety compared to a group not shown such information.

The determining factor in how people responded was their cultural values, according to Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor at Yale Law School and lead author of the study. "People who had more individualistic, pro-commerce values, tended to infer that nanotechnology is safe," said Kahan, "while people who are more worried about economic inequality read the same information as implying that nanotechnology is likely to be dangerous."

According to Kahan, this pattern is consistent with studies examining how people's cultural values influence their perceptions of environmental and technological risks generally. "In sum, when they learned about a new technology, people formed reactions to it that matched their views of risks like climate change and nuclear waste disposal," he said.

The study also found that people who have pro-commerce cultural values are more likely to know about nanotechnology than others. "Not surprisingly, people who like technology and believe it isn't bad for the environment tend to learn about new technologies before other people do," said Kahan. "While various opinion polls suggest that familiarity with nanotechnology leads people to believe it is safe, they have been confusing cause with effect."

According to Kahan and other experts, the findings of the experiment highlight the need for public education strategies that consider citizens' predispositions. "There is still plenty of time to develop risk-communication strategies that make it possible for persons of diverse values to understand the best evidence scientists develop on nanotechnology's risks," added Kahan. "The only mistake would be to assume that such strategies aren't necessary."

"The message matters," said David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. "How information about nanotechnology is presented to the vast majority of the public who still know little about it can either make or break this technology. Scientists, the government, and industry generally take a simplistic, 'just the facts' approach to communicating with the public about a new technology. But, this research shows that diverse audiences and groups react to the same information very differently."

The study was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School, and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. For a copy of the study findings, visit www.nanotechproject.org/yale.

The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School is an interdisciplinary team of scholars from Yale University, the University of Washington, George Washington University, the University of Colorado, and Decision Research. The project studies how people's values affect their views on various societal risks, including climate change, gun ownership, and nanotechnology, among others. For more information, visit www.culturalcognition.net.

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies is an initiative launched by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts in 2005. It is dedicated to helping business, government and the public anticipate and manage possible health and environmental implications of nanotechnology. For more information about the project, log on to www.nanotechproject.org.

About nanotechnology: Nanotechnology is the ability to measure, see, manipulate and manufacture things usually on a scale between 1 and 100 nanometers. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter; a human hair is roughly 100,000 nanometers wide. In 2007, the global market for goods incorporating nanotechnology totaled $147 billion. Lux Research projects that figure will grow to $3.1 trillion by 2015.

Citation:
Nature Nanotechnology (Advance Online Publication December 7, 2008)
doi: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.341

Cultural Cognition Project

Source
Dan Kahan
Yale Law School
www.law.yale.edu
Wakeup-Call
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Washington

Unread post by Wakeup-Call »

Just a question...

As interesting as this is, shouldn't this thread be in the Off Topic section?
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

good point.

although...i think the "off topic" section is sort of a "room" where posts go to that are just sitting idly. not to be started/continued. maybe that's why it got moved here ?

oh...thinking to self...this "started" as a comment back to joe's book review. asking myself how did that topic even come up ?! yes, a comment was made dovetailing homeopathy/new agers.

we need a folder for OFF TOPIC stuff where we can post it ! cults are boring, we need something else to chat about (just joking!!!)
User avatar
G2G
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:09 am
Location: Planet Earth

Unread post by G2G »

But homeopathy is "old age." I'm sure it's all wrinkled and brittle unless it's been doing it's neighborhood walk! :roll:
"I never really understood religion - it just seemed a good excuse to give" - Ten Years After circa 1972
User avatar
EMFWebmaster
Site Admin
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:28 am
Contact:

Unread post by EMFWebmaster »

Just a question...
As interesting as this is, shouldn't this thread be in the Off Topic section?
Hello Wakeup-Call,
The moderators considered this question.
It?s a fine line at times just where to place an off topic post with all the dovetailing and rail jumping that naturally occurs on EMF.
We felt the homeopathy debate would be of interest to health care professionals,
thus its move to the ?For Professionals: Teachers, Professors, Healthcare Workers? page.
If a poster would like their post moved to a different thread,we are more than happy to oblige.
Thank you for your question.
The Moderators. 8)
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

New Homeopathy Info

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

NEW INFO ON HOMEOPATHY

I know that some of the readers on EMF are interested in the subject of alternative medicine in general, and homeopathy more specifically. My posts about that topic were birthed from another post that used it as an example of quackery, similar to cults. I respectfully disagree. So do many of the major medical hospitals in America. They seem to believe as I do; there is room for allopathic and naturopathic ?medicine?. I certainly hope the merging of the worlds continues, as well as ongoing studies into the efficacy of BOTH modalities; since for different REASONS, they have both been lacking what they could have had for honest, straightforward clinical trial reporting, or sufficient testing, per se. I say, let?s here it for ?complementary? !
Since that Pandora?s Box was already opened, I will continue with the topic, happily. It is my position (correctly or incorrectly) that there is enough data to support various forms of CAM (Complimentary and Alternative Medicine), that it is folly to discard it as quackery. Yet, our viewpoints are, of course, personal choice; which I respect even if I strongly disagree ;-)

?Alternative Medicine is Going Mainstream
http://www.newsmax.com/health/alternati ... 70350.html
Monday, January 12, 2009 10:44 AM
By: Sylvia Booth Hubbard


Alternative medicine is going mainstream, and top-notch hospitals are embracing various forms of alternative and complementary medicine. According to the American Hospital Association, more than one-third of U.S. hospitals offer at least one type of complementary medicine, which includes acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic, nutrition, massage therapy and herbal medicine. For example, the prestigious Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center offers acupuncture for relief of nausea from surgery or chemotherapy. The growing field is even referred to by a new name�CAM�an acronym for complementary alternative medicine.
Many of the CAM therapies were considered little better than voodoo by doctors until recently when several complementary and alternative therapies were scientifically found to be medically effective and cost effective as well.
In an economy where overall health costs continue to rise even though millions of people are losing their jobs and health insurance, CAM, with its emphasis on leading healthier lives, could help make Americans healthier and reduce the necessity for expensive, traditional medical treatment.
The risks of developing health conditions that drain American pocketbooks, such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and breast cancer, can be dramatically lowered by following a healthy diet and lifestyle changes, such as exercising and quitting smoking.
Recent studies have found that aspects of CAM such as plant-based diets and meditation may halt, and perhaps even reverse, such debilitating ailments as diabetes, heart disease, obesity and other chronic conditions. Genes associated with deadly diseases were �turned off� with alternative therapies while protective genes were �turned on��all within a matter of months.
Currently, only a few forms of CAM are covered by health insurance. Proponents are urging the new administration to include alternative forms of medicine in new health plans and proposals.

Go to weblink above for more info.
? 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.?



Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Acupuncture, homeopathy, naturopathy, and other "complementary" therapies are no longer dismissed as quackish pursuits of New Age pioneers. And it's the rare pharmacy that doesn't stock a healthy inventory of vitamin and herbal supplements.
http://www.utne.com/1998-09-01/the-code ... iracy.aspx

And the ?battle? for CONTROL, however, still goes on?

?These natural alternatives represent billions of dollars in lost profits each year for the pharmaceutical industry. And since there appears to be no way for drug companies to corner the market on nonpatentable agents, a new strategy is emerging: Take control away from the consumer.
Spearheading this effort is a little-known international agency called the Codex Alimentarius Commission?.?
Full article is here: http://www.utne.com/1998-09-01/the-code ... iracy.aspx
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Homeopathic Nasal Spray Effective for Allergies

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Study Finds Homeopathic Nasal Spray Effective for Allergies


(NaturalNews) Researchers from Strategic BioSciences and the Institute for Asthma and Allergy in Wheaton, Maryland, have found that homeopathic nasal sprays using capsicum, an active component derived from the fruit of the cayenne pepper plant, are effective in relieving symptoms of allergic rhinitis. This could help some 50 million Americans who suffer from nasal allergies breathe a sigh of relief -- the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) estimates that seasonal allergies cause over 8.2 million days of restricted activity, 3.8 million lost school and work days and more than 16 million doctor visits each year.

The investigators conducted a double-blind, cross-over study that included 24 patients who tested a specific capsaicin-based homeopathic formula (marketed as MucoAd and Sinol) and another specific homeopathic formula (Sinol-M) that was identical except that it also contained additional molecules of hypromellose, a plant-derived substance that prolongs contact of the spray with the nasal surface.

All the research subjects, who suffered from persistent symptoms such as a runny, itchy and stuffy nose and sneezing several times a day, recorded their symptoms daily for a month. Their symptoms significantly improved with both homeopathic formulae. However, the version with hypromellose had the best results and required less frequent dosing. In a media statement, the scientists noted the detailed results of this study will be published in the future in a peer reviewed journal.

"These findings have important implications for the millions of people in the US who suffer from nasal allergies. Unlike the prescription nasal steroid sprays, this is an all-natural product that has now been demonstrated to provide clinical benefit and is available without a prescription," chief investigator Martha White, MD, said in a statement for the press.

While homeopathy remains rarely used or studied by the mainstream medical community, some academics are at least considering that this form of non-toxic therapy might have merit. "I don't know if it works," Kelly Karpa, associate professor of pharmacology in the Penn State College of Medicine, stated in an article on the Penn State College web site. "The whole basis of homeopathy is counterintuitive to everything pharmacologists have learned about drug actions. I won't say that I buy into it 100 percent, but I won't say that I think it's quackery either. Having never used it myself, I try to keep an open mind. Some patients are convinced that it has helped them..."

For more information:
"First-Ever Clinical Study of New Homeopathic Capsaicin-Based Nasal Spray Relieves Symptoms of Allergic Rhinitis": http://www.newswise.com/articles/vi...
"Does Homeopathy Work?" http://live.psu.edu/story/37417
"Two New Studies Find Anti-Homeopathy Review Wrong": http://www.naturalnews.com/024852.html
Post Reply

Return to “For Professionals: Teachers, Professors, Healthcare Workers”