Evidence in support of gene regulatory hypothesis: Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy effect as more than placebo

Abstract

Background: Use of ultra-high diluted remedies in homeopathy and their claimed efficacy in curing diseases has been challenged time and again by non-believers despite many evidence-based positive results published in favor of their efficacy in curing/ameliorating disease symptoms. Aims: To test the ability of ultra-high diluted homeopathic remedies beyond Avogadro's limit, if any, in manifesting gene modulating effects in controlled in vitro experimental model. Methods: Since cancer cells manifest aberrant epigenetic gene expressions, we conducted global microarray gene expression profiling of HeLa cells (an established epigenetic model of HPV18 positive cell line) treated with two different potentized homeopathic remedies, namely, Condurango 30c and Hydrastis canadensis 30C (used in the treatment of cancer), as compared to that of placebo (succussed alcohol 30c). Results: Data revealed distinctly different expression patterns of over 100 genes as a consequence of treatment with both homeopathc remedies compared to placebo. Conclusion: Results indicate that action of the potentized drugs was "more than placebo" and these ultra-highly diluted drugs acted primarily through modulation of gene expression.


Evidence in support of gene regulatory hypothesis: Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy effect as more than placebo (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279711806_Evidence_in_support_of_gene_regulatory_hypothesis_Gene_expression_profiling_manifests_homeopathy_effect_as_more_than_placebo [accessed Nov 15 2017].

Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy

effect as more than placebo

Santu Kumar Saha

1

, Sourav Roy

2

and Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh

1

1

Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Univ. of Kalyani, West Bengal, India.

2

Depart. Entomology and Inst. Integrative Genome Biology, Univ. of California, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: Use of ultra-high diluted remedies in homeopathy and their claimed efficacy in

curing diseases has been challenged time and again by non-believers despite many evidence-

based positive results published in favor of their efficacy in curing/ameliorating disease

symptoms. Aims: To test the ability of ultra-high diluted homeopathic remedies beyond

Avogadro?s limit, if any, in manifesting gene modulating effects in controlled in vitro

experimental model. Methods: Since cancer cells manifest aberrant epigenetic gene expressions,

we conducted global microarray gene expression profiling of HeLa cells (an established epigenetic

model of HPV18 positive cell line) treated with two different potentized homeopathic remedies,

namely, Condurango 30c and Hydrastis canadensis 30C (used in the treatment of cancer), as

compared to that of placebo (succussed alcohol 30c). Results: Data revealed distinctly different

expression patterns of over 100 genes as a consequence of treatment with both homeopathc

remedies compared to placebo. Conclusion: Results indicate that action of the potentized drugs

was ?more than placebo? and these ultra-highly diluted drugs acted primarily through

modulation of gene expression.

Key words: Gene regulatory hypothesis, DNA microarray profile, potentized remedies.

Introduction

Homeopathy is one of the most widely practiced controversial modes of treatment as it uses extremely diluted

remedies in micro-doses to alleviate patients? complaints. Despite being used for centuries with great effect,

non-believers of homeopathy mainly ask two questions: (a) as drugs diluted beyond Avogadro?s limit (6.023 x

10

23

) are not expected to contain even one single molecule of the original drug substance, how can the

homeopathic medicines then be physical-chemically different from ?vehicle? ethanol, and claimed to be

effective in curing many diseases? (b) What might the mechanism of action of these ultra-highly diluted

remedies be?

In this report, we present gene expression profiling results that give strong support to a hypothesis proposed

by Khuda-Bukhsh [1, 2], to wit, that potentized homeopathic drugs act through regulation of gene expression.

Thangapazham et al. [3], in turn, apparently failed to find changes in gene expression induced by

homeopathic drugs used in in vitro experiments with human breast cancer cells MDA-MB-231, human

prostate cancer cells DU-145 and LNCaP, and rat prostate cancer cells MAT-LyLu treated with some

potentized homeopathic remedies like Conium maculatum, Sabal serrulata, Thuja occidentalis, Asterias

rubens, and Phytolacca decandra in dilutions 30c, 200c and 1,000c, and Carcinosinum (1,000 c) although they

Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167

163

had found in an earlier in vivo study reduction in the number and size of cancer nodules supported by

histological analysis in prostate cancer MAT-LyLu cell?injected Copenhagen rats given homeopathic

treatment containing Thuj, Con, Sabal serrulata, and in MAT-LyLu cell with Carc [4]. However, the authors

did not conduct gene expression studies of any signal proteins in these rats in vivo, where modulation of

certain gene expression would be expected.

The controversy surrounding research in homeopathy moves along two different directions. On the one hand,

the mechanism of action of the potentized homeopathic remedies diluted beyond Avogadro's limit remains an

open research problem, which has received widespread attention from the research community, and many

competing hypotheses have been proposed. On the other hand, some studies that indicate homeopathy is no

better than placebo, which thus makes any claim about the mechanism of action of homeopathic drugs null

and void. There have been many results highly critical of homeopathy. For example, The Lancet of August 27,

2005 featured an article that was highly dismissive of homeopathy [5] along with a press release:

?homeopathy is no better than placebo?. The meta-analysis was accompanied by a short, anonymous editorial

entitled ?The end of homoeopathy?. This resulted in the eruption of a ravaging controversy: whether

homeopathy is really better than placebo or not, culminating in a debate in the British Parliament

[6].

Homeopathy was decried and its use as a beneficial and scientifically proven mode of treatment was voted

against. However, most clinical research conducted with homeopathic medicines has shown positive results

[7]. Biological activities of ultra-high diluted potentized homeopathic remedies have also been confirmed by

basic research studies with respect to a multitude of scientifically accepted protocols, both in animals and

plants in vivo and in vitro

[8]. Nevertheless, the argument persisted, as ultra-highly diluted homeopathic

medicines are supposed to possess "nothing" in terms of the original drug molecules, and as such their effect

on biological systems was unacceptable until recently. During the last few years, presence of ?nanoparticles?

of the starting materials, even at extremely high dilutions, has been reported [9, 10]. Moreover, Montagnier

[11] countered through experiments that ?high dilutions of something are not ?nothing?, they are water

structures which mimic the original molecules".

We decided to use one of the most modern tools, global microarray profiling of genes, to verify whether the

effects of ultra-highly diluted homeopathic drugs on the expression profile of genes were distinctly different

compared to ?placebo?. DNA microarrays are widely used to measure the expression levels of large numbers of

genes simultaneously, with the aid of selective probes under highly stringent conditions. Gene expression

profiling experiments are specially effective for monitoring the expression levels of thousands of genes to

study the effects of certain treatments, for example, to identify genes whose expression changes in response to

pathogens or drugs, by comparing the gene expression in the infected and drug-treated cells or tissues [12].

Materials and methods

The aim of the present study was, therefore, to find out whether the global gene expression profiles in cancer

cell line, HeLa (an established epigenetic model of HPV18 positive cell line) differed significantly, in

quantitative as well as qualitative terms, after treatment with 2 homeopathic remedies used against cancer

[13-15], namely, Condurango 30c and Hydrastis canadensis 30c (both diluted 10

-60

times, much above

Avogadro?s limit) compared to ethanol 30c, (placebo, prepared from the same stock of 70% alcohol giving 10

jerks at each step in the same manner as the verum was potentized). Affymetrix Gene Chip Human

Primeview gene expression arrays were used for this purpose.

Cervical cancer cell line HeLa was obtained at National Centre for Cell Science, Pune. The cells were

routinely maintained in Dulbecco?s Modified Eagle?s Medium supplemented with 10% FBS and 1% antibiotic

at 37 ?C in a humidified incubator containing 5% CO

2

. The cells were plated one day before treatment. 4%

(v/v) of drugs and ?placebo? (succussed ethanol 30c, 10 jerks at each step of dilution) were added to the cell

Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167

164

cultures and kept for 48 hr. Cells without any treatment in the normal medium were considered as negative

control.

Separate groups of cells were subjected to treatment with Cond 30c, Hydr 30c, and succussed alcohol placebo.

The cells were sent to iLife Discoveries, Gurgaon, India for providing us global microarray data conducted on

Affymetrix platform, using 25-mer probes. The total number of probes detected for the experiment was

49,395; hybridization was performed at 45

o

C for 16 hrs at 60 rpm.

Slides were scanned with 3000 7G microarray scanner and raw data sets were extracted from the Cel (raw

intensity) files. Microarray data analysis, differential gene expression analysis, fold change analysis and

cluster analysis were performed using GeneSpring GX12.5 software.

Results and discussion

Microarray data analyses showed that out of a total of 40,678 genes, for which probe sets remained after data

processing, normalization and quality control, 6,024 were differentially expressed at a p-value cutoff of 0.05,

in a one-way ANOVA. The expression levels of the genes in the cells were treated with Hydr 30c (Set I) and

Cond 30c (Set II) were compared to the levels in the untreated (control) as well as succussed ethanol 30c

(placebo) treated cells (Set III). Using a cutoff of 1.5 folds it was observed that in Set I, 3 genes each were up-

and down-regulated when compared to the control as well as Set III samples. Similarly, there were 2 genes in

Set II that were up-regulated by at least 1.5 folds when compared to the two sets mentioned above, whereas

122 genes were down-regulated by ?1.5 folds. Two and 10 genes were up- and down-regulated by ? 1.5 folds,

respectively, in both sets (Set I and Set II) when compared to the control as well as Set III. In addition, there

were another 23 genes in Set I and 12 genes in Set II that were differentially expressed by ? 1.5 folds, when

compared to Set III. Upon comparing the expression levels of genes in Set I and Set II, it was observed that

for 36 genes, there were ? 1.5 fold differences in expression between the 2 treatments. These findings suggest

that the drugs did not only affect the gene expression, but also that the effect of one drug was different from

the other in a number of genes.

The findings of the present study clearly demonstrate that the expression profiles of certain genes of the drug-

treated HeLa cells were significantly different from that of the placebo treated cells. This suggests that both

drugs and placebo differed in their ability to trigger gene responses, some of which were implicated in cancer.

Thus, although the drugs were ultra highly diluted, they still retained the ability to trigger gene responses in

a cascade of reactions, diving support to Khuda-Bukhsh?s hypothesis[1-2]. Epigenetic modifications are a

hallmark of cancer, and a large number of genes remain in modified state of expression in cancer cells. Both

Hydr [13, 15] and Cond

[14, 15] had been previously reported to induce apoptosis in cancer cells, while

?placebos? do not exhibit this property. Therefore, it is logical to infer that homeopathic remedies contain

some form of molecular imprints of the original drug substance [16], while the ?placebo?, in the absence of

such imprints, fails to elicit the required effect.

Incidentally, ultra-highly diluted preparations of glucose 30c, Arsenicum album 30c, and Arnica montana 30c

were shown to induce gene modulatory effects in bacteria, E. coli and yeast Saccraromyces cerevisiae, either

subjected to insult with sodium arsenite or UV-irradiation [17-19]. Those authors [17-19] explained that the

potentized homeopathic remedies carry specific "signals"/"information" that can be identified by certain cell

receptors. Those "signals" may act as a "trigger" for turning "on" or "off" some relevant genes, initiating a

cascade of gene actions, while the ?placebo? failed to elicit any such favorable responses. It has been

previously documented that administration of a potentized homeopathic drug altered the expressions of a

large number of signal proteins in mice induced to develop skin cancer

[20].

Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167

165

The results of the present study, therefore, contribute to support the gene regulatory hypothesis proposed by

Khuda-Bukhsh [1, 2]. Further studies are needed to ascertain the ability of Cond 30c, if any, to modulate

activities like DNA methylation/demethylation and histone acetylation/deacetylation, 2 hallmarks of

epigenetic modifications, to produce additional support to the gene regulatory hypothesis.

Author contributions

ARK-B conceptualized and designed the experiments, SS performed the experiments, SR analyzed and

interpreted the microarray data, ARK-B and SR wrote the manuscript.

References

[1] Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Potentized homeopathic drugs act through regulation of gene expression: a hypothesis

to explain their mechanism and pathways of action in vivo. Comp Ther Med 1997; 5: 43-46.

[2] Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an

overview. Mol Cell Biochem 2003;253: 339-45.

[3] Thangapazham RL, Gaddipati JP, Rajeshkumar NV, et al. Homeopathic medicines do not alter growth and

gene expression in prostate and breast cancer cells in vitro. Integr Cancer Ther 2006; 5:356-61.

[4] Jonas WB, Gaddipati JP, Rajeshkumar NV, et al. In vitro and in vivo assessment of homeopathic

treatment for prostate cancer. Paper presented at: Society of Integrative Oncology First International

Conference; November 18, 2004; New York, NY.

[5] Shang A, Huwiler-M?ntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects?

Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366:726-32.

[6] U.K. Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology: Evidence 2. 2010, available at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm.

[7] Clausen J, van Wijk R, Albrecht H. Review of the use of high potencies in basic research on

homeopathy.Homeopathy 2011; 100:288-92.

[8] The HomBRex database 2012.http://www.carstens-stiftung.de/hombrex/index.php.

[9] Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, et al. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A

nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 231-42.

[10] Bhattacharyya SS, Mandal SK, Biswas R, et al.In vitro studies demonstrate anticancer activity of an

alkaloid of the plant Gelsemium sempervirens.Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2008; 233:1591-601.

[11] Montagnier L. Newsmaker interview: Luc Montagnier. French Nobelist escapes 'intellectual terror' to

pursue radical ideas in China. Interview by Martin Enserink.Science 2010; 330:1732.

[12] Adomas A, Heller G, Olson A, et al. Comparative analysis of transcript abundance in Pinus sylvestris

after challenge with a saprotrophic, pathogenic or mutualistic fungus". Tree Physiol 2008;28: 885?897.

[13] Saha SK, Sikdar S, Mukherjee A, et al. Ethanolic extract of Goldenseal, Hydrastis canadensis has

demonstrable chemopreventive effects on HeLa cells in vitro: Drug-DNA interaction with calf thymus DNA as

target. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 2013; 36: 202-214.

Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167

166

[14] Mitsuhashi H et al. Condurango glycoside compounds processes for their preparation, antitumor agents

comprising them and compositions. United States Patent 1984.

[15] Boericke W. Pocket manual of homeopathic material medica & repertory. reprint edn 2004. B. Jain

Publishers (P) Ltd, India. 2002: 514.

[16] Davenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, et al.Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum

against IgE.Nature1988; 333:816-8.

[17] Saha SK, Das S, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.Phenotypic evidence of ultra-highly diluted homeopathic remedies

acting at gene expression level: a novel probe on experimental phage infectivity in bacteria. Zhong Xi Yi Jie

He Xue Bao 2012; 10:462-70.

[18] Das S, Saha SK, De A, et al. Potential of the homeopathic remedy, Arnica Montana 30C, to reduce DNA

damage in Escherichia coli exposed to ultraviolet irradiation through up-regulation of nucleotide excision

repair genes.Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao 2012;10:337-46.

[19] Das D, De A, Dutta S, et al.Potentized homeopathic drug Arsenicum Album 30C positively modulates

protein biomarkers and gene expressions in Saccharomyces cerevisae exposed to arsenate.Zhong Xi Yi Jie He

Xue Bao 2011;9:752-60.

[20] Khuda-Bukhsh AR, Bhattacharyya SS, Paul S, et al. Modulation of Signal Proteins: A Plausible

Mechanism to Explain How a Potentized Drug SecaleCor 30C Diluted beyond Avogadro's Limit Combats Skin

Papilloma in Mice. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2011;2011:286320.


Evidence in support of gene regulatory hypothesis: Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy effect as more than placebo (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279711806_Evidence_in_support_of_gene_regulatory_hypothesis_Gene_expression_profiling_manifests_homeopathy_effect_as_more_than_placebo [accessed Nov 15 2017].https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279711806_Evidence_in_support_of_gene_regulatory_hypothesis_Gene_expression_profiling_manifests_homeopathy_effect_as_more_than_placebo

I would also love to see Ananda More's film about homeopathy in Vancouver

See her succinct article here. It fills my heart with good stuff.

Attack of the Killer Pseudoskeptics

I’ve hit that rite of passage – that thorn in the side of every homeopath in the public eye.  When anonymous, self-proclaimed skeptics start to harass you with email, Twitter, and Facebook posts that refer to poorly-designed studies in order to prove that homeopathy doesn’t work. These people are demonstrating blatant hypocrisy when they use cherry-picked, fundamentally flawed studies to support their unscientific perspectives while simultaneously accusing homeopaths of the same.  If the same standards or faulty methods were used to study pharmaceutical medicine, we would find very few medications that could be termed evidence-based!

What do I use the term “pseudoskeptic”? Well, first, because they love to use the word “pseudoscience” as a derogatory umbrella term for any research whose results don’t fit into their limited paradigm. Second, because a real skeptic is someone who critically analyzes the data from both sides with an open mind, a true scientist unprejudiced to finding the unexpected. Pseudoskeptics pretend to genuinely have an open mind in order to hide their actual agenda of ridiculing and discrediting. They fail to apply the same critical eye to research that defends the orthodox perspective.

So the most recent link I’ve been receiving and have seen on social media is the following:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/homeopathy-therapeutic-dead-end-systematic-review-no-evidence-it-works-a6884356.html

The above article refers to a study published by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Now before I pass you to the experts and their explanations as to why this study is fatally inadequate, I would like to quietly point out that the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal – mirroring the skeptics’ favourite line of attack when it comes to homeopathic studies.

I would like to raise the question as to why studies like the one above receive so much media attention, while peer-reviewed, quality studies that have a positive outcome for homeopathy are completely ignored by mainstream media? For example, how many of you non-homeopaths out there are familiar withDr. Robert Mathie’s systematic review of individualized homeopathy – the only meta-analysis of homeopathy to consider model validity in its study design? This means that he only included studies in which homeopathy is studied in the way homeopaths actually practice in the real world. No other meta-analysis has done that!

Now let’s listen to what the folks at the Homeopathic Research Institute have to say about the NHMRC’s systematic review of homeopathy (read in blue). You can read their extensive concerns about the study here.

We maintain that the conclusions of the NHMRC report are inconsistent with the evidence.

The inaccuracy of the NHMRCs conclusions stem primarily from one fundamental flaw at the heart of this report – the NHMRC reviewers considered the results of all trials for one condition together as a whole, even though the individual trials were assessing very different types of homeopathic treatment.

To illustrate this flaw, the NHMRC reviewers asked, “Is homeopathy effective for condition A?’, working from the premise that a positive trial showing that one homeopathic treatment is effective is somehow negated by a negative trial which shows that a completely different homeopathic treatment for that same condition is ineffective. This is a bizarre and unprecedented way of assessing scientific evidence. In conventional research the question asked would be, “Is treatment X effective for condition A?”, not “Is conventional medicine effective for condition A?” based on combining the results of all drug trials together. Some treatments work, some don’t. The whole point of medical research is to establish which treatments are useful and which are of no value. This is no different in homeopathy.

So, this is like saying, Let’s see if pharmaceutical medicine is good for headaches. In my hypothetical systematic review we’ll examine a study that shows NSAIDs work for headaches, then look at another study that shows blood pressure medication doesn’t, and another study that says statin medicines don’t help headaches. I then conclude that pharmaceutical medicine is not effective for treating headaches.

Secondly, we are deeply perplexed as to the reasons for the exclusion of some of the best evidence for key clinical conditions. In brief:

  • Jacobs et al performed meta-analysis a meta-analysis of the treatment of childhood diarrhea using homeopathy in 2003, N=242 in placebo controlled trials, p-value = 0.008. This meta-analysis was excluded … why? [Link]
  • Wiesenauer & Lüdtke conducted a meta-analysis into the treatment of hayfever in 1996, N=752 in placebo controlled RCTs, p-value <0.0001. This meta-analysis was excluded. Again we ask ourselves why? [Link]
  • Schneider et al conducted a meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials of homeopathy compared to usual care for the treatment of vertigo, N=1388, non-inferiority was clearly demonstrated. Again excluded, again why? [Link]

Now let’s hear Dana Ullman’s critique of the study’s parameters. Dana is referring to a BMJ blog entry foundhere:

What this BMJ article conveniently failed to report and what the Australian government’s press material failed to acknowledge was that ANY study that with less than 150 subjects was deemed “inadequate” by this report, and thus, the dozens of studies that have shown the efficacy of homeopathy in treating many ailments were totally thrown out and ignored, including many “high quality” randomized double-blind, placebo controlled trials that have been published in The Lancet, BMJ, Cancer, Pediatrics, Chest, Rheumatology, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, European Journal of Pediatrics, and many others!

 

Further, unless there were at least three studies conducted by three separate groups of researchers, with each study having over 150 subjects, the results were deemed to be “unreliable.”

 

By not acknowledging these arbitrary guidelines, the BMJ and the Australian government are showing “bad faith” and are purposefully seeking to misinform the medical community and the general public.

 

Based on these definitions of what “adequate” and “reliable” research, the vast majority of conventional drugs on the market today would also be deemed to be INEFFECTIVE and UNPROVEN.

 

In fact, when the BMJ’s “Clinical Evidence” analyzed common medical treatments to evaluate which are supported by sufficient reliable evidence, they reviewed approximately 3,000 treatments and found only 11% were found to be beneficial (1). It should be noted and emphasized that the BMJ deemed 20 subjects to be a more reasonable guideline (2). If using the similar guidelines as the Australian government, only between 1% and 5% of medical treatments would be deemed to be “effective,” and virtually every surgical procedure would be consider “unproven.” Is Glasziou or the BMJ asserting that virtually all of medical treatment and surgical procedure be deemed unproven and ineffective? If not, then why use unrealistic and arbitrary guidelines for evaluating homeopathy? Are some extremely serious biases in evidence here instead of good science?

 

Also, Paul Glasziou doesn’t seem to understand the real implications of his assertion that any study that has a P-value of .05 would suggest that this treatment had a 5% chance of occurring by sheer random chance. Based on the BMJ’s review of clinical research in the entire field of medicine having less than 5% efficacy, it could easily be assumed that many of these studies may have happened by chance, thereby suggesting that there is virtually no evidence for the entire field of medical treatment.

 

For the record, Dr. Glasziou has conveniently ignored the many studies testing homeopathic treatment that has significantly better than a p-value of .05. Chest published a study on the homeopathic treatment of people with COPD with a p-value of 0.0001 (3). David Reilly and his team at the University of Glasgow conducted a series of four studies on patients with various types of respiratory allergies, two of which were published in the BMJ and one in the Lancet. Although their studies included over 200 patients, no single study included more than 150 patients, and therefore, ALL of the evidence from these high-quality trials were completely ignored, even though a review of the four trials found a p-value of 0.0007 (4). Even an editorial reviewing Reilly’s research has acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that these results are due to random happenstance (5).

 

Or wasn’t it convenient that the Australian government’s report ignored a study on the homeopathic treatment of people with pancreatic cancer that showed that 39% of patients with this extremely serious chronic illness survived five years (6), even though no other study has ever found a five-year survival rate of greater than 1%. For the record, this study was not even considered by Dr. Glasziou’s report because it reviewed only 44 patients and was not a placebo-controlled trial, and yet, I challenge Dr. Glasziou or anyone to report results anywhere that can be comparable.

 

Courts of law do not determine guilty or innocence only based on double-blind or placebo controlled trials. They report on all evidence.

 

References:

 

(1) What conclusions have Clinical Evidence drawn about what works, what doesn’t based on randomised controlled trial evidence? BMJ, 2015. 

 

(2) Nuts, bolts, and tiny little screws: how Clinical Evidence works. BMJ, 2015.

 

(3) Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. 

 

(4) Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. 

 

(5) This week in the BMJ. Homoeopathic dilutions may be better than placebo. BMJ 2000;321:0.

 

(6) Chatterjee A, Biswas J, Chatterjee A, Bhattacharya S, Mukhopadhyay B, Mandal S. Psorinum therapy in treating stomach, gall bladder, pancreatic, and liver cancers: a prospective clinical study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:724743. An abstract of the above study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology

I tried to shorten Dana’s comments, but I found it all pretty relevant. So, in conclusion – you have to take everything from the pseudoskeptics with a grain of salt. The only way to sift through all the nonsense is to be able to identify what makes for good science and what makes for scientism. Unfortunately, with all of their convenient omissions, obfuscations, and failure to comprehend basic statistical principals, they don’t make that very easy.

Ananda

http://magicpillsmovie.com/pseudo-skeptics/

Just One Drop - the story behind the homeopathy controversy by Health Action Network Society (HANS)

Just One Drop - In Vancouver, October 17th, 2017

by Health Action Network Society (HANS)

Description

Part of the Health Action Film Series, JUST ONE DROP tells the little known story of homeopathy: the most controversial system of medicine. To many, homeopathy seems implausible. They fear it is purely a placebo effect or worse, a form of deception or quackery. Yet, homeopathy has been around for over 200 years and is used by millions of people around the world. The film explores the controversy, reveals the rich history, dispels myths and misconceptions, and asks whether or not homeopathy been given a fair shake.

Panel discussion to follow screening.

The Just One Drop trailer may be viewed here.

https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/just-one-drop-the-story-behind-the-homeopathy-controversy-tickets-37436307002

 

 

Homeopathic Medicine Controversial Medicine

Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

 

A Randomised, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled Crossover Trial.
Heiner Frei, Regula Everts, Klaus von Ammon, Franz Kaufmann, Daniel Walther, Shu-Fang Hsu-Schmitz, Marco Collenberg, Katharina Fuhrer, Ralph Hassink, Maja Steinlin and André Thurneysen

Abstract from the European Journal of Pediatrics

An increasing number of parents turn to homeopathy for
treatment of their hyperactive child. Two publications, a randomized, partially blinded trial and a clinical observation study, conclude that homeopathy has positive effects in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aim of this study was to obtain scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in ADHD. A total of 83 children aged 6-16 years, with ADHD diagnosed using the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV criteria, were recruited. Prior to the randomized, double blind, placebo controlled crossover study, they were treated with individually prescribed homeopathic medications. 62 patients, who achieved an improvement of 50% in the Connersrsquo Global Index (CGI), participated in the trial. Thirteen patients did not fulfill this eligibility criterion (CGI). The responders were split into two groups and received either verum for 6 weeks followed by placebo for 6 weeks (arm A), or vice-versa (arm B). At the beginning of the trial and after each crossover period, parents reported the CGI and patients underwent neuropsychological testing. The CGI rating was evaluated again at the end of each crossover period and twice in long-term follow-up. At entry to the crossover trial, cognitive performance such as visual global perception , impulsivity and divided attention, had improved significantly under open label treatment (P

Conclusion: The trial suggests scientific evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, particularly in the areas of behavioural and cognitive functions.

 

Information, remedies, research & more from your Homeopath — Access Natural Healing

Robert De Niro, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. offer $100K to anyone who can provide proof vaccines are safe

The pair are looking for proof that vaccines are safe and teamed up to offer $100,000 to anyone who can provide such information.

The actor participated in the panel, which showcased discredited claims surrounding vaccination, including the notion that they cause autism and that high levels of mercury in immunizations can make kids sick.

READ MORE: Robert De Niro addresses anti-vaccination movie: It’s ‘something people should see’

“On one hand, the government is telling pregnant women which mercury-laced fish to avoid so that they don’t harm their fetuses, and on the other, the CDC supports injecting mercury-containing vaccines into pregnant women, infants and children,” Kennedy said at the joint press conference Wednesday.

“This defies all logic and common sense.”

Kennedy, the son of the late U.S. attorney general and senator, insisted that journalists and the government have been colluding to cover up the truth about vaccine safety and that the “shots have caused the autism epidemic.”

De Niro, whose son has autism, and Kennedy called out the use of thimerosal, which is a mercury-based preservative.

READ MORE: 6 vaccination myths debunked

The cash challenge is offered through Kennedy’s World Mercury Project for anyone “who can find a peer-reviewed scientific study demonstrating that thimerosal is safe in the amounts contained in vaccines currently being administered to American children and pregnant women.”

A FDA study in 1999 found that thimerosal used as a vaccine preservative posed no harm except for hypersensitivity.

The FDA phased the preservative out of vaccines for children and it hasn’t been used since 2001, with the exception of an inactivated flu vaccine, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They also provided research that shows there’s no link between thimerosal and autism.

Shortly after meeting with U.S.President Trump in January, Kennedy claimed he was invited to head a vaccine commission. Trump’s spokespeople later clarified that the U.S president was instead looking at “the possibility of forming a committee on autism” but that no decisions had been made at that point.

READ MORE: How to convince skeptical parents that vaccines are safe

Kennedy has a long history of speaking about vaccines.

In 2005, he published an article titled “Deadly Immunity,” in both Rolling Stone and Salon, alleging that the mercury-based chemical thimerosal causes mercury poisoning and in turn autism, according to Vox.

There was no evidence to support Kennedy’s view and the article was retracted at Salon.

WATCH BELOW: Robert De Niro sounds off on anti-vaccine film controversy and wants answers in Today show interview

In 2016, De Niro pulled his anti-vaccination movie Vaxxed from the Tribeca Film Festival lineup. The actor appeared on the Today show shortly after and spoke about the film and what his intentions are.

“I think the movie is something that people should see,” he said. “There’s a lot of information about things that are happening with the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies, there’s a lot of things that are not said. I, as a parent of a child who has autism, I’m concerned. And I want to know the truth. I’m not anti-vaccine. I want safe vaccines.”

When Today host Willie Geist pointed out that there’s plenty of scientific evidence proving that vaccines don’t cause autism, De Niro replied that he thinks everyone should see Vaxxed and decide for themselves.

With files from Chris Jancelewicz

http://globalnews.ca/news/3253840/robert-de-niro-robert-f-kennedy-jr-offer-100g-to-anyone-who-can-provide-proof-vaccines-are-safe/?sf56604028=1

An Alternative Approach in The Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), using Classical Homeopathy by Pierre Fontaine RSHom CCH.

Introduction

MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) is a bacteria that is resistant to most common antibiotics. Aside from methicillin the bacteria is also resistant to other more common antibiotics such as oxacillin, penicillin and amoxicillin. 1 Staph infections, including MRSA, occur most frequently in patients who have recently been hospitalised for long periods, who have had invasive medical procedures or who have weakened immune systems. Individuals treated in long term healthcare facilities such as nursing homes or dialysis centres have been considered most at risk. In a healthcare setting can cause serious and potentially life threatening infections such as bloodstream infection, infections at a surgical site, or pneumonia. However, MRSA infections also occur in otherwise healthy people who have not recently been hospitalised or undergone an invasive medical procedure. These infections usually present as skin infections, pimples, boils or other pus-filled lesions but can rapidly progress to more life threatening infections. In this otherwise healthy population they are known as community associated (CA)-MRSA infection; according to a recent study2 MRSA has become the most frequent cause of skin

1 Centres for Disease Control. Overview of healthcare related MRSA

2 Invasive Methicillin-Resistant Staphyloccus aureus infections in the United States. R. Monina Klevens, DDS, MPH et al. www.jama.com at CDC-Information Center.

and soft tissue infections presenting at emergency rooms in the USA. During the period from 1999 to 2005 the estimated number of hospitalizations involving S.aureus-related infections increased 62% from 294,570 to 477,927. In 2005, there were 11,406 S. aureus– related deaths of which 6,639 were MRSA-related3.

Current medical treatment for MRSA usually involves removing the infected person to an isolation ward and the use of the intravenous antibiotic vancomycin. The hospital stay can be several days. The patient is usually sent home with wound care instructions and a prescription for the ointment bactroban which is applied to the internal nasal passages. The infection can be controlled this way, but in many cases the patient will remain colonised. While vancomycin is currently effective against MRSA it is clear that increased resistance exists and some hospitals are already reporting strains that are less sensitive to vancomycin. 4

Homeopathy

In this light, it seems important to examine the potential of alternative therapies that do not make use of costly drugs or hospital stays, to combat such infections and prevent the risk of developing further antibiotic resistant bacterial strains. Homeopathy is widely practiced throughout Europe and Asia and is increasing in use in the US. In the UK the NHS (National Health Service) operates 5 dedicated homeopathic hospitals. According to a 2005 study, 70% of 6544 follow-up patients reported improvements in their health. Among the ailments most commonly treated were eczema, asthma, migraine, irritable bowel syndrome and

3 Klein E, Smith DL, Laxminarayan R.

Hospitalizations and deaths caused by methicillin-

resistant Staphylococcus aureus, United States,

1999–2005. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet].

2007 Dec [25 Sept 08]. Available from

http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/13/12/1840.htm

4

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mrsa/DS00735/DSECTION=tr eatments-and-drugs

1

chronic fatigue.5 In the modern day context there is unfortunately little data on the use of homeopathy in acute outbreaks of infectious disease but historically it has been effectively applied in outbreaks of cholera, influenza and scarlet fever. During the 1918 Spanish Influenza epidemic data collected by the Hahnemann College of Medicine in Philadelphia showed a mortality rate of only 1.05% amongst a group of 26,795 cases treated by homeopaths. The mortality rate in the general population treated medically was 30%.6

Homeopathy is symptom driven and based on careful observation of the individual signs and symptoms as exhibited by the patient. It is experiential and the homeopath pays extremely close attention to the use of language by the patient in relating how the ailment is affecting him. A remedy acts as a reversing trigger on the self-healing vital force of the body that is being challenged. It is described as working at a vitalistic level, similar to acupuncture. It is bio- dynamic in nature rather than bio-chemical, as western medicine is.

Homeopathy is very effective in chronic illnesses but as the case below illustrates, homeopathy can also be extremely effective in acute infections that require daily monitoring and frequent re-evaluation of remedy selection.

Case Presentation History

James, an otherwise healthy 40 year old man entered our care in late November 2007. He had sustained a minor scratch on his finger at the end of September 2007 while clearing away vegetation in upstate New York. Despite thorough wound care at the time James’ finger

5 Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year university-hospital outpatient observational study. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2005; 11: 793-798. http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/csArticles/articles/000001/000 164.htm

6 Homeopathy for Epidemics. Eileen Nauman, DHM (UK). Pg 11

began swelling up during the night of the scratch and within 3 days had progressed to a severe infection. James sought advice at a walk in clinic near his home and was prescribed antibiotics. He had no improvement over the next two days at which point he visited the Emergency Room at Columbia Presbyterian hospital in New York City. His finger was red, edematous and showed clear signs of infection. His wound was lanced in the ER and the exudates sent for analysis. As a precaution James was admitted to the hospital overnight and received an IV antibiotic and analgesics. On discharge the next day he was instructed about wound care and hoped the infection would clear. However, he received a message 2 days later informing him that the culture grown from his lab specimen was not responding to antibiotics and was confirmed as being MRSA.

James was immediately readmitted to the hospital, this time in an isolation ward to avoid exposure to any other patients. Vancomycin was prescribed and he was sent home with bactroban ointment for his nose 2 days later. He was advised that the infection could re- occur and to be vigilant about skin lesions.

Two months later, just after Thanksgiving, James noticed a large, fleshy bulge on the back of his thigh. He was concerned it might be a recurrent MRSA skin infection but as an uninsured patient was forced to seek an alternative to another costly hospitalisation. On the recommendation of a friend he sought homeopathic treatment.

Homeopathic findings

When I first spoke with James he described how the wound on his middle finger in September “blew up” within a day to a hard swelling. His fever spiked to 102F. Now, two months later, the presenting symptom was a large swelling on the back of his right thigh just below his buttock. He described how it “came right out” close to 1 inch in thickness and then

2

reverted to a very large “bite-like,” dark dot within a day. Light red discolouration of the skin was seen almost down to his knee. The lump was sharply7 painful and causing him concern. It was constricting his leg and felt very hard. He felt as if an iron band was preventing movement. He was concerned because he thought it might be the same, incurable infection as the first one on his finger.

Based on the sensation of constriction that he repeated in many different ways and the other symptoms listed in italics I prescribed Cactus Grandiflora. I also stressed the importance of being seen by a medical doctor. James however steadfastly refused to return to the hospital.

At this stage about five dozen remedies were identified as being valid homeopathic remedies for this individual. Careful differentiation and research would clarify final remedy selection, according to homeopathic repertories and Materia Medicas.

24 hours later (from initial consultation)

After one day the sensation of constriction was significantly diminished. The pain had lessened but the infection was not improving. The central area of induration was growing

7 Italicized words in this description of finding represent qualities specifically used in selecting the proper homeopathic rememdy.

larger but he described marked improvement in the sensation of his most prevalent symptom, i.e. the swelling and the constricting. The discolouration that had spread to his knee was more localised. At this stage I repeated the same remedy.

2 days later

Though the infection seemed contained the central area now resembled a large boil and had grown rapidly to a darker red circle of about 4 inches. At this point he complained of severe “burning pains”, and the infection was described (and looked) as ‘angry’. He was also extremely restless with a constant need for motion. At this point I had several remedies in mind that might have fit the symptom picture, but the degree of anger and burning in the case led me to Cantharis.

3

3 days later

James reported that the Cantharis had addressed the burning pains which now felt much better. He was happy that he did not have to take pain medication as he had with the first infection. The outward progression of the infection had clearly stopped and the boil turned even darker red with a congested, shiny appearance and blood seeping through the pores in the centre of the mass. According to these symptoms, Crotalus Horridus was given, as it is often used for dark, haemorrhagic wounds. I had previously researched this remedy in regards to Ebola type infections several years ago.

All along James was repeatedly advised to seek medical care and have the wound lanced. There was concerned about a systemic blood infection. James pointed out that he had no fever at all and that the swelling had stopped.

His pain was manageable and was not requiring the high doses of narcotics he had needed during his first MRSA infection. He was confident that the lesion was healing and could not afford the high cost of another hospitalisation so he was not willing to seek medical attention.

During this time James did stay in his apartment to avoid any possibility of secondary infection.

4 days later

24 hours after the Crotalus the boil began changing colour. Yellow and light green pus could be seen in the border. His pain was manageable and he had no fever.

At this point James described intense anxiety over the possibility of MRSA occurring over and over and over again in his life. He felt he was poisoned for life. The increased anxiety along with the idea that his body was poisoned and that he had an incurable disease indicated the remedy Arsenicum Album.

6 days later

Clearly the infection was no longer spreading. James’ anxiety was much diminished. The boil was filled with pus and began oozing but there was no way to know what was going on underneath the mass of pus and necrotic tissue. He felt very good about his

4

progress but I remained concerned about systemic infection and necrosis at the infection site. Secale was given as a prophylactic for blood poisoning. Within half a day his anxieties and restlessness came back. It was clear this remedy was not having an effect and I reverted to Arsenicum.

Continuing Progress

On the 7th day the mass opened and began oozing. At this point James was able to manually squeeze the lesion and exude a large amount of dark green, almost black pus. At this stage James collected several of the cotton balls he had used to drain the exudate and on the 6th December 2007 he had them analysed at the same laboratory facility as his earlier sample. The exudate was confirmed as positive for MRSA.

Later on the wound stopped seeping and began to dry up. I continued to prescribe Arsenicum daily and James remained vigilant about cleaning the wound with hydrogen peroxide. I was encouraged that at the time the lesion burst there was already evidence of granulation on the borders. This was evidence to me that the infection had been fully isolated.

Over the next two weeks the wound continued to slowly heal from the outside edges towards the centre and from the bottom of the ulcer to the surface of the skin. Within 3 weeks

the lesion had healed over completely. James continued to take Arsenicum several times a day as he still had some level of anxiety regarding re-infection. We were gradually able to reduce the frequency of repetition as the wound continued to heal and his anxiety diminished.

5 months later

James continues to do well and on the 9th of April 2008 he returned to Columbia for another nasal swab analysis. Remarkably the tests came back negative for MRSA, meaning that not only was his local infection cured but his body was no longer colonised by the bacteria. In other words, his wound was completely healed and he is no longer a carrier of MRSA in the general population.

5

Conclusion

Given the growing number of antibiotic resistant infectious agents, a treatment for MRSA that avoids all use of antibiotics has enormous potential in the general population. Furthermore, the treatment above is reproducible in a hospital setting using the basic five dozen remedies that fit the MRSA symptom picture. There is also the possibility of using other homeopathic remedies prophylacticaly. To that end we recommend and hope to undertake further research on this approach in a traditional medical facility.

http://homeopathicservices.com/resources/explore-nov-dec-2009/

Sex Tips (I Mean Six Tips) to enjoy a be-nice-to-eachother V Day

Six Tips to enjoy the day

  1. Be creative. It shows an investment of time, love, and thought when you create something special. You can create a treasure hunt for your partner to find a gift or card. Instead of roses, sprinkle the bed with flower petals. Give a sensuous candlelit foot rub, massage, or body wash. Write your favorite, shared memories with colored pens. Make a collage of your dream home, family, or past or future adventures together designed with leaves, dried flowers, photographs, or magazine clippings.
  2. Whatever you do, be real. Authenticity is romantic. Your true feelings are apparent anyway, and hiding them creates more problems. That doesn’t mean you have to spill your guts, but in a dicey situation, choose words that are true for you.
  3. Let go of expectations. They plant the seeds of disappointment and resentment. Instead, be open to what your partner and the universe have in store for you.
  4. Focus on giving love. Remember the love you feel is the love you give. Even if you’re in a relationship, write yourself a love letter about your wonderful traits and acts of courage. Tell yourself you love you. Read it aloud in the mirror. This may sound foolish, but it works and boosts your self-esteem! You can also focus on the positive traits of your partner. Imagine opening your heart and sending him or her love. If that’s difficult, recall a time when you shared love, and then bring that memory fully into the present.
  5. Take responsibility for your feelings. If you’re experiencing painful emotions, honor them – for a half-hour. Then plan a great day. Remember it takes two to have an argument. Take responsibility for your contribution and your feelings. Own them, apologize if necessary, and make a fresh start with your partner. You’re the one who suffers if you don’t. Waiting for an apology feeds your resentment.
  6. Stay in the present reality. Take the label off, and just enjoy the day. Don’t look up an ex or waste time fantasizing about someone with whom you’re not involved. Don’t think about your relationship’s future or troubles or replay past disappointing holidays.

Dr. Iris Bell M.D. Ph.D. does it again!

Research in Homeopathy:

If anyone is ever asking you to back up your interest in homeopathy with 'Evidence-based Research' or 'clinical proof' or RCT (Random Control Trials) scientific research, please help them by referring to this list or also by sharing this email. Here is a link that displays a pdf of a Reference List of 138 pages worth of Homeopathic Research. This list was curated by Dr. Iris Bell M.D. Ph. D. and Peter Gold in 2015. Much more research has been published since this collection almost two years ago. Hope this helps lead anyone to any type of research with regards to the use of homeopathy and homeopathic remedies. Anyone is welcome to download this pdf file and use it or pass it on. http://www.homeopathy.ca/pdf/HomeopathyResearchEvidenceBase_10-29-15.pdf

Ankle Sprain? Try these best homeopathic medicines for sprains and strains

INDICATIONS for RHUS TOX:
Worse in the night in bed, worse in the morning on waking, worse in damp and cold weather or before storms, worse upon long exertion.
    Better heat or hot bathing, better dry weather, better after first motion.
   
    Restless extremities. Restless legs in bed.
    Bursitis. Tendonitis. Sprains.
    Numbness from lying on the arm or leg.
    Numbness of left arm in heart conditions.
    Cracking joints.

INDICATIONS for BRYONIA:
Limbs
    Sensations: As if sprained, esp. in periosteum and ligaments, always worse motion. Weariness and heaviness in all limbs; weakness; stiffness. As if paralyzed and bruised, as if he had lain upon a hard bed. Leaden heaviness in limbs.  Pins and needles in soles, preventing walking.
    Pains:  Transient drawing and tension in almost all limbs and joints; paralytic pains. Stitches in joints on motion and on touch. In limbs and joints better warmth. In limbs during heat, intermittent. Tensive, in ankle on any slight first motion. Worse with motion.
    Observed: Joints red, swollen, hot, with stitches and tearing, worse least movement. Every spot is painful on pressure. Constant motion of left arm and leg ... with sighing. Painful stiffness of limbs after fright. Limbs move, but sluggishly.


INDICATIONS for SYMPHYTUM:
LIMBS - Bone fractures. Comminuted fracture. Non-union of bones. Accelerates the formation of callus. Reduces healing. Prickling, stitching pains. Bruises. Injuries from blunt instruments. Pain in area of bony protuberances, elbow, epicondyles, ankles. Injury to periosteum. Injury to hard tissue, shins. Bone inflammation, periostitis with pain and soreness. Osteoporosis. Brittle bones. Knee arthralgia. Tennis elbow. Psoas abscess. Pain at the site of old wounds or fractures, past injury to cartilage or bone. Post-surgical pain at the site of amputation or bone puncture.

INDICATIONS for STRONTIUM CARB:
Lower Limbs
    Sensations:  Of icy coldness on outer surface of calf, the length of a finger.
    Pains: Sciatica with oedema of ankle. Cramps in calves and soles; esp. in persons who suffer from cold feet.
    Observed: Chronic sprains, esp. of ankle-joint. Icy cold feet in evening. Oedematous swelling of right foot.

... and don't get me started on ARNICA...

 

Homeopathy - Medical Mondays

Anti-rheumatoid and anti-oxidant activity of homeopathic Guaiacum officinale in an animal model

Amrita Sarkar, Poulami Datta, Asok Kumar Dasa, Antony Gomes

Laboratory of Toxinology & Experimental Pharmacodynamics, Department of Physiology, University of Calcutta, 92 A P C Road, Kolkata 700 009, India

aNational Institute of Homoeopathy, Salt Lake, Kolkata, India.

 

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2013.08.006

Background

Homeopathy is a popular form of complementary and alternative medicine. Guaiacum extract is said to be useful for pain and inflammation, but there appears to be no scientific evidence to support this.

Aims

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the anti-rheumatic and anti-oxidant activity of homeopathic preparations of Guaiacum officinale (Gua) on experimental animal model.

Design

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was induced in male albino rats by Freund's complete adjuvant (FCA) at a dose of (0.25 mg heat killed Mycobacterium tuberculosis/ml of emulsion). Gua mother tincture (MT) (prepared from the latex part of the plant) (MT), Gua 30cc and 200cc were purchased commercially from King Company, Kolkata, India. Male albino Wistar rats (130 ± 10 g) were divided into 6 groups: Sham control; Arthritis control; Standard treatment indomethacin (0.25 mg 100 g−1 p.o. × 5 alternative days), Gua MT (1 ml kg−1 p.o. × 5 days) treated; Gua (30c 1 ml kg−1 p.o. × 5 days) treated; Gua (200c; 1 ml kg−1 p.o. × 5 days) treated. Anti-rheumatic activity was examined through physical, urinary, serum parameters. All the results were expressed in terms of mean ± SEM (statistical error of mean n = 6) at each dose level. The level of significance was determined through one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

It was observed that body weight, ankle and knee diameter, urinary parameters (hydroxyproline (OH-P), glucosamine, calcium (Ca2+), creatinine (CRE), phosphate (PO43−)), serum ACP (acid phosphatase)/ALP (alkaline phosphatase)/Ca2+/CRE/PO43−/gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)/Lipid peroxidation (LPO)/Glutathione (GSH)/Superoxide dismutase (SOD)/Catalase, serum GGT, serum interleukins like IL-1β/CINC-1/PGE2/TNF-α/IL-6, IL-12/IL-4/IL-6 levels were significantly affected. After treatment with Guaiacum in all 3 regimes was associated with normalization of these parameters compared to control group.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that homeopathic G. officinale possesses anti-rheumatic and anti-oxidant activity in experimental animal and these activities may be more significant in higher potencies.

Keywords:

Guaiacum, FCA, Arthritis, Interleukins, Anti-oxidant

Friday Fun Facts

A complete change where we no longer rely just on so called evidence-based medicine but we look at the long tradition of usage; we look at patients’ experience. We cannot deny this. It is completely absurd … we don’t take note of how patients feel about themselves. It is maddening that good inquiries are ignored… Why is it that the conventional community will persistently ignore these studies.
— David Tredinnick, Member of Parliament of Bosworth, U.K.