Nobel Prize Laureate Stuns Colleagues with Homeopathy At A Prestigious International Scientific Meeting

Posted on July 6, 2010. Filed under: Nobel Prize Laureate Stuns Colleagues with Homeopathy At A Prestigious International Scientific Meeting | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

At a recent international meeting of Nobel Laureates held last week in Germany, Luc Montagnier presented a new method for detecting viral infections using the principles of homeopathy. He is a nobel laureate who discovered the link between HIV and AIDS.

“Montagnier told the conference last week that solutions containing the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses, including HIV, “could emit low frequency radio waves” that induced surrounding water molecules to become arranged into “nanostructures”. These water molecules, he said, could also emit radio waves.

He suggested water could retain such properties even after the original solutions were massively diluted, to the point where the original DNA had effectively vanished. In this way, he suggested, water could retain the “memory” of substances with which it had been in contact — and doctors could use the emissions to detect disease.”

For the lay person such claims may sound technical, but uncontroversial. For scientists they are highly provocative because they embody principles which are extremely similar to those that underpin homeopathy. Homeopathic medicines work on the principle that a toxic substance taken in minute amounts will cure same symptoms that it would cause if it were taken in large amounts.
Montagniers claims come at a sensitive time, with British Medical Associations annual conference last week calling for the National Health Service to stop spending 4 million a year on homeopathy.
Source: Sunday London Times July 4, 2010
Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: The Historical and Scientific Evidence

Posted on February 10, 2010. Filed under: The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: The Historical and Scientific Evidence | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

An article by Dana Ullman…………

A lot of people today are confused about what homeopathy is (and isn’t), and this situation is not helped by the skeptics of homeopathy who go to incredible extents to exaggerate and misconstrue what homeopathic medicine is and who commonly provide misinformation about it. It is more than a tad ironic that these “skeptics” who hold themselves out as “defenders of medical science” have exhibited an embarrassingly poor scientific attitude when evaluating what homeopathy is and what the scientific evidence does and doesn’t say about it.

Because many skeptics of homeopathy today indulge in spreading misinformation about homeopathy, this blog is addressed at setting the record straight and is packed with references to confirm the veracity of what is being asserted here.

First, to clarify, advocating for or using homeopathic medicines does not preclude appreciation for or use of selective conventional medical treatment. Advocates of homeopathy simply honor the Hippocratic tradition of “First, do no harm” and therefore seek to explore and utilize safer methods before resorting to more risky treatments. This perspective has historical and international roots, and it is thus no surprise that American health care which has been so resistant to homeopathic and natural therapies in its mainstream institutions is presently ranked 37th in the world in the performance of its health care system.(1) In comparison, the number one ranked country in the world is France, a country in which around 40 percent of the population uses homeopathic medicines and around 30 percent of its family physicians prescribe them (2).

The Evidence IS There

The fact that homeopathy became extremely popular during the 19th century primarily because of its impressive successes in treating the infectious disease epidemics that raged during that time is a fact that is totally ignored by skeptics.(3)(4)(5) It is highly unlikely that a placebo response is the explanation for homeopathy’s notable successes in treating epidemics of cholera, yellow fever, scarlet fever, typhoid, pneumonia, or influenza. Skeptics are wonderfully clever in trying to make up stories and excuses for the good and often amazing results that people get from homeopathic medicines. Most often, however, they simply say that “old news is no news,” as they brag about not learning from the past as though this is a good thing.

There are more than 150 placebo controlled clinical studies, most of which have shown positive results, either compared with a placebo or compared with a conventional drug.(6-10)

If that were not enough, studies testing the effects of homeopathic medicines on cell cultures, plants, animals, physics experiments, and chemistry trials have shown statistically significant effects. (11-16) Needless to say, the placebo effect in these basic science studies is virtually non-existent, while the effects from homeopathic doses are significant and sometimes substantial.

Skeptics are virulently silent on the entire field of hormesis (the multidisciplinary science of evaluating the power of small doses of varied biological systems) and its thousands of studies in a wide variety of scientific disciplines. (17)(18) This silence on hormesis is completely understandable because their acknowledgement of this body of evidence obliterates much of their criticisms of homeopathy. The doses of homeopathic medicines that are commonly sold in health food stores and pharmacies throughout the world are in a similar low dosage range of the thousands of hormesis studies on low-dose effects. It is very odd that skeptics ignore the thousands of studies in this field, and yet, these same skeptics repeat their embarrassingly uninformed mantra of “where is the research?” It is indeed no wonder that these skeptics are often referred to as “denialists” rather than skeptics.

It is readily acknowledged that the pharmacological process of making homeopathic medicines is often misunderstood or inadequately understood. Homeopathic medicines are made with a specific process, called potentization, that is unique to homeopathy. Each medicine is made in double-distilled water in a glass test-tube, diluted in a 1:10 or 1:100 solution that is vigorously shaken 40 or more times. Then, this process of dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking) is repeated 3, 6, 12, 30, 200, 1,000, or more times. Although one would think that one is diluting out whatever was in the original solution, the immense worldwide experience using homeopathic medicines over the past 200 years prove otherwise.

There is a body of intriguing but not yet fully verified theories about how homeopathic medicines work. These theories are too technical for this article, though I sincerely hope that the “good skeptics” out there will work to explore and help figure out the many mysteries that may explain homeopathy, rather than repeat the old reactionary mantra that “it cannot work.”

For instance, the new “silica hypothesis” is particularly intriguing, especially in light of the fact that approximately six parts per million of “silica fragments” or “chips” are known to fall off the walls of glass vials during the shaking process, and with the creation of nano-bubbles from the shaking process, the water pressure is changed dramatically, akin to being at over 10,000 feet altitude.(19)

Because a homeopathic medicine is selected for its unique ability to cause the specific pattern or syndrome of symptoms that it is known to cause in overdose, a living organism has a hypersensitivity to even extremely small doses of the correctly chosen homeopathic medicine. Just as a “C” note of a piano is hypersensitive to other “C” notes, living organisms are hypersensitive to extremely small doses of medicines that are made from substances that cause the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing. This ancient principle, “like cures like,” was heralded by the Oracle at Delphi, the Bible, and various Eastern cultures, and the fact that modern-day immunology and allergy treatments derive from the primary principle of homeopathy, “the law of similars,” provides additional substantiation to this system of medicine. Conventional allergy treatment and vaccination are two of the very few conventional medical treatments that do something to augment immune response, and yet, both of these treatments derive from the homeopathic principle of similars.

Actually, a better description of this principle of similars is the “principle of resonance,” which any student of music knows has both power and hypersensitivity. The additional wisdom of this homeopathic principle is that it use leads to the prescription of medicines that mimic, rather than that suppress, the symptoms and the innate intelligence of the human body. Because homeopathic medicines are prescribed for their ability to mimic the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing, it is no wonder that people find that these medicines augment immune competence and improve body and mind health.

In this light, homeopathy can and should be considered a type of “medical biomimicry” and a “resonance medicine.”

Homeopaths may not yet adequately understand precisely how their medicines work, but the body of historical and present-day evidence and experience is simply too significant to ignore. The fact that so many highly respected people and cultural heroes over the past 200 years have used and advocated for homeopathy provides additional evidence for this medical system. Some of these cultural heroes include eleven U.S. Presidents, six popes, JD Rockefeller, Charles Darwin, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, and scores of literary greats, corporate leaders, sports superstars, world-class musicians, and monarchs from virtually every European country.(20)

It is also important to acknowledge that hundreds of thousands, even millions, of medical doctors learned conventional medicine but have used homeopathic medicines in conjunction with or (commonly) in replacement of conventional medicines. In comparison, the number of medical professionals who have trained in homeopathy and who then stopped using these medicines is extremely small. The fact that homeopathic medicine represents the leading medical alternative in Europe and in significant portions of Asia (especially India and Pakistan) provides additional support for this often misunderstood medical science and art. In fact, over 100 million people in India depend solely on this form of medical care.(21) Further, according to an A.C. Neilsen survey, 62 percent of current homeopathy users in India have never tried conventional medicines and 82 percent of homeopathy users would not switch to conventional treatments.(22)
The So-Called Best Evidence that Homeopathy Does Not Work

Sadly and strangely, the skeptics of homeopathy put much of their belief that homeopathy does not work on a review and comparison of homeopathic and conventional medical research that was published in the Lancet in 2005.(23) The Lancet even published an editorial in this same issue entitled “The End of Homeopathy.”

However, this “evidence” is a very controversial and some say extremely flawed review of homeopathic research.(24)(25) This review sought to compare 110 placebo-controlled homeopathic studies and with a “matched” group of 110 studies testing conventional medications. The researchers appropriately sought to only evaluate those studies that their criteria deemed to be a “high quality” study.

Although the idea of comparing studies is a good idea, the way that this group of researchers evaluated only a small subset of all studies showed an initial and ongoing bias, as you shall soon see…

First, it is important to know that the leader of this review of homeopathic research is A. Shang’s boss (and co-author of this article) is M. Eggers, a noted vocal skeptic of homeopathy. Second, evidence of strong bias against homeopathy by these researchers was brought to light by the Lancet‘s senior editor, Zoe Mullan, who acknowledged that, “Professor Eggers stated at the onset that he expected to find that homeopathy had no effect other than that of placebo.”(26)

Shang and his team deemed that “high quality trials” must fit certain criteria. It must be acknowledged that two other meta-analyses that have previously been published in the Lancet (1997) and the British Medical Journal (1991) have deemed several trials that had strongly positive effects from homeopathic treatment as “high quality” than was not deemed as such by Shang (and he has never commented about this discrepancy).

Despite the problems in comparing conventional medical research and homeopathic research, let’s assume that the two groups of studies ARE comparable. It is therefore more than a tad ironic that they found 21 of the homeopathic studies fit this definition of “high quality” clinical researcher but only 9 of the conventional studies did so. One would have thought that the researchers would then compare these “high quality” trials. However, this result would have shown that there IS a difference between homeopathic treatment and a placebo in a variety of ailments, and authors (who are known skeptics of homeopathy) could not allow that conclusion.

Instead, Shang’s group chose to only evaluate a much smaller subset of these high quality trials. They limited the review to the largest trials in both groups to 8 homeopathic trials (with at least 98 subjects) and six conventional trials (with at least 146 subjects). Strangely enough, when evaluating only this last group of larger studies, they were not comparable in ANY way. The diseases that they treated were all different. And conveniently enough, the researchers asserted that one of the large trials testing homeopathic medicines in the treatment of patients with polyarthritis (arthritis in multiple joints) did not have a comparable trial (they actually asserted with complete seriousness that there has never been a study of patients with this common malady, and rather than admit that this large trial of 175 patients which showed significant efficacy of treatment, they simply threw out the trial from their evaluation). When one realizes that NONE of the studies in the final evaluation matched each other in any way, the researchers’ decision to throw out this study on the homeopathic treatment of people with polyarthritis is additional evidence of the researcher’s strong biases and their efforts to prove homeopathy as a placebo “by hook or by crook.”

The researchers put a higher value of those studies with larger numbers of patients because they asserted that smaller trials are “biased,” even though they were randomized double-blind and placebo studies (and many of which were published in the Lancet, the BMJ, and other highly respected conventional medical journals). One group of four studies on patients with respiratory allergies which included 253 subjects and was published in the BMJ(27) was not a part of the final analysis without explanation. An earlier study published in the Lancet with 144 subjects suffering from hay fever was also missing from the final analysis.(28) The fact that these studies showed a significant benefit from homeopathic treatment was ignored entirely.

Using large number of subjects is “do-able” in homeopathy, though it is simply less frequent, due to the high costs of such studies and due to the fact that the profit margin for the sale of homeopathic medicines does not even approach that of conventional drugs. Also, it is a lot easier using conventional medicine than homeopathic medicine in studies because the very nature of homeopathy is the necessity to evaluate a person’s overall syndrome, not just any localized disease. This type of sophistication in individualized treatment is a part of good acupuncture treatment as well.

It is therefore not surprising that six of the eight large homeopathic trials gave the same homeopathic medicine to every subject, no matter what symptoms of the disease the subjects in the experiments experienced. Astonishingly enough, the Shang review included a “weight-loss” study in their final review. The “study” used Thyroidinum 30C (a small dose of thyroid gland), even though this remedy is not reported in the homeopathic literature as an appropriate medicine for this condition.

Even though a study can be “well designed” and “well conducted,” it will become a “junk science” study if the drug used is totally inappropriate for the sick person. As it turns out, six of the eight homeopathic studies in the final analysis by Shang used homeopathic medicines that were unlikely to be prescribed by a practicing homeopath (they prescribe their medicines based on the overall syndrome of physical and psychological symptoms the patient has, not just based on the diagnosed name of the disease, except in exceptional situations). In research and statistics, good studies need to have “internal validity” (how the study was designed and conducted) and “external validity” (how the treatment in the study can be generalized to clinical practice). The Shang group did not even seek to evaluate whether any of the studies had “external validity” or not. Sad, but true.

Perhaps the most interesting fact about this study was totally ignored by its authors. Of the six large and high quality conventional medical trials tested drugs that were deemed to be “effective,” three of these medical treatments have been withdrawn from medical use due to the serious side effects that later research confirmed. In other words, while conventional medicines were “proven” to be initially effective, further studies “proved” that these treatments provided more problems than benefits (a fact totally overlooked by the authors of this review).

Finally, imagine if researchers evaluated ALL studies for which antibiotics were used. Although antibiotics are primarily effective in the treatment of bacterial infections, they have been tested to treat a wide variety of infections, not just bacterial, but as we all know, antibiotics are not effective for anything other than bacterial infection (and even then, the frequency of use of antibiotics will reduce their efficacy because the bacteria adapt to it). Just because antibiotics are not effective for most conditions does not mean that specific antibiotics are ineffective for specific conditions. Good science requires specificity, not over-generalized statements, as Shang and his ilk have made.

Although the above seems to be a simple and logical statement, skeptics of homeopathy prove their paucity of rational thought by lumping together ALL types of homeopathic research, then throwing out or ignoring the vast majority of studies (including MOST of the studies that the researchers defined as “high quality”), and using studies that are not good examples of how homeopathy is practiced.

For instance, the World Health Organization has deemed that childhood diarrhea represents one of the most serious public health problems in the world today because millions of children die each year as a result of dehydration from diarrhea. With this concern in mind, three randomized double-blind trials were conducted testing individually chosen homeopathic medicines for children with diarrhea. One of these studies was published in Pediatrics,(29) and another study was published in another highly respected pediatric medical journal.(30) All three of these trials showed a significant benefit from homeopathic treatment when compared with placebo.

Similarly, four double-blind placebo controlled trials has shown benefit from the homeopathic medicine, Oscillococcinum, in the treatment of influenza.(31) Research has consistently found it to be effective in the treatment of influenza, though it does not seem to be effective in its prevention.

As for homeopathy and respiratory allergies, reference above was already made to four studies that showed effectiveness of homeopathic treatment (2 of which were published in the BMJ and one of which was published in the Lancet). Further, a review of seven double-blind and placebo controlled studies showed that homeopathic doses of Galphimia glauca were effective in treating people with hay fever.(32)

The two new re-analyses of the Shang review of homeopathic research provide the old cliche, GIGO. Junk data indeed creates junk science which creates junk and meaningless results. And ironically, THIS study is considered the ‘best” evidence that homeopathy does not work. If this is the best that they have, skepticism of homeopathy is not only dead, it is stupid dead.

While I would like to think that this article would finally put the last nail in the coffin of skeptics of homeopathy, I know that Big Pharma will not allow that to happen. Further, these skeptics are often like religious fundamentalists who will believe what they want to believe no matter what. And then, there’s the impact from cognitive dissonance: many people who have invested their time and energy into conventional medicine simply cannot imagine admitting that homeopathy may have any benefit. It may be time to put that rotary telephone in the attic along with the typewriter and your former skepticism of homeopathic medicine.
A Simple Challenge to Skeptics

To adequately and accurately evaluate homeopathy, one has to evaluate the whole body of evidence that has enabled homeopathy to persist for 200+ years. While evaluating double-blind clinical trials is important, so is evaluating the wide body of basic sciences, as well as the clinical outcome trials, the epidemiological studies, the cost-effectiveness literature, and the serial case review trials. It is strange that these defenders of science would remain so ignorant of the whole body of evidence that homeopathic medicine stands. Some leading skeptics of homeopathy even pride themselves on the value of having a closed mind to homeopathy.(33)

Skeptics of homeopathy assume that homeopaths, more than any other type of health practitioner, have incredible magic powers to elicit a placebo effect. We all acknowledge a certain power of the placebo in treating the “worried well,” but do skeptics of homeopathy really believe that a placebo effect is consistently effective to treat all of the serious illnesses that are commonly treated by homeopaths…and for which good double-blind studies show efficacy? Studies at the University of Vienna showed “substantial significance” in treating patients with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease…the number four reason that people in the USA die!)(34) and severe sepsis (a condition which kills 50 percent of patients in hospitals who are inflicted with it, and yet, homeopathic treatment has been found to cut this death rate in HALF!).(35)

The vast majority of homeopaths throughout the world are medical doctors or some other licensed or certified health professional who practice family medicine and who see patients with varied acute and chronic ailments. Therefore, I personally challenge ANY skeptic of homeopathy to try to maintain a family practice and only dispense “sugar pills,” rather than real homeopathic medicines. My challenge is simple: while seeing a wide variety of children and adults with various acute and chronic problems, take them off all of their conventional drugs (with the exception of insulin and a small selection of drugs of “medical necessity”), and prescribe only sugar pills…for just one week.

When you consider that homeopaths do this for 52 weeks of the year, skeptics of homeopathy should not have any problem IF they think that homeopaths are only prescribing placebos. Let’s see how many patients complain, call you late at night expressing concern about the ineffectiveness of your “medicine,” and simply do not return for future health care. Any skeptic of homeopathy will be “cured” by this experience in humility. (For the record, I have offered hundreds of skeptics with this challenge, and not a single one has agreed to “prove” that placebo treatment can work in family medicine).

To clarify, I honor good skepticism, for a healthy skepticism seeks to truly explore a subject with knowledge and without arrogance. Further, good skepticism seeks to understand the wide body of evidence that it is necessary to evaluate to determine veracity of phenomena. It is the bad or ugly skepticism that breeds an unscientific attitude and that is simply a form of denialism, or in some cases, hyper-denialism.

Sadly, many of today skeptics are fundamentalists who epitomize a “closed mind.” Deepak Chopra said it so well when he asserted, “professional skeptics who are self-appointed vigilantes dedicated to the suppression of curiosity” (huffingtonpost, Dec 27, 2009). When such people do not want to learn from the past, do not even read the research (or only read those studies that confirm their own point of view), and maintain a high degree of arrogance, such “skepticism” isn’t skepticism at all: it is bad scientific thinking, it is an unhealthy attitude towards science, and it is a model for how not to learn.

One of the leaders of the skeptics is famed magician James Randi, who like many skeptics is seemingly skeptical of everything (except conventional medicine). He, however, has begun to lose respect from his colleagues and scientists by his skepticism of global warming.(36)

When the denialists assert and insist that homeopathy “cannot” work, I remind them that “science” and “medicine” are not just nouns but verbs…science and medicine are ever-changing. ..and what may be today’s medicine is tomorrow’s quackery, and what may today’s quackery may be tomorrow’s medicine. This is not a prediction; this is history. I encourage everyone and anyone who is seriously interested in the science and art of real healing to explore what homeopathic medicine has to offer. As Mark Twain once asserted in 1890, “you may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of the allopathists [conventional physicians] to destroy it.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ah Yeah……..and Homeopaths are the BAD guys??

Posted on March 17, 2009. Filed under: Ah Yeah......and Homeopaths are the "BAD" guys?? | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

This article was posted on the Natural News website yesterday.

A Listing of the Twenty-One Fabricated Studies by Dr. Scott Reuben

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The health community is up in arms over the discovery that a highly-respected and influential clinical researcher, Dr. Scott Reuben, fabricated the data used in over twenty pharmaceutical studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Read the full NaturalNews report on this topic here: http://www.naturalnews.com/025833.html

These studies promoted the safety and “benefits” of drugs like Bextra (Pfizer), Vioxx (Merck), Lyrica, Celebrex and Effexor. The lead researcher on these studies, Dr. Scott Reuben, was being paid by Pfizer and Merck, so there’s a verified financial connection between this clinical researcher and at least two of the drug companies that benefitted from his fabricated findings. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/h…)

Note carefully the names of the medical journals that published Dr. Reuben’s fabricated data (see below). These so-called “science journals” claim to be peer-reviewed, which means these studies were approved by multiple scientists who agreed with the findings.

What this scandal reveals is that even peer-reviewed medical journals cannot be trusted to publish truthful, accurate information about pharmaceuticals. In fact, they are just as much a part of the Big Pharma / FDA conspiracy as the pill-pushing researchers who fabricate these studies, in my opinion.

The only honest medical science journal I’ve found is PLoS Medicine (http://medicine.plosjournals.org). Everything else I’ve seen is just tabloid medicalized fiction sandwiched in between pages of false advertising.

And conventional doctors, for all their self-proclaimed intelligence and scientific skepticism, were universally hoodwinked by this faked data! Apparently the best way to convince doctors that a drug is safe and effective is to just invent whatever story you want and submit it to a medical journal, which then gladly publishes it.

If you’re looking for a career as a fiction writer, the heck with authoring books sold in the “fiction” section of the local bookstore… just write for medical journals and drug companies! They pay is better and the fiction is even more outrageous!

Speaking of fiction and false advertising, here’s a list of studies authored or co-authored by Dr. Scott Reuben who admittedly fabricated at least twenty-one of these studies. Dr. Reuben was recently a faculty member at Tufts Medical School and co-founder of the Orthopedic Anesthesia, Pain and Rehabilitation Society, by the way. You can read more about his fraud in Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id…).

Medical studies authored / fabricated by the shamed Dr. Scott Reuben

Preventing the development of chronic pain after thoracic surgery.
Reuben SS, Yalavarthy L.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008 Dec;22(6):890-903. Epub 2008 May 7. No abstract available.
PMID: 18834790

A prospective randomized trial on the role of perioperative celecoxib administration for total knee arthroplasty: improving clinical outcomes.
Reuben SS, Buvenandran A, Katz B, Kroin JS.
Anesth Analg. 2008 Apr;106(4):1258-64, table of contents.
PMID: 18349203

Update on the role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and coxibs in the management of acute pain.
Reuben SS.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007 Oct;20(5):440-50. Review.
PMID: 17873597

The effect of initiating a preventive multimodal analgesic regimen on long-term patient outcomes for outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery.
Reuben SS, Ekman EF.
Anesth Analg. 2007 Jul;105(1):228-32.
PMID: 17578979

Evaluating the analgesic efficacy of administering celecoxib as a component of multimodal analgesia for outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery.
Reuben SS, Ekman EF, Charron D.
Anesth Analg. 2007 Jul;105(1):222-7.
PMID: 17578978

Preventing the development of chronic pain after orthopaedic surgery with preventive multimodal analgesic techniques.
Reuben SS, Buvanendran A.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jun;89(6):1343-58. Review.
PMID: 17545440

The efficacy of postoperative perineural infusion of bupivacaine and clonidine after lower extremity amputation in preventing phantom limb and stump pain.
Madabhushi L, Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Adesioye J.
J Clin Anesth. 2007 May;19(3):226-9.
PMID: 17531734

Chronic pain after surgery: what can we do to prevent it.
Reuben SS.
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2007 Feb;11(1):5-13. Review.
PMID: 17214915

The analgesic efficacy of celecoxib, pregabalin, and their combination for spinal fusion surgery.
Reuben SS, Buvanendran A, Kroin JS, Raghunathan K.
Anesth Analg. 2006 Nov;103(5):1271-7.
PMID: 17056968

Acute post-surgical pain management: a critical appraisal of current practice, December 2-4, 2005.
Rathmell JP, Wu CL, Sinatra RS, Ballantyne JC, Ginsberg B, Gordon DB, Liu SS, Perkins FM, Reuben SS, Rosenquist RW, Viscusi ER.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4 Suppl 1):1-42.
PMID: 16849098

Postoperative modulation of central nervous system prostaglandin E2 by cyclooxygenase inhibitors after vascular surgery.
Reuben SS, Buvanendran A, Kroin JS, Steinberg RB.
Anesthesiology. 2006 Mar;104(3):411-6.
PMID: 16508386

The incidence of complex regional pain syndrome after fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture: a prospective observational study of four anesthetic techniques.
Reuben SS, Pristas R, Dixon D, Faruqi S, Madabhushi L, Wenner S.
Anesth Analg. 2006 Feb;102(2):499-503.
PMID: 16428550

The effect of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition on acute and chronic donor-site pain after spinal-fusion surgery.
Reuben SS, Ekman EF, Raghunathan K, Steinberg RB, Blinder JL, Adesioye J.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;31(1):6-13.
PMID: 16418018

Interscalene block superior to general anesthesia.
Reuben SS.
Anesthesiology. 2006 Jan;104(1):207; author reply 208-9. No abstract available.
PMID: 16394719

High dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs compromise spinal fusion.
Reuben SS, Ablett D, Kaye R.
Can J Anaesth. 2005 May;52(5):506-12.
PMID: 15872130

More on current issues in pain management for the primary care practitioner. Acute pain: a multi-modal management approach.
Carr DB, Reuben S.
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2005;19(1):69-70. No abstract available.
PMID: 15814519

The effect of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition on analgesia and spinal fusion.
Reuben SS, Ekman EF.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Mar;87(3):536-42.
PMID: 15741619

The prevention of post-surgical neuralgia.
Reuben SS.
Pain. 2005 Jan;113(1-2):242-3; author reply 243-4. No abstract available.
PMID: 15621388

Surgery on the affected upper extremity of patients with a history of complex regional pain syndrome: the use of intravenous regional anesthesia with clonidine.
Reuben SS, Rosenthal EA, Steinberg RB, Faruqi S, Kilaru PA.
J Clin Anesth. 2004 Nov;16(7):517-22.
PMID: 15590255

Preventing the development of complex regional pain syndrome after surgery.
Reuben SS.
Anesthesiology. 2004 Nov;101(5):1215-24. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 15505459

Evaluation of efficacy of the perioperative administration of venlafaxine XR in the prevention of postmastectomy pain syndrome.
Reuben SS, Makari-Judson G, Lurie SD.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004 Feb;27(2):133-9.
PMID: 15157037

Analgesic effect of clonidine added to bupivacaine 0.125% in paediatric caudal blockade.
Joshi W, Connelly NR, Freeman K, Reuben SS.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2004 Jun;14(6):483-6.
PMID: 15153211

The perioperative use of cyclooxygenase-2 selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may offer a safer alternative.
Reuben SS, Connelly NR.
Anesthesiology. 2004 Mar;100(3):748. No abstract available.
PMID: 15109000

An evaluation of the safety and efficacy of administering rofecoxib for postoperative pain management.
Joshi W, Connelly NR, Reuben SS, Wolckenhaar M, Thakkar N.
Anesth Analg. 2003 Jul;97(1):35-8, table of contents.
PMID: 12818939

An evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of intravenous regional anesthesia with lidocaine and ketorolac using a forearm versus upper arm tourniquet.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Maciolek H, Manikantan P.
Anesth Analg. 2002 Aug;95(2):457-60, table of contents.
PMID: 12145071

Preoperative administration of controlled-release oxycodone for the management of pain after ambulatory laparoscopic tubal ligation surgery.
Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Maciolek H, Joshi W.
J Clin Anesth. 2002 May;14(3):223-7.
PMID: 12031758

Intravenous regional anesthesia with clonidine in the management of complex regional pain syndrome of the knee.
Reuben SS, Sklar J.
J Clin Anesth. 2002 Mar;14(2):87-91.
PMID: 11943518

Preemptive multimodal analgesia for anterior cruciate ligament surgery.
Reuben SS, Sklar J.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2002 Mar-Apr;27(2):225; author reply 225-6. No abstract available.
PMID: 11915075

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the perioperative administration of rofecoxib for total knee arthroplasty.
Reuben SS, Fingeroth R, Krushell R, Maciolek H.
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jan;17(1):26-31.
PMID: 11805921

The preemptive analgesic effect of rofecoxib after ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery.
Reuben SS, Bhopatkar S, Maciolek H, Joshi W, Sklar J.
Anesth Analg. 2002 Jan;94(1):55-9, table of contents.
PMID: 11772800

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 8 so far )

Lancet Wrong: But We Knew That!

Posted on January 11, 2009. Filed under: Lancet Wrong: But We Knew That! | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Natural News posted this article by Sherry Baker:

In August of 2005, the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet published a review comparing clinical trials of homeopathy with trials of conventional medicine. The conclusion of this study, which was widely hailed as evidence that homeopathy is worthless quackery, stated that homeopathic medicines are non-effective and, at best, just placebos. What’s more, an accompanying editorial in the Lancet said this “evidence” should close the door on the non-toxic, alternative treatment method, and flatly proclaimed this review should mark “the end of homeopathy”. Now two newly published studies, one in the journal Homeopathy and the other in the mainstream medical Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, have both gone on record to say the Lancet review was enormously flawed and downright inaccurate. Instead of showing homeopathy doesn’t work, the conclusion should have been that, at least for some ailments, it is effective.

Homeopathy involves giving very small doses of substances called remedies that, according to homeopathy, would produce the same or similar symptoms of illness in healthy people if they were given in larger doses. The goal of homeopathy is to stimulate the body’s defense system in order to prevent or treat illness. Homeopathy treatment is tailored to each individual and homeopathic practitioners work to select remedies according to a total picture of the patient, including not only symptoms but lifestyle, emotional and mental states, and other factors.

The original claim made in the Lancet review that homeopathic medicines are worthless treatments (other than being placebos) was based on six clinical trials of conventional medicine and eight studies of homeopathy. But what trials, exactly, were studied? It turns out the Lancet did not reveal this most basic information and, as the new studies point out, seriously flawed assumptions were made about the data that was presented. There are a limited number of homeopathic studies so it is not difficult to pick and choose facts to interpret selectively and unfavorably, which appears to be just what was done in the original Lancet anti-homeopathy article.

Bottom line: the Lancet’s report showing homeopathy is worthless lacked the academic care and scientific approach called for in medical journals. In fact, it could well be seen as a hack job.

In a statement to the press, George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University in Great Britain, stated: “The review gave no indication of which trials were analyzed nor of the various vital assumptions made about the data. This is not usual scientific practice. If we presume that homeopathy works for some conditions but not others, or change the definition of a ‘larger trial’, the conclusions change. This indicates a fundamental weakness in the conclusions: they are NOT reliable.”

The two recently published scientific papers that investigated the previous Lancet review conclude that an analysis of all high quality trials of homeopathy show positive outcomes. What’s more, the eight larger and higher quality trials of homeopathy looked at a variety of medical conditions. The new studies point out that because homeopathy worked consistently for some of these ailments and not others, the results must indicate that homeopathic remedies can’t be simply placebos. In addition, the studies conclude that comparing homeopathy to conventional medicine was a meaningless apples-and-oranges approach. There are also concerns that the original anti-homeopathy review used unpublished criteria. For example, the researchers didn’t bother to define what they meant by “higher quality” homeopathy research.

The new studies not only cast serious doubts on the original Lancet review, which was headed by Professor Matthias Egger of the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine at the University of Berne, but they strongly indicate Egger and his team based their conclusions on a series of hidden judgments that were prejudiced against homeopathy. So far,Professor Egger has declined to comment on the findings of the new studies in Homeopathy and the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,

A press statement from the National Center for Homeopathy explains that an open assessment of the current evidence suggests that homeopathy is probably effective for many conditions including allergies, upper respiratory tract infections and flu, but agrees that much more research is needed. To that end, the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) has announced it is currently supporting research in these areas:

* Homeopathy for physical, mental, and emotional symptoms of fibromyalgia (a chronic disorder involving widespread musculoskeletal pain, multiple tender points on the body, and fatigue).
* Homeopathy to help relieve or prevent brain deterioration and damage in stroke and dementia.
* Homeopathy (specifically the remedy cadmium) to potentially prevent damage to the cells of the prostate when those cells are exposed to toxins.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Im Back………….

Posted on October 9, 2008. Filed under: I'm Back | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Sorry I have been gone for a few months, but family, work and the US election have been taking up all of my time. I have been poking around at the usual blogs of Gimpy, Andy, Ben, and the like…… and I have started to realize that they have TOO much time on their hands! Almost an OBSESSION with defamation of homeopathy (something a good remedy could help with!). It reminds me of the Shakespeare quote, “Me thinks thy doth protest too much”!

All of that aside, I believe that their rhetoric is soon to fail, just like the current US government. You can talk and talk and talk, but when the world around you starts to fall you have got to eventually look at the truth. The world as we know it HAS to change. The world financial markets are showing us that business can no longer be done as usual and that includes health care and government. Gimpy on his blog states he is in “despair”  because homeopaths are working in Ghana and is not sure how to go about stopping our “blatantly dangerous woo-mongering”. All I can say is; Gimpy, if you are in despair because of homeopaths working in the world to make a change for the better, you need to look at what is REALLY going on. I live in the US and drug companies OWN television, they campaign and campaign and feed on fear with NO promise of solutions (listen to the list of side effects), much like the republican party. Much of the impetus of both the current government and the drug companies is greed, and Gimpy et al, if you do not think so, then you are poster children for Big-Pharma brainwashing. 

The success of the drug companies has less to do with weather their products workor not, it has EVERY thing to do with lobbyists and fear.  I can just hear Andy and Gimpy moaning as they read this……..here they go again, but only an idiot would not recognize the corruption of the pharmaceutical companies. In contrast, lets look at the corruption of the homeopathic pharmacies of the world………..oh, hmmmmm. I can’t seem to find any corruption, why would that be? Perhaps because the homeopathic paradigma does not lie and cheat and kill to make lots of money, because their motivation is not greed. Their success is not quantified by money, it is about true health and healing! Huh…go figure.

(Sorry if the conversational tone of this post is not up to the usual articles of this blog, once in a while I just need to relax!)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 6 so far )

Homeopathy and ……………Frogs

Posted on January 21, 2008. Filed under: Homeopathy and........Frogs | Tags: , , , , |

zoonet-frog.jpg  

A month ago Free To Choose Health’s weblog had a very funny satire about Ben Goldacre, Frogs and Frog Whisperers. You can read the satirical post here.  It seems the satire had more to it than understood at first blush. There has been an air tight replicated homeopathic study with frogs! “The effect of homeopathically prepared thyroxine on highland frogs: influence of electromagnetic fields”, can be read in its entirety here. I have also posted the abstract below. The delicious part is, the web site that published the study is called “Science Direct”! Chew on that awhile, Bad Science Boys!!

Abstract

Background: Previous experiments show that amphibian larvae are responsive to homeopathically prepared thyroxine.

Methods: We studied the effect of a highly diluted and agitated thyroxine solution exposed to various electromagnetic fields on metamorphosis in highland Rana temporaria. The devices tested were: microwave oven, mobile phone, airport X-ray, and a red light barcode scanner. Animals were treated either with homeopathically prepared thyroxine (10−30 parts by weight, 10−35 in the water in which the animals were kept), or analogously prepared blank solution, or analogously prepared thyroxine exposed to the electromagnetic field of one of the devices tested. Solutions were administered at 48 h intervals according to a standardized protocol.

Results: Animals treated with the standard test solution thyroxine 10−30 metamorphosed more slowly than the control animals, ie the effect of the homeopathically prepared thyroxine was opposed to the usual physiological effect of molecular thyroxine. The cumulative number of test animals that had reached the four-legged stage at defined points in time was smaller in the group treated with homeopathically prepared thyroxine at most of the points in time. This was found independently by all three research teams involved.

In contrast, this effect did not occur when the thyroxine solution had been exposed to the field of the early model microwave oven, or mobile phone. There was no difference between aqueous or alcoholic solutions were used, and there was, if any, only a small protective effect from aluminum foil. Airport X-ray and red light barcode scanning did not diminish the effect of the homeopathic solution.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 24 so far )

My Blog Takes a Turn

Posted on January 13, 2008. Filed under: My Blog Takes a Turn | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Some of my recent reading has included Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism, by Martin Walker, his fourth book charting the development of the corporate science lobby that has grown rapidly since New Labour came to power in Britain in 1997. One of the most ardent mouthpieces of the lobby is Dr Ben Goldacre who has authored a “Bad Science” column in the Guardian newspaper since 2003. Walker’s book clarified for me that Ben Goldacre and his fellow “badscience” bloggers have an altogether different agenda than just rigidly defending their view of science.  They are part of a British corporate pro-industrial science lobby and therefore it is their JOB to defame anything alternative, and hence, competitive, of which homeopathy is only one of many disciplines. These bloggers started out in the 80’s as a few amateur “quack busters”, and have now joined the pro-industrial science and technology lobby, working together to limit access to anything but what corporate medicine deems valid (read “profitable”).  Nutrition, acupuncture, herbal medicine, and homeopathy have all been subject to venomous attacks by Goldacre and his associates.

Mr. Walker states:

“Don’t expect anything near rationality from these skeptics or any of their aligned organizations. If they are not actually funded by the pharmaceutical and processed food industry or other corporate concerns themselves, they are aligned with groups which are. Their views are narrow and ideological, they have nothing to do with the normal, historically accepted investigation of knowledge. And if it enters your head to wonder whether these people are sincere, forget it. In the main, they are professional agents for corporate medicine and health.”

This explains why when the pro-homeopathic bloggers, especially Laughing My Socks Off, present study after study PROVING the scientific validity of homeopathy, these lobbyists continue to refute the evidence. Because of this realization, I have decided to change the direction of this blog. From now on I will discuss the benefits of homeopathy and the success stories of people who have used it. To that end, I invite you to share your personal homeopathic successes, either as layman or professional.

You can download Martin Walker’s book at no cost here.  

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Freedom To Choose

Posted on December 11, 2007. Filed under: Freedom to Choose | Tags: , , , , , , |

Over the past several years, I have seen hundreds of lives changed in a profoundly positive way by homeopathy. As I read and re-read the posts on many blogs both pro and con homeopathy, what strikes me as most grave is that the anti-homeopathy groups want to limit consumer’s health care choices. They accuse homeopathy of being “unscientific” and therefore lacking any efficacy to facilitate good health. Ben Goldacre and the “Badscience” bloggers are not interested in promoting effective healthcare. Their goal centers on a malicious denigration of homeopathic treatment that leads ultimately to control- their control– of healthcare choices for all of us. They attempt to convince us that because they cannot understand how homeopathy works, that it does not work. They tell us that our ailments cannot be cured by homeopathy, that we are simply fooling ourselves that homeopathic treatment has healed our ills. They would have us believe that the thousands upon thousands of us who have experienced the value of homeopathy have not been cured- simply because they cannot understand how we could be.

As these enemies of homeopathy demand that homeopaths cease using the word “cure” (a word most allopaths are either unfamiliar or very uncomfortable with), they smugly dismiss the suffering of millions at the hands of allopathic medicine and pharmaceuticals as a “necessary evil”. Unlike many prescription medications, homeopathy does NO harm, it does not rape the earth of its natural resources, it does not kill or test on animals, and it does not test on unsuspecting human subjects. No one has ever died from a side effect of a homeopathic remedy. Homeopaths do not believe it is acceptable for anyone to suffer unreasonably for the sake of science and the promotion of a medical industry. In fact this is the credo that homeopaths adhere to:

“The physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed. The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.”

On the blog site http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/, you will find the following statistic: homeopathy industry has seen exceptional growth across the globe. The size of the global industry has gone beyond Rs 135 billion and it’s growing at around 25% per annum. At Rs 45 billion, France has the largest homeopathy industry in the world. This begs the question, why are so many people turning to homeopathy? Either they are tired of the cold, disjointed and often ineffective allopathic medical machine (likely) or they have found a better way to maintain their health (more likely) without the risk of dangerous, sometimes lethal side effects. With an impressively shallow insolence, Ben Goldacre, Andy Lewis, Gimpy and the “Badscience” crew have labeled all of us seeking or receiving homeopathic treatment as “stupid nitwits”.  As if clinging to the mainstream medical system that creates such massive collateral damage is intelligent. Our choices of medical treatment should be our own- not governed by a few who dare to suggest that they have the exalted ability to tell us what is and deny the reality of homeopathic success before them. Simply put, homeopathy works- without causing harm. It will keep right on working whether these “scientists” admit it or understand it-or not. Just ask the millions of who have experienced homeopathy first hand!!   

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 36 so far )

Merck Former Chief of Vaccine Division Admits Vaccines are Contaminated.

Posted on December 6, 2007. Filed under: Merck Former Chief of Vaccine Division Admits Vaccines | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Dr. Hilleman the head of the Vaccine Division at Merek and who developed the Polio, Mumps, Rubella and Measles vaccines, said: “Vaccines are the bargain basement technology of the 20th century.”

In the taped interview (with about 6 Merck executives in the room, their nervous laughter audible in the tape) Dr. Hilleman explains how in his search for uninfected monkeys, Merck imported green monkeys from Africa. Those monkeys, it turned out, were carrying the AIDS virus:  “I didn’t know we were importing AIDS.” Responding to the question, “so, it was you who introduced the AIDS virus to this country?” He said, YES.

Dr. Hilleman also acknowledged that he discovered that the Sabine polio vaccine (manufactured by Merck) was infected with the SV-40 cancer virus. In the process of developing vaccines Merck scientists are shown to blithely disregard public safety as they conducted massive tests exposing millions of unsuspecting people to wild viruses. Dr. Hilleman acknowledged that the cancer infected polio vaccine had been tested in massive field trials in Russia, then in the U.S.

The issues raised in this candid interview raise serious doubts about the propaganda the public has been fed about the safety of vaccines.  Vaccines that have been promoted as “safe and effective” miraculous cures have been infecting millions of people with cancer, leukemia, and AIDS. Recent pathology tests on cancerous tumors in humans contain the SV40 virus.

  The video was posted on You Tube, but has since been removed, but you can watch a censored version  here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tM8gk8C69M.

This shows another blatent disregard for medical ethics. And the “BADSCIENCE” bloggers would have us believe that homeopaths are not following a code of ethics only because we claim that homeopathy can facilitate cure!!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 23 so far )

For the Sake of “Science”

Posted on December 5, 2007. Filed under: For the Sake of "Science" | Tags: , , , , |

On this and other blogs homeopaths have been accuse of being reckless and unethical in regards to the problem of AIDS. This is an example of how the allopathic community chooses to handle it:  

(AP) Government-funded researchers tested AIDS drugs on hundreds of foster children over the past two decades, often without providing them a basic protection afforded in federal law and required by some states, an Associated Press review has found.

The research funded by the National Institutes of Health spanned the country. It was most widespread in the 1990s as foster care agencies sought treatments for their HIV-infected children that weren’t yet available in the marketplace.

The practice ensured that foster children – mostly poor or minority – received care from world-class researchers at government expense, slowing their rate of death and extending their lives. But it also exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for which the safety for children was unknown.

The research was conducted in at least seven states – Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Colorado and Texas – and involved more than four dozen different studies. The foster children ranged from infants to late teens, according to interviews and government records.

Several studies that enlisted foster children reported patients suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in infection-fighting blood cells as they tested antiretroviral drugs to suppress AIDS or other medicines to treat secondary infections.

In one study, researchers reported a “disturbing” higher death rate among children who took higher doses of a drug. That study was unable to determine a safe and effective dosage.

Read the rest of the article at; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/04/health/main692980.shtml

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

« Previous Entries
  • October 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Jul    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...