Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective.

Homeopathy. 2010 Oct;99(4):231-42.Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective.

Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, Kane SG. Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Adi Shankaracharya Marg, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Comment in:

Homeopathy. 2010 Oct;99(4):229-30. Abstract Homeopathy is controversial because medicines in high potencies such as 30c and 200c involve huge dilution factors (10⁶⁰ and 10⁴⁰⁰ respectively) which are many orders of magnitude greater than Avogadro's number, so that theoretically there should be no measurable remnants of the starting materials. No hypothesis which predicts the retention of properties of starting materials has been proposed nor has any physical entity been shown to exist in these high potency medicines. Using market samples of metal-derived medicines from reputable manufacturers, we have demonstrated for the first time by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions, in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates.

Copyright © 2010 The Faculty of Homeopathy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/01/14/f-homeopathy-naturopathic-marketplace.html#socialcomments#ixzz1B8T9HgtE

#homeopathy Individualized Homeopathic Treatment and Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression in Peri- and Postmenopausal Women (HOMDEP-MENOP Study): A Randomized, Double-Dummy, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

RESEARCH ARTICLE #homeopathy Individualized Homeopathic Treatment and Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression in Peri- and Postmenopausal Women (HOMDEP-MENOP Study): A Randomized, Double-Dummy, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Emma del Carmen Macías-Cortés1,2*, Lidia Llanes-González3, Leopoldo Aguilar-Faisal1, Juan Asbun-Bojalil1 1 División de Estudios de Posgrado, Escuela Superior de Medicina, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Distrito Federal, México, 2 Consulta Externa de Homeopatía, Hospital Juárez de México, Secretaría de Salud, Distrito Federal, México, 3 Unidad de Salud Mental, Hospital Juárez de México, Secretaría de Salud, Distrito Federal, México * ecmc2008@hotmail.es Abstract Background Perimenopausal period refers to the interval when women's menstrual cycles become irreg- ular and is characterized by an increased risk of depression. Use of homeopathy to treat de- pression is widespread but there is a lack of clinical trials about its efficacy in depression in peri- and postmenopausal women. The aim of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of individualized homeopathic treatment versus placebo and fluoxetine versus placebo in peri- and postmenopausal women with moderate to severe depression. Methods/Design A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, superiority, three-arm trial with a 6 week follow-up study was conducted. The study was performed in a public research hospital in Mexico City in the outpatient service of homeopathy. One hundred thirty-three peri- and postmenopausal women diagnosed with major depression according to DSM-IV (moderate to severe intensity) were included. The outcomes were: change in the mean total score among groups on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Beck Depres- sion Inventory and Greene Scale, after 6 weeks of treatment, response and remission rates, and safety. Efficacy data were analyzed in the intention-to-treat population (ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test). PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0118440 March 13, 2015 1/24 OPENACCESS Citation: Macías-Cortés EdC, Llanes-González L, Aguilar-Faisal L, Asbun-Bojalil J (2015) Individualized Homeopathic Treatment and Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression in Peri- and Postmenopausal Women (HOMDEP-MENOP Study): A Randomized, Double-Dummy, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0118440. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0118440 Academic Editor: Yiru Fang, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, CHINA Received: September 18, 2014 Accepted: January 13, 2015 Published: March 13, 2015 Copyright: © 2015 Macías-Cortés et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Data are available upon request to the Research and Ethics Committee of National Homeopathic Hospital, Mexico City [Dr. Gustavo Aguilar-Velázquez ( gav5799@gmail.com

Results After a 6-week treatment, homeopathic group was more effective than placebo by 5 points in Hamilton Scale. Response rate was 54.5% and remission rate, 15.9%. There was a sig- nificant difference among groups in response rate definition only, but not in remission rate. Fluoxetine-placebo difference was 3.2 points. No differences were observed among groups in the Beck Depression Inventory. Homeopathic group was superior to placebo in Greene Climacteric Scale (8.6 points). Fluoxetine was not different from placebo in Greene Climac- teric Scale. Conclusion Homeopathy and fluoxetine are effective and safe antidepressants for climacteric women. Homeopathy and fluoxetine were significantly different from placebo in response definition only. Homeopathy, but not fluoxetine, improves menopausal symptoms scored by Greene Climacteric Scale. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01635218 Protocol Publication http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/14/1/105 . https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mac%C3%ADas-Cort%C3%A9s-2015-Depression-menopause.pdf

#choosehomeopathy

Congratulations, Homeopathy! Homeopathy is now officially a regulated health profession in Ontario under the Homeopathy Act, April 1, 2015!

MYTHs of Homeopathy - A Series. Ep. 4

“Homeopathy is just a placebo effect”

It is frequently argued that homeopathic medicines are ‘just sugar pills’ that don’t contain any active ingredients, so any benefits patients report are due purely to the placebo effect i.e. people believe the pills are going to help and this belief alone triggers a healing response.

With any medical treatment there is likely to be some degree of ‘placebo effect’ and in this respect homeopathy is no different, but the theory that homeopathy’s effects are only a placebo response is not supported by the scientific evidence.

If homeopathy is really just a placebo effect, how does one explain:

1. The existence of positive high quality placebo-controlled trials? These trials are designed specifically to separate out the placebo effect from the real clinical effect of the treatment being tested.
2. Homeopathic medicines having effects in laboratory experiments? Effects have been seen on white blood cells, frogs and wheat plants to name just a few examples.
3. The fact that homeopathy works in animals? A rigorous research study found that homeopathy can prevent E. coli diarrhoea in piglets¹ – a big problem in commercial farmingMore

References

Find out more about similar statements:

“A top research organisation in Australia just found homeopathy doesn’t work for anything and is just placebo”

“The UK Parliamentary report has looked at the evidence and said it’s just placebo”

Myths about Homeopathy - A Series. Ep. 3

“Scientists say homeopathy is impossible”

Not all scientists believe homeopathy is impossible. Prof Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel prize in 2008 for his role in discovering HIV, says homeopaths are right to use these high dilutions.

In an interview for Science magazine, when asked, “Do you think there’s something to homeopathy…?” he replied, “…What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”¹

More

Science is a constantly evolving field and what the scientific establishment declares to be ‘impossible’ in one era, is often proved to be ‘fact’ in another.

To take just one famous example of medical U-turns, in 1982, when Dr Barry Marshall and Dr Robin Warren first put forward their theory that bacterial infection was an underlying cause of stomach ulclers, their idea was ridiculed.²  

Scientists said it was impossible for bacteria to survive the acidic environment in the stomach, let alone thrive there, but years later Marshall and Warren were vindicated when it was finally accepted that they were right – Helicobacter pylori infection is indeed the commonest cause of stomach ulcers.

In 2005 they were awarded the Nobel prize for Physiology. In the Nobel citation the doctors were praised for their “tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas”.

While scientists continue to investigate how homeopathic medicines have a biological effect, perhaps we should be more cautious about using the word ‘impossible’ when it comes to medical science.

References

Priorities and methods for developing the evidence profile of homeopathy

Priorities and methods for developing the evidence profile of homeopathy Recommendations of the ECH General Assembly and XVIII Symposium of GIRI

M. Van Wassenhoven^†

^†Vice president of the GIRI, Research Coordinator of ECH.

Received: December 9, 2004; Received in revised form: December 24, 2004; Accepted: January 24, 2005;

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2005.01.001

Abstract

To achieve scientific acceptance, homeopathy must investigate several questions:

• 1.

  The activity of very highly diluted preparations. The consensus of the meeting was that there is clear evidence of this.

• 2.

  The content of very highly diluted homeopathic preparations. More research is needed but evidence exists that a specific signal is present in homeopathic preparations.

• 3.

  A theoretical framework in which the effects of homeopathic diluted preparations can be explained. The ‘Body Information Theory’ is such a theory.

• 4.

  The clinical effectiveness of homeopathy. Because they avoid the placebo effect, animal studies are a priority.

For human trials using Quality of Life questionnaires, studies on the activity, content and theoretical basis of homeopathic preparations were reviewed approximately 70% of cases; more in children showed improvement. Homeopathy reduced costs and allowed a better improvement in work-days lost compared with conventional practice. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) implicitly test the placebo hypothesis; RCTs have been performed and meta-analyses conclude that there is clear evidence of efficacy which cannot be attributed to placebo effect.

Priorities depend on the audience. More research is needed especially regarding the content of homeopathic preparations and the transmission of information. Theoretical issues are also important to avoid incorrect design of research protocols. More effort should be dedicated to veterinary research. Clinical effects analysis in humans remains important. Many other questions should be prioritised, such as the potential of homeopathy to avoid invasive procedures in children and the long-term effects of homeopathy in preventing chronic complications.

http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916%2805%2900025-1/fulltext

Homeopathy: meta-analyses of pooled clinical data.

Forsch Komplementmed. 2013;20(5):376-81. doi: 10.1159/000355916. Epub 2013 Oct 17.

Homeopathy: meta-analyses of pooled clinical data.

Hahn RG¹.

Author information

Abstract

In the first decade of the evidence-based era, which began in the mid-1990s, meta-analyses were used to scrutinize homeopathy for evidence of beneficial effects in medical conditions. In this review, meta-analyses including pooled data from placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathy and the aftermath in the form of debate articles were analyzed. In 1997 Klaus Linde and co-workers identified 89 clinical trials that showed an overall odds ratio of 2.45 in favor of homeopathy over placebo. There was a trend toward smaller benefit from studies of the highest quality, but the 10 trials with the highest Jadad score still showed homeopathy had a statistically significant effect. These results challenged academics to perform alternative analyses that, to demonstrate the lack of effect, relied on extensive exclusion of studies, often to the degree that conclusions were based on only 5-10% of the material, or on virtual data. The ultimate argument against homeopathy is the 'funnel plot' published by Aijing Shang's research group in 2005. However, the funnel plot is flawed when applied to a mixture of diseases, because studies with expected strong treatments effects are, for ethical reasons, powered lower than studies with expected weak or unclear treatment effects. To conclude that homeopathy lacks clinical effect, more than 90% of the available clinical trials had to be disregarded. Alternatively, flawed statistical methods had to be applied. Future meta-analyses should focus on the use of homeopathy in specific diseases or groups of diseases instead of pooling data from all clinical trials.

© 2013 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.

PMID:

24200828

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Homeopathic remedy Lycopodium Clavatum offers new hope to cancer sufferers: Study

http://www.naturalnews.com/041501_lycopodium_clavatum_cancer_treatment_homeopathic_remedy.html

NaturalNews) One of the most exciting developments in the war on cancer has just been published in the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies, where new research shows that the homeopathic remedy, Lycopodium Clavatum (a spore bearing plant from the clubmoss family), has an anti-cancer effect on infected cells while protecting normal blood cells.

The report by the Boiron Laboratory in France and the University of Kalyani in India reveals that highly diluted Lycopodium Clavatum remedies (LC-5C and LC-15C) are capable of inducing 'apoptosis' (cellular death) in cervical cancer cells, signifying their possible use as a supportive medicine in cancer therapy.

The $200 billion dollar per year cancer industry is desperate to convince you that chemotherapy, radiation, toxic drugs and surgery are the only proven treatments for the disease, faced as it is today, with rising demand for complementary and alternative cancer medicines.

Not the first time: Other homeopathic remedies fight cancer too

This isn't the first time that a homeopathic remedy has been found to be effective against cancer. Two previous studies have produced similarly exciting results. Frenkel, M. et al. (2010) used ultra-diluted remedies of Phytolacca, Carcinosin, Conium, and Thuja on breast cancer cells and witnessed a deactivation of the cancer in a process called cytotoxicity. Another team, led by Toliopoulos IK, Simos Y, Bougiouklis D and Oikonomidis S (2013), discovered that certain homeopathic complexes were able to stimulate the anti-cancer activity of Natural Killer Cells (part of our immune system) in cancer patients.

With North America holding the second highest incidence rate of cancer in the world, closely followed by Western Europe, the discovery delivers the prospect of an existing, legal and affordable alternative to conventional treatments.

Dr Alexander Tournier, Executive Director of the London-based Homeopathy Research Institute (http://www.homeoinst.org) confirmed the validity of the Boiron/Kalyani report, stating:

"This study is very significant, performed by a well trained team with access to modern molecular biology techniques and with the support of Boiron - a leading homeopathic manufacturer worldwide - thus ensuring that the homeopathy part of the experiment is taken care of correctly."

Lycopodium Clavatum could work against other types of cancer

Although cervical cancer cells were used in the study, the findings suggest that Lycopodium Clavatum could help fight other types of cancer. Dr Tournier adds:

"These results found on [cervical] cells are potentially generalisable to other cancer cell lines, although the tests would have to be done.

"The fact that homeopathic medicines were shown to be effective at selectively killing cancer cells warrants further research, and offers the possibility that homeopathy could be useful for a wide variety of cancer patients in the future."

With Lycopodium Clavatum being widely available to purchase online, it could be tempting for cancer sufferers to self-medicate. However, this would be inadvisable until further research has confirmed its safety and efficacy in patients. Dr Tournier adds:

"Lycopodium is already available to the general public. It would be very easy to purchase from a homeopathic pharmacy. However, I would not recommend taking Lycopodium for cancer, even for cervical cancer. This study does not provide evidence that the homeopathic remedy will be effective in cancer patients. More research is required before such a homeopathic medicine can be used routinely in cancer treatment."

It is nevertheless, still possible to find experienced doctors who treat cancer patients using homeopathy with a high success rate. One of these is Dr. Spinedi's team at the Clinica Santa Croce (http://www.omeopatia.clinicasantacroce.ch) in Switzerland, who use many remedies, carefully selected for the particular complaint and circumstances of each patient.

Modulation of Signal Proteins: A Plausible Mechanism to Explain How a Potentized Drug Secale Cor 30C Diluted beyond Avogadro's Limit Combats Skin Papilloma in Mice

Hindawi Publishing Corporation | Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine | Volume 2011, Article ID 286320, 12 pagesModulation of Signal Proteins: A PlausibleMechanism to Explain How a Potentized Drug Secale Cor 30C Diluted beyond Avogadro's Limit Combats Skin Papilloma in MiceAnisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh,1 Soumya Sundar Bhattacharyya,1 Saili Paul,1 Suman Dutta,1 Naoual Boujedaini,2 and Philippe Belon2

1.Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani 741235, West Bengal, India 2.Boiron Laboratory, Lyon, France

Copyright © 2011 Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh et al. This is an open access article.

In homeopathy, ability of ultra-high diluted drugs at or above potency 12C (diluted beyond Avogadro's limit) in ameliorating/curing various diseases is often questioned, particularly because the mechanism of action is not precisely known. We tested the hypothesis if suitable modulations of signal proteins could be one of the possible pathways of action of a highly diluted homeopathic drug, Secale cornutum 30C (diluted 1060 times; Sec cor 30). It could successfully combat DMBA + croton oilinduced skin papilloma in mice as evidenced by histological, cytogenetical, immunofluorescence, ELISA and immunoblot findings. Critical analysis of several signal proteins like AhR, PCNA, Akt, Bcl-2, Bcl-xL, NF-κB and IL-6 and of pro-apoptotic proteins like cytochrome c, Bax, Bad, Apaf, caspase-3 and -9 revealed that Sec cor 30 suitably modulated their expression levels along with amelioration of skin papilloma. FACS data also suggested an increase of cell population at S and G2 phases and decrease in sub- G1 and G1 phages in carcinogen-treated drug-unfed mice, but these were found to be near normal in the Sec cor 30-fed mice. There was reduction in genotoxic and DNA damages in bone marrow cells of Sec Cor 30-fed mice, as revealed from cytogenetic and Comet assays. Changes in histological features of skin papilloma were noted. Immunofluorescence studies of AhR and PCNA also suggested reduced expression of these proteins in Sec cor 30-fed mice, thereby showing its anti-cancer potentials against skin papilloma. Furthermore, this study also supports the hypothesis that potentized homeopathic drugs act at gene regulatory level.

--

604-568-4663

www.accessnaturalhealing.com

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/homeopath#!/AccessNaturalHealing

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/accesshealing

LinkedIn:

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=hb_tab_pro_top

“The information contained in this message is for educational purposes and constitutes a response to a private request for information only and does not constitute a solicitation for services and makes no claim or promise that any product or service that may cure any condition or ailment,”

n late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government

The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.  In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland's national health insurance program. 

The Swiss government's inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country's health insurance program. 

It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care. 

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government's health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland's national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government's constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009). 

The Swiss Government's "Health Technology Assessment" 

The Swiss government's "Health Technology Assessment" on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the "real world effectiveness" as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells). 

And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called "internal validity") and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called "external validity"). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not "work," the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy... or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition). 

After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhöft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006) 

The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy. 

The authors of the Swiss government's report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only nine "high quality" conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Lüdtke, Rutten, 2008). 

The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in "evidence based medicine," has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were "unscientific" or "unproven" because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials. 

In my view, for a treatment to be determined to be "effective" or "scientifically proven," a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn't is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government's report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective. 

The next article will discuss further evidence provided in this report from the Swiss government on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic care. 

--- REFERENCES: 

Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011. http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1(This book is presently available from the German office of the publisher, and it will become available via the American office as well as select booksellers in mid- to late-February, 2012.)(NOTE: When specific facts in the above article are provided but not referenced, this means that these facts were derived from this book.) 

Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077 

Dacey, Jessica. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote. SwissInfo.ch, May 19, 2009. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Therapy_supporters_roll_up_sleeves_after_vote.html?cid=670064 

Linde K, Jonas W. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 36:2081-2082. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67878-6. http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673605678786.pdf 

Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015. http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00190-X/abstract 

Rist L, Schwabl H: Komplementärmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevölkerungstimmt über Verfassungsartikel «Zukunft mit Komplementärmedizin» ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi 10.1159/000203073. (Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Article "The future with complementary medicine" http://www.ayurveda-association.eu/files/swiss_referendum_on_cam_-_forschkomplementmed_2009.pdf 

*Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003. 

By, Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com. He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (the Foreword to this book was written by Dr. Peter Fisher, the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California. 

--

Your Wellness Team at

~Access Natural Healing Centre~

604-568-4663

el@accessnaturalhealing.com

www.accessnaturalhealing.com

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/homeopath#!/AccessNaturalHealing

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/accesshealing

LinkedIn:

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=hb_tab_pro_top

“The information contained in this message is for educational purposes and constitutes a response to a private request for information only and does not constitute a solicitation for services and makes no claim or promise that any product or service that may cure any condition or ailment,”

Autism Is A Research Growth Area: No Profit in Finding the Cause

Autism Is A Research Growth Area: No Profit in Finding the CauseFebruary 19, 2012 by admin in Autism, Featured, Science http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-02-19/autism-is-a-research-growth-area-no-profit-in-finding-the-cause/ 

The Mind of the Autism Researcher 

Attempts to prove that autism is genetic, physical, or chemical in nature continue unabated. It’s proven to be a most lucrative specialty for researchers. However, the studies that promote the genetics-not-vaccine concept tend to show only the effects of autism. They demonstrate nothing to indicate the actual cause, though they often imply, or even outright state, otherwise. 

That alone should tell us what’s become of most autism research: it’s a growth area. Autism research has become very much the same as Big Pharma-based medicine. In fact, much of it is funded by pharmaceutical corporations. 

To find a disease cause and solution to prevent disease isn’t profitable. However, to find even the most minuscule physical, genetic, or chemical change in someone with an existing disease means that even more money can be squeezed out of the research funders like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), agencies funded by taxpayers. Anything that leads away from causes and focuses on the physiochemical effects of autism always leads to more questions and more research funds. 

Gaia Health recently documented an autism study demonstrating that it shows the opposite of what is claimed. The authors attempt to demonstrate that physical changes in the brains of autistics shows that vaccines could not be the cause. In reality, the study shows a close parallel between those changes and autism’s development. That fact, though, could not be mentioned. It would likely have resulted in the researchers’ funding sources drying up. Study: White Matter Changes in Autism 

A recent study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry(1) says that children defined as high risk for developing autism become autistic because of changes in the brain’s white matter, and that autism can be predicted in advance based on MRIs showing such changes. This is all fine and dandy—but it says precisely nothing about what causes these changes. 

This study has a continuing medical education couse associated with it on MedPage Today. Passing the related test of two simple questions provides the reader, who is presumed to be a doctor, with .25 CME units. The doctor can easily collect these training credits within a few minutes, never leaving the comfort of home or office, or more significantly, without even having to bother reading the study itself. No thought process is required to determine whether the study holds any validity. The single-page course simply summarizes and regurgitates the study’s claims with no attempt to analyze whether it’s meaningful. 

The result of this is sure to be yet more MRI tests on infants, which will, of course, further increase the cost of medicine and will likely produce no benefit to children—unless yet another toxic drug is considered helpful. Study: Genetic Changes in Autism 

Another study, published in PLoS Genetics(2), states that functional mutations in the SHANK2 gene, resulting in changes in synapses, are associated with some, but not all, autism. A functional mutation is not a birth defect. It is caused by something. 

However, the study researchers weren’t interested in what causes the SHANK2 gene to be damaged. They were quite satisfied with the idea that the damage was just spontaneous. One would have thought that the researchers would at least be curious about what causes these changes—but apparently curiosity that doesn’t bring in big financial payments has been bred out of researchers. 

Their interest was only in the idea where the finding indicates that several genes acting in combination must be associated with autism. Author Bergeron states: 

There are so many combinations that might be important. We still have a lot of work to do at the genetic level. 

Wow! Those researchers may have found a mother lode of research grants for all the follow-up research that they can now claim should be done. Just imagine the money that’s going to be made by Big Pharma in vaccines or drugs to treat the broken SHANK2 genes. Obviously, finding the cause of those broken genes would interfere with the profits to be made in attempts to fix them. Study: Brain Activity Changes in Face Recognition 

A study published in Nature Neuroscience(3) claims that functional MRIs can examine the fusiform gyrus, a part of the brain believed to focus on face identification, and that it will be able to study people—specifically, autistics—who are too unresponsive to cooperate in such studies. Author J.D. Gabrieli told the Simons Foundation: 

Functional brain studies have been limited to the most high-functioning individuals, because we had to use active tasks that required following instructions. This method may open ways to look at the many autism patients who cannot follow task instructions. 

Thus, this study has been performed to pave the way for yet more studies of autistic people. Whether it might actually benefit them is … well, that doesn’t seem to be the issue. The Third Rail of Medical Research 

There exists just one thing that autism researchers won’t touch: the cause. It’s the third rail of medical research. Autism has developed into a huge money-maker for modern medicine and its supporting agencies. Big Pharma is now selling drugs to send autistic kids to oblivion and further damage their brains. Doctors have a huge group of children whose parents are conditioned to take them back over and over again for tests and treatments, none of which help. Agencies and charities have organized to promote awareness of the condition and, in most cases, to promote the well-being of the top-line managers’ pay. Researchers and medical journals all help feed into this newly profitable condition. None of them actually help. For that, you must leave the modern medical system and find alternatives. 

If the cause of autism were officially found. The focus would be on prevention. But then, none of this enormous pool of money could be tapped by any of these groups. Their bottom line is benefited by putting on blinders to the most likely cause, vaccines. To that end, they’ve established a PR campaign to convince the public—not to mention their own members—that vaccines aren’t the cause of autism and that autism isn’t truly a new disorder, but one that was previously unrecognized. Of course, as most parents of autistic children can state without reservation, there is no possibility that what’s happened to their children could ever have gone unnoticed. 

So, they’ve developed a most magnificent arrangement of patting each others’ backs: 

The doctors get to take absurdly simple CME courses that tell of phony breakthroughs, thus getting that nuisance requirement of continuing education out of the way without stress. Medical websites that take most of their money from Big Pharma can pump out these nonsensical courses, pulling doctors to their sites for the easy ride. Doctors get more and more patients. Medical suppliers get to sell more and more equipment for tests. Big Pharma gets to develop new drugs and find ways to push old ones on autism sufferers. To support it all and give the seal of so-called “evidence based medicine” to these practices, medical researchers produce study after study, all of them focused on anything but finding the cause of autism. 

It’s a cozy arrangement for everyone but the autistic children, their families, and society as a whole. Finding the cause would shut down the researchers’ gushing funding tap, and preventing autism would cut into all arenas of this exploding area of the medical industry. 

Sources: 

(1)Differences in White Matter Fiber Tract Development Present from 6 to 24 Months in Infants with Autism, doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11091447. (2)Genetic and Functional Analyses of SHANK2 Mutations Suggest a Multiple Hit Model of Autism Spectrum Disorders (3)Anatomical connectivity patterns predict face selectivity in the fusiform gyrus, doi: 10.1038/nn.3001 

--

Elena Cecchetto DCH, CCH, RSHom(NA)

604-568-4663

el@accessnaturalhealing.com

www.accessnaturalhealing.com

Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/homeopath#!/AccessNaturalHealing

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/accesshealing

LinkedIn:

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=hb_tab_pro_top

“The information contained in this message is for educational purposes and constitutes a response to a private request for information only and does not constitute a solicitation for services and makes no claim or promise that any product or service that may cure any condition or ailment,”