February 21, 2010 as reported in the online Newletter Cancer Decisions.
A landmark paper on homeopathy and cancer has appeared in the February 2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology. Scientists at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDA), led by Moshe Frenkel, MD, have confirmed the ability of four homeopathic remedies to induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in breast cancer cell lines in the laboratory. The scientists in question were from the Integrative Medicine Program, the Department of Molecular Pathology, and the Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology of MDA. Their two Indian collaborators were from the Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, Kolkata, India, where these same remedies are employed clinically with apparent success. The four ultra-dilute remedies in question were Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja.
“The remedies exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against the two breast cancer cell lines, causing cell cycle delay/arrest and apoptosis” the authors wrote.
It was particularly interesting that the cell-killing effects of two of the remedies investigated in this study, Carcinosin and Phytolacca, appeared similar to the activity of paclitaxel (Taxol), the most commonly used chemotherapeutic drug for breast cancer, when it was tested in the same two adenocarcinoma cell lines investigated in this study.
Phytolacca is better known as pokeweed root, which grows as a towering weed in the US and elsewhere. Conium maculatum is poison hemlock, while Thuja occidentalis comes from the Eastern Arborvitae tree. Carcinosin is the only non-botanical in the group. It is made from a highly diluted extract of breast cancer tissue. These are typically used at the Banerjis’ clinic in India to treat breast cancer. The use of poisonous plants to treat cancer, while unusual, is not necessarily controversial. Madagascar periwinkle, for instance, yields the familiar vinca alkaloids–vincristine and vinblastine. The aforementioned paclitaxel (Taxol) is derived from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree.
Even the use of a cancer tissue extract might be explained in immunological terms. No, what makes these remedies highly unusual is the degree to which they have been diluted. These are given in the Frenkel article as follows: Carcinosin, 30C; Conium maculatum, 3C; Phytolacca decandra, 200C and Thuja occidentalis, 30C.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Professor Luc Montagnier is a French virologist who co-discovered HIV and who won the Nobel Prize in 2008. Dr. Montagnier has received many other significant awards, though his newest research, which may explain how and why homeopathic medicines maintain their biological activity in extreme dilution, may be his most significant to date.
In a recent paper, Prof Montagnier, and his team report the results of a series of rigorous experiments investigating the electromagnetic (EM) properties of highly-diluted biological samples.
The abstract of this research in part asserts, “A novel property of DNA is described: the capacity of some bacterial DNA sequences to induce electromagnetic waves at high aqueous (water) dilutions. It appears to be a resonance phenomenon triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency waves.”
For more info click here!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
A new study published in Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (other wise known as eCAM, an online journal published by Oxford University Press) showed that individually selected Q potencies (also called LM potencies) were as effective and were safer than Fluorxetin (also called Prozac).
You can read the study here!!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
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.
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.
Update on the role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and coxibs in the management of acute pain.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007 Oct;20(5):440-50. Review.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chronic pain after surgery: what can we do to prevent it.
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2007 Feb;11(1):5-13. Review.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interscalene block superior to general anesthesia.
Anesthesiology. 2006 Jan;104(1):207; author reply 208-9. No abstract available.
High dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs compromise spinal fusion.
Reuben SS, Ablett D, Kaye R.
Can J Anaesth. 2005 May;52(5):506-12.
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.
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.
The prevention of post-surgical neuralgia.
Pain. 2005 Jan;113(1-2):242-3; author reply 243-4. No abstract available.
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.
Preventing the development of complex regional pain syndrome after surgery.
Anesthesiology. 2004 Nov;101(5):1215-24. Review. No abstract available.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 )
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 )