By Manfred Mueller, MA, DHM, RSHom(NA), CCH
Introduction
Homeopaths have described
observations that tumors recede from the use of homeopathic treatment and have,
from practitioners have reported observations like this in as many as several
hundred patients.24 Unfortunately, until about time to time,
documented long-term recoveries from cancer in response to homeopathic
treatment.1-23 Some
two decades ago, there were very few sound
scientific studies corroborating these clinical observations. Citing this
paucity of high-quality scientific evidence, regulatory agencies have been
reluctant to endorse homeopathic treatment as an alternative or an adjunct
treatment in cancer. However, the situation may be changing. Homeopathic
treatment of cancer is now supported by state-of-the-art laboratory studies.
Arsenic and Cancer
One of the new developments in homeopathic cancer research
comes from an unlikely place. Prof. Anisur Rahman Khuda Bukhsh, a researcher in
the cytogenetics laboratory of the Department of Zoology at the University of
Kalyani, in Kalyani, West Bengal, India and his team have conducted several
studies in the laboratory that, according to a recent Indian news reports,
deserve our attention.25
West Bengal has a widespread problem of arsenic poisoning that
can lead to cancer.26 According to Khuda-Bukhsh, “conventional
medicine does not have an effective evidence-based treatment for
arsenic-induced toxicity, although some chelators, like DMSA and DTPA, have
been tried without success.”27 Chronic arsenic toxicity sets the
stage for multi-system diseases due to hematological complications or
hepatotoxicity. This may lead to malfunctioning or failure of organs, such as
the lungs or the liver. Many of these cases will develop cancer of various
organs.28, 29
In a series of experiments,30-38 the West Bengal
researchers found that Arsenicum album
30C can help remove arsenic from the body. “The drug reduced arsenic levels in
blood and urine of arsenic victims from Ghetugachhi village in Nadia district,”
according to Khuda-Bukhsh. “The blood levels of the toxicity-denoting liver
enzymes (like aspartate aminotransferase) returned to almost normal levels
after three months,” he adds.
The scientists found that the arsenic level in urine fell
dramatically and levels in blood became normal by the 60th day. The researchers
also observed an increase in the level of glutathione — a compound made up of
amino acids, which demonstrates recovery of normal liver function.
In one of the studies,31 published in the March
2006 issue of Evidence-based
Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, the researchers treated arsenic
victims from another village in the Nadia district. They showed that two
centesimal potencies (30 and 200) of the aforementioned medicine brought the
high levels of anti-nuclear antibodies (a type of antibody that works against
the body tissues) to normal levels. “We have already shown efficiency of
homoeopathic drugs in protecting or repairing arsenic-induced DNA damage in
mice.” Then Khuda-Bukhsh concludes, “The homoeopathic drug may trigger a
cascade action of relevant genes back to their normal functioning, turning on
the body’s recovery.”
A more recent study,30 published in Science of the Total Environment, and
conducted in collaboration with researchers of the Boiron Laboratory,
Sainte-Foy-Lès-Lyon in France, once again confirmed biological action from
treatment with homeopathic potencies. The researchers administered Arsenicum album 30C, succussed alcohol
and placebo to groups of randomly selected arsenic-contaminated volunteers in a
village in Padumbasan, India.
The treatment apparently caused
positive changes in elevated blood levels of ESR, creatinine and eosinophils.
In the treated group, Arsenicum album
30C increased the activities of various toxicity biomarkers indicating
hepatotoxicity, the prime feature associated with arsenic poisoning, notably
AST, ALT, LPO and GGT. This therapy produced an increase in levels of
hemoglobin, PCV, neutrophil percentages, GSH content, and lowered G-6-PD
activity. Most of the subjects reported a better appetite and improvement in
general health. It is interesting that the 14 volunteers who dropped out during
this study were mostly from the placebo group. The authors concluded that Arsenicum album 30C could possibly provide
interim health support to a large population at risk.
The results of these studies could lead to certain conclusions
on the role homeopathy can play in mitigating the effects of a substance that,
according to California’s Proposition-65, is considered a potent carcinogen. If
treatment with the drug Arsenicum album
produces protective effects against arsenic trioxide or against arsenic in the
groundwater that are measurable on multiple levels and even in DNA, it may also
be effective in preventing or reversing cancers induced by the poison. A review
of the homeopathic clinical literature shows that Arsenicum album has been shown to counteract, and even reliably
reverse, a broad spectrum of cancers.1-23
It is noteworthy that conventional medicine also uses arsenic
trioxide for cancer and leukemia treatment, but in unpotentized form. Dr.
Soignet of the Leukemia Service of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
states that “low doses of arsenic trioxide” are “standard treatment for acute
promyelocytic leukemia (APL) in the relapsed disease,” which induces
differentiation and apoptosis of APL cells. The role of arsenic trioxide of
newly developed APL is under investigation.39, 40
More than one hundred years ago,
Dr. J. Compton Burnett explored the difficulty of finding new cancer remedies
with the standard proving method on healthy volunteers, because producing
cancerous pathology during a proving was not feasible. He proposed searching
for new cancer drugs by examining the toxicological and iatrogenic records for
drugs that have caused cancer. He cited in an article published by the British Medical Journal that reported on
data collected by Jonathan Hutchinson demonstrating that treatment with arsenic
in crude form, under the allopathic model, had caused epithelial and other
cancers. The article quoted Sir Paget as saying: “it cannot be doubted that
arsenic had power, in persons predisposed to it, to determine the development
of cancer.”41
Tautopathy and Cancer
Tautopathy is treatment of a drug-induced condition with a
homeopathic potency made from the drug that caused it. Hahnemann, in his
comment on the effect of potentized isopathics in Chronic Diseases, said, “For between idem and simillimum there is
no intermediate for anyone that can think; or in other words between idem and
simile only simillimum can be intermediate. Isopathic and aequale are equivocal
expressions, which if they should signify anything reliable can only signify
simillimum, because they are not idem (ταυτον).”42
Therefore, according to Hahnemann, the simillimum is the idem
(Lat., “the same”), and thus the tauton (ταυτον;
Gr., “the same”), meaning the curative and “most similar” drug is always the
substance that caused the disorder, provided it is administered in potentized
form. In the English language we make a distinction between tautopathy and
isopathy, reserving the name “tautopathy” to mean “suffering caused by the same
thing that was habitually used previously;”43 thus, tautopathic
treatment is that which is carried out
with a potentized drug made from a substance that caused the respective
disorder. I have used the terms “pharmacode” for such a remedy (as the word farmakon; Gr., “pharmakon” means both poison and drug), and
“isopathy” for the treatment with an infectious product of a disorder or
disease, such as a discharge or tissue; a nosode.44 There has been
confusion in the use of these terms, and the word isopathy is often used for
what properly should be called tautopathy.
The use of carcinogens as cancer medicines in both
conventional and homeopathic practice seems to corroborate the truth of the
homeopathic hypothesis, especially following Hahnemann’s view that isopathy (as
well as tautopathy) is, essentially, homeopathy: “Some wish to create a third
method of applying medicines to a disease, called isopathy. This is the cure of
an existing disease with the same infectious material. However, assuming it
could do so, it would still effect the cure through a Simillimum juxtaposed the
Simillimo, because it administers the infectious material only in a highly
potentized and thus in an altered form.”45
In the Organon, Hahnemann also stated that in addition to natural
(miasmatic) chronic diseases, there also exist iatrogenic ones, which he deemed
the most difficult of all to cure. (§74) We should add to these the chronic,
toxic environmental diseases. Tautopathy has been a widely used tool of the
classical homeopath for over a century. Homeopaths reported using the
tautopathic method in complicated cases where iatrogenic or environmental
factors appeared to cause the current chronic disorder, or where exposure to
these drugs or toxins was found in the anamnesis, and suspected to have
triggered the disease.46, 47
This is especially true in cancer.
Because of the sparcity of symptoms encountered in many cancer cases, some
homeopaths have resorted to etiological prescribing, using tautopathic
strategies. The tautopathic method has been used in cancer with apparent
success. Its systematic use has led to the introduction of new cancer remedies
made from carcinogens by Burnett, Cooper, Jr., Clarke, Grimmer and others,
using remedies such as Cobaltum,
Methlyene Blue, Congo Red, and Benzoquinone. Many studies confirm the
tautopathic hypothesis. According to Hahnemann’s reasoning, tautopathy is
simply homeopathy, however, strictly speaking, this is so only provided the
drug is used on the basis of the symptoms. If given based on knowledge of the
causative substance, using the etiological methodology, it is properly called
tautopathy.
Much of “homeopathic” laboratory research is conducted using
the tautopathic method. This is because the true homeopathic method would
require case-taking and individualization of symptoms, which is nearly
impossible with laboratory animals. The West Bengal arsenic studies that
employed the use of Arsenicum album
(which is made from arsenic trioxide), are tautopathic studies.
The most recent study by the West Bengal team in collaboration
with researchers from Boiron Labs was published in the Journal of Veterinary Medicine.48 The team injected
arsenic trioxide into mice, and then treated one group with the homeopathic
remedy Arsenicum album ( a drug
prepared from arsenic trioxide, by progressive succussion and dilution),
another group with potentized alcohol, and a third group remained untreated.
This trial used a double-blinded procedure. Oral administration appeared to
show protective potential against arsenic trioxide induced chronic poisoning in
mice. Researchers noted a marked reduction of various chromosomal, nuclear, and
sperm head abnormalities, which would signify an antigenotoxic effect from the
homeopathic remedy.
The West Bengal group had previously examined the effect of
homeopathic treatment on cellular damage produced by another group of carcinogens.
They tested whether two potencies of the homeopathic drug Cadmium sulphuricum could reduce the genotoxic effects of cadmium
chloride (CdCl2) in mice.49 Genotoxic effects constitute
damage to the DNA of a cell, including mutation and possibly neoplasms. The
researchers also tried to determine the relative efficacy of three
administrative modes, i.e.
pre-feeding, post-feeding and combined pre- and post-feeding of the medicines.
The authors concluded that both Cadmium sulphuricum 30C and 200C were able to counteract
cadmium-induced genotoxic effects in mice. They found that the combined pre-
and post-feeding mode of administration was most effective in reducing the
genotoxic effect of CdCl2. These results are evidence that
homeopathic treatment may be effective for prophylaxis and for the recovery
from serious environmental and occupational disorders.
Another study by this group tested the drug Mercurius solubilis in the 30C and 200C
potencies fed in three administrative modes to mice who had been poisoned with
mercuric chloride.50 The treatment caused amelioration of genotoxic
effects, as measured by conventional endpoints, i.e. chromosome aberrations, micronuclei, mitotic index, and sperm
head anomalies. The amelioration by Mercurius
200C seemed to be slightly more pronounced than with the 30C potency. The
researchers concluded that potentized drugs can serve as possible
anti-genotoxic agents against specific environmental mutagens, including toxic
heavy metals.
One researcher examined the efficacy of the common drug
aspirin against cancer. Morgan reviewed the scientific evidence for a possible
link between regular ingestion of aspirin and a reduced risk of both colorectal
and esophageal cancers.51 He then proposed that a homeopathic
mechanism was responsible for the correlation. Since homeopathy employs small
doses of the mother compound, perhaps potencies of aspirin could be used to
reduce the risk of cancer in the general population, or in patients with precancerous
colorectal and/or esophageal lesions. This approach would help to minimize the
risk of adverse sideeffects of larger doses of aspirin on the digestive system.
This study lends additional support to the notion that the use of lowdose X-ray
radiation and low doses of toxic or carcinogenic elements in cancer therapy,
such as arsenic, cobalt, radium, etc., may actually constitute an unconscious,
quasi-homeopathic effect — although their effect, as well as the safety of
these treatments, could presumably be increased by applying the homeopathic
methodology of individualization of the medicine according to symptoms, and
individualization of the dose according to the patient’s sensitivity.
A trial supporting the use of tautopathy in cancer is found in
an article from the April 2000 issue of the British
Homeopathic Journal.52 Its author, Dr. Montfort of the Instituto
Superior de Medicina Homeopatica de Ensenanza e Investigacion, Monterrey,
Mexico, claims that homeopathy does not have highly effective remedies for
cancer in its literature, and has been limited to palliating the adverse
effects of chemo/radiotherapy. As homeopaths, we could not disagree more with
this assertion. He is apparently unfamiliar with the work of Kent, Burnett,
Clarke, the Coopers, Grimmer, Nebel, Stauffer, Schlegel, Eizayaga, Patel,
Ramakrishnan, and many others who collectively report positive effects from
more than a hundred drugs that are widely used in classical homeopathy.
Monfort studied a tautopathic treatment using environmental
carcinogens in humans. He reports on results of his experiments using
ultra-diluted 10C and 12C potencies of chemical carcinogens used for 3-24
months in cancer patients, usually in conjunction with conventional treatment.
With this procedure, complete remission or life extension was achieved for some
cancer cases. Three clinical cases are presented: a man with undifferentiated
lung cancer; a child with an astrocytoma and a woman with leiomyosarcoma. These
results deserve to be studied further. Potentized carcinogens have proven a
useful source for new cancer drugs — a source which remains largely untapped.
A study published in 1983 by Roberfroid in Aspects of Research in Homeopathy,
titled “Action of Hahnemannian Potencies upon Artificially Produced Cancer in
Animals,” confirmed the tautopathic strategy by testing the homeopathic drug Phenobarbital 9C on
Phenobarbital-induced liver tumors in rats, yielding positive results.53
Interestingly, most of our classical homeopathic cancer drugs are, in fact,
derived from known carcinogens, such as Arsenicum,
Cadmium, Aluminum, Aluminum silicate, etc.
Other researchers tested the use of homeopathic/tautopathic
treatment for the adverse effects of radiotherapy. Balzarini, et al., assessed the effects of Belladonna 7C and X-ray 15C in the treatment of acute dermatitis associated with
radiation treatment.54 A randomized, double-blinded,
placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted involving 66
patients who had been operated on for breast cancer and were undergoing radiotherapy.
The researchers found a statistically significant benefit from the active
treatment compared to placebo. The homeopathic medicines appeared to have
particular effectiveness in relieving the heat of the skin. Chemotherapy and
hormonotherapy did not seem to interfere with the results.
There is a similarity between tautopathy and “hormesis,” which
is the toxicological observation that small doses of a toxic substance can
induce protective effects specifically against harmful doses from that same toxin.
One researcher who collected data confirming the hormesis effect found hundreds
of studies that appeared to show a hormetic effect.55 Several
studies have also confirmed this phenomenon for radiation exposure.56
This evidence, combined with the already cited studies, lends further support
to the use of potentized Radium bromatum,
X-ray, etc., in treatment of
radiation-induced injuries and in the treatment of radiation-induced cancers.
Effective
Cancer Treatment without Side Effects?
Although in conventional medicine chemotherapies are used to
treat patients with malignancies, adverse effects are common, and damage to
normal cells is a widespread problem. Chemotherapy agents can do serious damage
to the cells of the bone marrow that play an important role in blood formation.
In their search for potential alternative agents that can kill cancer cells
without adverse effects on normal cells, scientists with the Departments of
Cancer Biology and Laboratory Medicine at the University of Texas, Department
of Molecular Genetics, at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas,
have turned to evaluating homeopathic drugs. These researchers believe they may
have found just such an agent in a common homeopathic remedy, Ruta graveolens.57
They tried the drug Ruta
graveolens 6C along with Ca3(PO4)2
(calcium phosphate) in the 3X potency in
vitro and in vivo. Of 15
patients, 6 of 7 glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors. The
results of both in vivo and in vitro experiments showed drug-induced
“survival-signaling pathways in normal lymphocytes and death-signaling pathways
in brain cancer cells,” and that “telomere erosion initiated cancer cell death
and mitotic catastrophic events completed the process.” The authors proposed
that Ruta graveolens in combination
with calcium phosphate could be used as an effective treatment for brain
cancers, particularly gliomas.
Conventional cancer treatment can harm the DNA and has the
potential to cause mutations, tumors and neoplasms. Homeopathic cancer drugs,
in the customary doses, appear not to have these harmful effects. A study
conducted at the Laboratorio de Citogenetica Humana, Centro de Ciencias
Biologicas, Universidade Federal do Para, Belem, PA, in Brazil, evaluated the
genotoxic effects of a homeopathic combination treatment, labeling it the
Canova Method (CM).58 CM is a homeopathic medicine developed for the
treatment of patients with cancer and for pathologies that involve a depressed
immune system, such as AIDS. This product is composed of homeopathic dilutions
of Aconitum napellus, Arsenicum album, Bryonia alba, Lachesis mutus
and Thuja occidentalis. According to
the author of the study, this method stimulates the immune system by activating
and accelerating the activity of macrophages and lymphocytes. Activated
macrophages stimulate lymphocytes to increase their cytotoxic action in
response to tumoral growth or infection.
The study evaluated the genotoxic effects induced in human
lymphocytes treated with this homeopathic medication in vitro. The team scored structural and numerical chromosomal
aberrations for the assessment of induced genotoxic effects, while evaluating
possible variations in the mitotic index as a monitor for induced cellular
toxicity. Treatments with CM did not affect mitotic indexes, nor did they
provoke chromosomal aberrations when compared with untreated controls. There
was no cytotoxicity or genotoxicity at the chromosomal level.
In evaluating cancer treatments, ethical considerations
prevent using an allegedly “unproven” method, such as homeopathy, on humans.
For this reason, most studies are conducted in animals. In those studies,
researchers often resort to methods of inducing cancers with toxic substances.
Several studies have found that homeopathic treatment with classical
homeopathic drugs may be effective in protecting against, and even reversing,
induced cancerous tumors. While more evidence is needed, studies such as these
may be able to confirm homeopathic treatment as a viable method to reverse
certain cancerous tumors.
The West Bengal group published a study in the July 2004 issue
of the Indian Journal of Experimental
Biology.59 They used several cytogenetical and enzymatic
protocols to test whether Chelidonium
30C and Chelidonium 200C show
anti-tumor activity, and if the homeopathic drugs had any action on genotoxic
damage produced by an -azo dye. Both potencies showed anti-tumor activity and
also modulated favorably some toxicity marker enzymes in liver, kidney and
spleen tissues of the carcinogen-fed mice. The researchers concluded that the
microdoses of Chelidonium, having no
visible ill effects of their own, may be strong candidates for use in delaying
development of, or protecting against, liver cancer.
It is, of course, impractical to determine in these laboratory
experiments whether the choice of Chelidonium
was in line with homeopathic methodology — that is, whether it was the
simillimum of these afflicted mice. However, one may possibly conclude that if
a generic treatment such as this proves effective because it uses drugs capable
of producing a grossly similar disorder, it would be reasonable to conclude
that a medicine chosen on the basis of similarity to the totality of symptoms
for a single organism would be even more effective.
Biswas, et al., of
the West Bengal group, conducted a study published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine to examine
whether the homeopathic drug Carcinosinum
200C, fed alone and in combination with Chelidonium
200C, had any differential protective effects against the development of liver
cancer in mice induced by pdimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB), a carcinogenic
aniline dye still widely used in the textile industry in many countries.60
Both Carcinosinum 200C and Chelidonium 200C when administered alone
showed considerable ameliorative effect, but the conjoint feeding in
alternation of these two drugs appeared to have had a slightly greater
protective effect.
The researchers concluded that considering the toxic side
effects of conventional chemo-preventive drugs, alternative agents with minimal
side effects, such as homeopathic treatment, should be considered, especially
for palliative measures. As in the previous study, these remedies were chosen
as generic treatment for liver cancer and no individualization was used. This
study also appears to support the clinical strategy of alternating a “specific”
drug homeopathic to the “disease” with a “constitutional” drug homeopathic to
the “patient,” as advocated by some homeopathic authorities, notably Eizayaga.61
Pathak S., et al.
once again collaborated with the West Bengal group to conduct a trial published
in the April 2006 issue of Molecular Cell
Biochemistry using the potentized homeopathic drug Lycopodium 30C to analyze the protective potentials in mice by
using cytogenetic endpoints. The animals were also chronically fed p-DAB to
initiate, and Phenobarbital (PB) to promote hepatic cancer.
The effects of chronic treatment of the carcinogens were
assessed at different intervals of fixation and compared with that of mice fed
conjointly with the carcinogens and the homeopathic drug. Both the assay
systems indicated considerable protective potentials of the homeopathic remedy
against p-DAB-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice.
Lycopodium is
commonly recommended by homeopaths for chronic liver conditions and has been
widely used as a
“constitutional” cancer remedy to slow the evolution towards cancer
or to prevent it in the precancerous stage. However, Fernior-Bernoville
cautioned of its efficacy once cancer had already developed. “In confirmed
cancer it barely has any value since it has no power over the tumoral element
as have in Thuja, Iodium, and Silicea…The Lycopodium
subject who becomes cancerous will localize his tumor preferentially on the
liver, stomach or intestine.”63 The results of this study seem to
indicate that the effects of Lycopodium
on cancer pathology may have been underestimated.
Drug and Dose Specificity of Homeopathic Cancer Treatment
Evaluating whether a treatment has an effect on tumors
requires the most sensitive of tests. Ionic homeostasis is considered such a
highly sensitive test for the evaluation of the functional state of a cell. The
relative functional state of a cell is evaluated according to the criterion of
sodium, potassium and calcium ion transfer across the cell membrane. The agents
that promote elevation of ionic homeostasis, as well as those which suppress it,
are well known.
The Russian scientist Nadareishvili conducted a series of
studies on the effect of homeopathy on the ionic homeostasis of cells in normal
and tumor cells.64 The goal of one study was tracing the
possibilities for altering ionic homeostasis into one or another direction.
This was done testing the combined influence of various factors: ionizing
radiation, an electromagnetic frequency, and a homeopathic remedy. The
homeopathic preparation Phosphoricum
acidum 14C appeared to produce an increased effect over the combined effect
of its constituents. Phosphoricum acidum
200C stopped a decrease in the action of its combined constituents under the
same conditions. The researcher concluded that there exists a dose-response
relationship.
In another study, he assessed the action of homeopathic
remedies on ionic homeostasis in the cells of Ehrlich carcinoma.65
He used a method of continuous recording of sodium, potassium and calcium ions
with selective electrodes in a Ringer solution. He also monitored the activity
of the enzymes that control the transport of ions through the cell membrane.
The homeopathic preparation — “stimulated phosphoric acid, at
‘dilutions’ of 14C and 42C” — promotes ionic transport and Na, K-ATPase in
Ehrlich carcinoma cells. “Non-stimulated phosphoric acid in potencies of 200C
and 400C,” on the other hand, hampered these indices, thus corroborating an
effect of homeopathic potencies on Ehrlich carcinoma cells. The author also
draws some important conclusions on the nature of homeopathic potencies. He
concludes that structuring of the preparation increases with an increased
number of dilutions and, respectively, the “concentration of informational
field” increases as well.
Walchli C., et al.
studied pre-treatment of human leukemia cell lines compared to healthy cells
with low concentrations and high potencies of Cadmium followed by intoxication with crude cadmium.66
The study found pre-treatment with low doses increased cell viability
considerably in both cancerous and healthy cells, while high potencies only had
significant effect on healthy cells. This finding may have important
implications for selection of potency and dose in homeopathic treatment of
leukemia and other cancers.
Several researchers have focused on the question of whether
homeopathic drugs used in classical homeopathy are specific for certain types
of cancer. Jonas WB, of the Samueli Institute in Alexandria, VA, and his team,
conducted a series of laboratory studies evaluating the effects of commonly
used homeopathic remedies in cell and animal models of prostate cancer.
MacLaughlin, et al.,
of the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown University Medical
Center, studied the effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate
cancer growth in cellular and animal models.67 They assessed if
homeopathic potencies of Sabal serrulata,
Thuja occidentalis, and Conium maculatum had anti-proliferative
effects on cancer cells. They conducted tests in vivo on mouse xenografts, and in vitro on human prostate cancer, as well as on human breast
cancer cell lines. In the homeopathic literature, Sabal is a remedy that is used specifically for prostate cancer,
whereas Thuja and Conium have sometimes been used
successfully in treatment of certain types of breast cancer, where the symptoms
fit.
Treatment with Sabal
serrulata in vitro resulted in a
23 percent and 33 percent decrease of cell proliferation at 24 and 72 hours
respectively, and a 23 percent reduction of DU-145 cell proliferation at 24
hours. The difference in reduction is likely due to the specific doubling time
of each cell line. No effect was observed on human breast cancer cells with Sabal. Thuja occidentalis and Conium
maculatum did not have any effect on human prostate cancer cell
proliferation. In vivo, prostate
tumor xenograft size was significantly reduced in Sabal serrulata-treated mice compared to untreated controls. No
effect was observed on breast tumor growth from the other remedies.
The authors concluded that their study clearly demonstrates a
biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation
and tumor growth. This biologic effect was (a) significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to controls and (b)
specific to human prostate cancer. Sabal
serrulata should thus be further investigated as a specific homeopathic
remedy for prostate pathology, according to the authors.
Thangapazham RL, et al.,
with the Department of Pathology, Uniformed Services, University of the Health
Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, investigated the effect of Conium maculatum, Sabal
serrulata, Thuja occidentalis, Asterias rubens, Phytolacca decantra, and Carcinosinum
on prostate and breast cancer cell growth, and on gene expression that
regulates apoptosis, or cell death.68
Apoptosis is programmed cell death triggered by a variety of
factors and signals, and is one of the ways tumors may disappear, either
naturally or as a result of treatment. According to the scientists, none of the
“homeopathic” remedies tested in different potencies produced significant
inhibitory or growth-promoting activity in either prostate or breast cancer
cells. Also, gene expression studies by ribonuclease protection assay produced
no significant changes after treatment with the homeopathic medicines.
According to the author’s abstract, “The results demonstrate that the highly
diluted homeopathic remedies used by homeopathic practitioners for cancer show
no measurable effects on cell growth or gene expression in vitro using currently available methodologies.” The use of the
term “highly diluted” is noteworthy for reasons illustrated below.
Another trial by Thangapazham RL, et al., examined the effects of Sabal,
Conium and Thuja, and a specially prepared Carcinosinum
nosode on the expression of cytokines and genes that regulate apoptosis.69
The researchers assessed this in prostate cancer tissues extracted from animals
responsive to these drugs. The researchers noted no significant changes in the
apoptotic genes or the cytokines, tumor necrosis factor, or interferon-gamma in
prostate tumor and lung metastasis after treatment with homeopathic medicines.
According to the authors, “this study indicates that treatment
with the highly diluted homeopathic remedies does not alter the gene expression
in primary prostate tumors or in lung metastasis. The therapeutic effect of
homeopathic treatments observed in the in
vivo experiments cannot be explained by mechanisms based on distinct
alterations in gene expression related to apoptosis or cytokines. Future
research should explore subtle modulations in the expression of multiple genes
in different biological pathways.” Note again the emphasis on “highly diluted.”
In another one of these studies, one hundred male Copenhagen
rats were randomly assigned to either treatment or control groups after
inoculation with prostate tumor cells.70 Prostate tumor cells were
exposed to five homeopathic remedies. In
vitro outcomes included tumor cell viability and apoptosis gene expression.
In vivo outcomes included tumor
incidence, volume, weight, total mortality, proliferating cell nuclear antigen
expression, apoptotic cell death, and gene expression.
The researchers found no effects on cell viability or gene
expression in three prostate cell lines with any of the drugs at any exposure
time. However, there was a 23 percent reduction in tumor incidence, and for
animals with tumors there was a 38 percent reduction in tumor volume in
homeopathy-treated animals versus controls. Experimental animals with tumors
had a 13 percent lower average tumor weight. Tumors in these treated animals
showed a 19 percent increase in apoptotic cell death and reduced PCNA-positive
cells.
The findings indicate that selected homeopathic remedies for
the present study have no direct cellular anti-cancer effects but appear to
significantly slow the progression of cancer and reduce cancer incidence and
mortality in Copenhagen rats injected with prostate cancer cells — presumably
by some other mechanism.
Conceptual
Confusion in Homeopathic Cancer Research?
Several of the cited studies appear to show signs of confusion
with regard to key homeopathic terms and concepts.67-70 One of these
concepts is the Law of Similars. Applying this law means treatment with a
medicine that was proven to cause symptoms similar to those being treated — for
only such a use of a drug deserves to be called “homeopathic.” Frequently,
terms like “homeopathically prepared” appear in lieu of the proper term,
“potentized.” This indicates a possible confusion of definition, thus implying
that these studies examine the efficacy of “homeopathic treatment.” Actually,
they only examine whether or not “potentized drugs” are effective.
Accordingly, in his paper on conceptual errors found repeatedly
in peer-reviewed studies which examine a central tenet of homeopathy, the
“proving hypothesis,” this author explained in greater detail the common
confusion between research testing the efficacy of “ultramolecular” drugs with
research testing the “homeopathic” hypothesis.71 He showed that
arguments against “high dilutions” cannot disprove the homeopathic effect, as
it is also observed in low potencies and even in undiluted drugs.
It is clear that the studies cited here do not examine the
efficacy of “homeopathic” treatment, as they claim, but of “potentized” drugs
given on the basis of indications that are other than homeopathic (allopathic).
Granted, it is difficult to examine the clinical efficacy of the homeopathic
treatment method in laboratory studies with animals, as individual case-taking
of rodents would be impractical, if not impossible. There is also no evidence
that homeopathic principles can be applied to the treatment of mere cell lines,
as in studies that purport to examine the action of “homeopathic” drugs
utilizing in vitro experiments. Given
the significant deviation of these studies from standard homeopathic practice,
it is surprising that the authors failed to mention this fact, especially in
the context of their comment on negative results.
Furthermore, the authors of several of the cited studies
referred to potentized drugs as “high dilutions” without explaining the
importance of the process of succussion.67-70 The term “high
dilutions” is generally reserved for drugs in potency levels beyond Avogadro’s
number, i.e. above the 12C potency.
The use of high dilutions is by no means a requirement of homeopathic
treatment, and many practitioners never use them. In scientific studies, the
notion that these “high dilutions” have biological action is often referred to
as the “ultramolecular hypothesis.” When such a reference to “high dilutions”
is made in the context of negative results, as if to imply that the negative results
are likely due to the “lack of substance” of these preparations, this is worthy
of our attention.
This is especially true in those studies cited here where
other factors that could explain the negative results are not mentioned. For
example, in the MacLaughlin, et al.
study, the authors failed to draw the most probable conclusion, that Thuja and Conium may not have had sufficient symptom affinity to the
particular breast cancer cell lines tested to warrant any positive results.67
The implication that the negative results would somehow be relevant to the
“high dilutions” used, as implied in the above highly-publicized abstracts, is
troubling. This is especially so because the same studies appeared to show
efficacy of biological action from these potencies.
The premise for most efforts to
examine homeopathic treatment or homeopathic concepts in controlled trials is
to find evidence for or against claims that the homeopathic method is
effective. However, it is important for these researchers to remember that
homeopathic practitioners do not claim efficacy from “highly diluted drugs.”
They claim efficacy from potentized
drugs. This should be understood and acknowledged. The erroneous use of the
term “high dilution” ignores the welldocumented clinical observation that the
higher the potency, the stronger the effect of the homeopathic drug. Early
homeopaths believed that the “potency” or “power” of the medicine lay in the
dynamic “field-like” effect produced during mechanical agitation — that is,
during trituration or attenuation of the drug. Thus, the term “dilution” for a
potentized drug, without reference to succussion or trituration, ignores the
real nature of the potentized drug. If it is the object of a study to examine
homeopathic treatment, it should be clear what the researchers are actually
examining.
Hahnemann stated the matter as follows: “We still hear almost
daily that the homeopathic potencies are referred to as ‘dilutions,’ even
though they are in fact the opposite. They constitute the actual disintegration
of the source materials and the emergence and expression of specific medicinal
forces buried in their innermost core, effected through rubbing and shaking,
while the non-medicinal medium for dilution enters merely as an auxiliary
condition.” §26972 Elsewhere in the same paragraph, he compares the
production and propagation of a medicinal force within a non-medicinal medium,
by shaking it between each step, to the production and propagation of a
magnetic force field. Here, rubbing an iron or steel rod develops a latent
potential, magnetizing the rod, and conveys — even at a distance — the magnetic
force that attracts iron shavings or causes a compass needle to attract towards
the South Pole and repel against the North Pole.
Some scientists have proposed that the explanation for the
effect encountered in highly potentized drugs must be sought in the
restructuring of the solution with each repeated step of potentization, as a
result of adding mechanical energy during succussion.73 Modern
scientific studies have shed new light on the phenomenon of propagating
information in solutions, and several working hypotheses have been proposed to
explain the effect.74 In one of the above-cited studies,
Nadareishvili observed that the “concentration of the informational field”
increases with increased dilution. It is this increased concentration of
information, or structuring of the preparation, that accounts for the observed
“increased” effect of the higher potencies.64 Prof. Khuda-Bukhsh
summarizes the evidence with the words, “The question of transfer and retention
of medicinal properties in the highly diluted homeopathic medicines has largely
been satisfactorily explained within the confines of the physical sciences.”75
It is unlikely that the scientists who use the misleading
terminology are confused about the real nature of potentized drugs. What other
possible reason might these researchers have to nevertheless keep promoting the
false notion of “high dilutions”? The insistence on this terminology has all
the characteristics of editorial control — a consistent, carefully
orchestrated, semantic ploy directed at homeopathy itself! Certainly, the
recent widespread debunking campaign about homeopathy in the mainstream media
would support such an interpretation. Do the interests that control editorial
boards wish to steer researchers away from conducting research on the real
nature of potencies, on the basis that it is “implausible” and no longer worth
looking into?
The 2006 abstract of one of the Samueli Institute studies
claims that “despite extensive use of homeopathy for cancer and other serious
conditions with reported success, clinical and laboratory research has been
equivocal and no rigorous research has been done on cancer.”70 The
term equivocal means “ambiguous; doubtful; of uncertain significance.” The
article ignored most of the studies cited here, presumably because they were
not “rigorous” enough. A more credible approach would have been to cite the
studies and then show their shortcomings. One wonders why they failed to cite
dozens of high-quality laboratory studies published in peer-reviewed journals,
yet cite a controversial, two-decade-old editorial by Maddox, et al., entitled “High dilution
experiments a delusion.”76 A co-author of this editorial is James
Randi, a magician who, along with Maddox and NIH scientist Walter Stewart,
accused Jaques Benveniste of scientific fraud under highly unusual
circumstances. Are we being set up for another “implausibility because of high
dilutions” hoax?
A published analysis of clinical studies on homeopathic cancer
treatment appears to be laboring under similar editorial influence. According
to Milazzo S, et al., at the
Department of Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter and Plymouth,
Exeter, UK, many cancer patients use homeopathic approaches “to increase their
body’s ability to fight cancer, improve their physical and emotional
well-being, and alleviate their pain resulting from the disease or from
conventional treatments.”77 It strikes one as curious that the
authors could not find patients who sought to use homeopathic treatment in
hopes of actually curing the disease!
The authors’ stated aim in conducting a systematic review was
to “summarize and critically evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic remedies used
as a sole or additional therapy in cancer care.” They searched the literature
using medical databases. They included randomized and non-randomized controlled
clinical trials, including patients with cancer or past experience of cancer
who received single or combined homeopathic interventions. The methodological
quality of the trials was assessed. Six studies met their inclusion criteria
(five were randomized clinical trials and one was a non-randomized study); but
the methodological quality was variable, including some of the “high standard”
studies. Their analysis of published literature on homeopathy found
“insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in
cancer care.”
The authors claim that homeopathy
is “highly controversial” because there is no “plausible mode of action for
these “highly diluted remedies.” As in other studies, the authors appear to
confuse, perhaps as a means to an end, the relative dilution of a drug with its
increased level of organization. This, in turn, ignores the action of
“information” propagated and transferred by repeated agitation in the solvent
which then acts as a signal in biological systems, perceived by cell receptors
and rapidly communicated throughout the organism via known pathways.
Conclusion
The hard evidence from most studies cited here corroborates
what two hundred years of documented clinical observations have claimed: that
homeopathy has efficacy in treating cancer. However, regulatory agencies are
not likely to recommend homeopathic treatment any time soon because the
clinical evidence is still insufficient.
Many more clinical studies are needed to convince the skeptics
that homeopathy is a viable cancer treatment. Some states still have laws that
provide for penalties for the unauthorized use of “unproven cancer therapies.”79,80
Fortunately, Courts in other states have ruled that the law “does not prohibit
the terminally ill from receiving unorthodox treatment.”81 Even the
American Medical Association takes a more lenient stand towards alternative
treatment — even in the hands of unlicensed practitioners — as compared to the
past. Their Code of Ethics now states that while “treatment which has no
scientific basis” is condemned (Opinion 3.01), under Opinion 3.04 physicians
are free to refer a patient “for therapeutic or diagnostic services to another
physician, limited practitioner or any other provider of health care services
permitted by law to furnish such services, whenever he or she believes that
this may benefit the patient.”
But is homeopathic treatment of cancer unproven? One analysis
of clinical studies showed insufficient evidence. However, insufficient
clinical evidence does not mean proof of “lack of efficacy,” nor lack of a
scientific basis for the treatment. The scientific evidence presented here is
clear for all to see: homeopathic drugs have proven biological action in
cancer; in vitro and in vivo; in animals and humans; in the
lower, as well as in the higher potencies. Cancer patients are faced with a
life-and-death decision when choosing their treatment. Since most conventional
treatments continue to be associated with severe adverse and sometimes fatal
effects, while homeopathy has been found to be free from such effects, it would
seem plausible and worthwhile, even urgent, to step up the research on, and
even the provision of, homeopathic treatment of cancer and other diseases.
References
1. Burnett JC. Curability of tumours by homeopathic medicines. B.
Jain Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India. 2002.
2. Burnett, JC. Tumours of the breast and their treatment and care
by medicines. B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India. 1989
3. Clarke JH. Dictionary of practical materia medica, vols. I, II,
and III. B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India. 1991.
4. Clarke JH. The cure of tumours by medicines, with special
reference to the cancer nosodes. B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India.
1992
5. Clarke JH. The therapeutics of cancer. B. Jain Publishers (P)
Ltd, New Delhi, India. 1988
6. Cooper RT. Cancer and cancer symptoms. Chiefly arborivital
treatment with illustrative cases. B. Jain Publishers, New Delhi, India. 2003.
7. Flinn JE, et al.
Bromium in acute lymphatic leukemia. J Am Inst Homeopath. 1965 Jul
Aug;58(7):213-4.
8. Griggs WB. Case histories: homeopathy in cancer. J Am Inst
Homeopath. 1950 Aug; 43(8): 183-4.
9. Hering C. The guiding symptoms of our materia medica. Vols. I-X.
Pratap Medical Publishers, New Delhi, India 1980.
10. Gruchmann W. Arsenic: destroyer and healer; a contribution to
the management of carcinoma.[German] Hippokrates. 1956 Jul 31; 27(14): 444-5.
11. Iciliovi K. Medorrhinum
and cancer. [French] Homeopath Fr. [Homeopathie Francaise] 1952 Feb; 40(2):
84-97.
12. Jahr GHG. Therapeutic Guide: Results of forty years’ practice.
Transl. by Charles Hempel. B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India. 1988
13. Jousse R. Cancer and homeopathy. [French]. Homeopath Fr. 1951
Nov-Dec; 27(9-10): 544-62.
14. Julian. O. Tumor of the knee. [French] Homeopath Fr. 1950 May;
26(5): 259-76.
15. Kent JT. Lectures on Homeopathic materia medica. B. Jain
Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India. 1987.
16. Kent JT. Repertory of the homeopathic materia medica. B. Jain
Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India. 1994.
17. Schlegel O. Homeopathy in the treatment of cancer; silver
nitrate. [German] Hippokrates. 1953 Jul 31; 24(14): 429-35.
18. Schlegel O. Thoughts on the incurability of cancer. [German]
Hippokrates. 1955 Oct 15; 26(19): 573-7.
19. Schlegel O. A case for homeopathic treatment; comparative study.
[German] Hippokrates. 1955 Jan 31; 26(2): 51-2.
20. Schlegel O. Basic cancer treatment; cancer and arsenic. [German]
Hippokrates. 1953 Oct 15; 24(19): 590-3.
21. Schlegel O. Cancer and arsenic. German Hippokrates. 1953 Nov 30;
24(22): 688-91; contd.
22. Schlegel O. Fundamental cancer therapy; carcinoma and silicic
acid. [German] Hippokrates. 1953 May 31; 24(10): 300-4.
23. Schlegel O. Supplementary or fundamental cancer treatment?
[German] Hippokrates. 1953 Mar 15; 24(5): 140-2.
24. Grimmer AH. The collected works of Arthur Hill Grimmer, ed. by A
N Currim. Hahnemann International Institute for Homeopathic Documentation.
Norwalk, Connecticut & Greifenberg, Germany. 1996.
25. News Article: Arsenic- India’s health crisis attracting global
attention. Current Science 2005 March; 88(5): 683-4.
26. Chowdhury UK, et al.
Groundwater arsenic contamination in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India. Environ
Health Perspect. 2000 May; 108(5): 393-7.
27. Radnaike RN. Acute and chronic arsenic toxicity. Postgraduate
Med J 2003; 79:391-6 28. ibid.; 79:394
29. Rahman MM et al Chronic arsenic toxicity in Bangladesh and West
Bengal, India — a review and commentary. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2001;
39:683-700
30. Belon P et al.
Homeopathic remedy for arsenic toxicity: Evidence-based findings from a
randomized placebo-controlled double blind trial. Science of the Total
Environment 2007 October; 384(1-3): 141-150.
31. Belon P, et al. Can
administration of potentized homeopathic remedy, Arsenicum album, alter antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer in people
living in high-risk arsenic contaminated areas? I. A correlation with certain
hematological parameters. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Mar; 3(1):
99-107. Epub 2006 Jan 23.
32. Datta S, et al.
Efficacy of a potentized homoeopathic drug (Arsenicum
Album-30) in reducing genotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in
mice: II. Comparative efficacy of an antibiotic, actinomycin D alone and in
combination with either of two microdoses. Complement Ther Med. 1999 Sep; 7(3):
156-63.
33. Datta S., et al.
Efficacy of a potentized homoeopathic drug (Arsenicum
Album-30) in reducing genotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in
mice: Comparative studies of pre-, post- and combined pre- and post-oral
administration and comparative efficacy of two microdoses. Complement Ther Med.
1999 Jun; 7(2): 62-75.
34. Khuda-Bukhsh AR, Chakrabarti C. Efficacy of a potentized
homoeopathic drug (Arsenicum Album-30)
in reducing toxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: II. On
alterations in body weight, tissue weight and total protein. Complement Ther
Med. 1999 Mar; 7(1): 24-34.
35. Kundu SN, et al.
Efficacy of a potentized homeopathic drug (Arsenicum-album-30) in reducing
cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: III. Enzymatic changes
and recovery of tissue damage in liver. Complement Ther Med. 2000 Jun;8(2):
76-81.
36. Kundu SN, et al.
Efficacy of a potentized homeopathic drug (Arsenicum-Album-30) in reducing
cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: IV. Pathological
changes, protein profiles, and content of DNA and RNA. Complement Ther Med.
2000 Sep;8(3): 157-65.
37. Mallick P, et al.
Ameliorating effect of microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum Album, on arsenicinduced
toxicity in mice. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2003 Oct 22; 3:7.
38. Mitra K, et al.
Efficacy of a potentized homoeopathic drug (Arsenicum
Album-30) in reducing toxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice:
II. On alterations in body weight, tissue weight and total protein. Complement
Ther Med. 1999 Mar; 7(1): 24-34.
39. Jurcic JG et al.,
Diagnosis and treatment of acute promyeloctic leukemia. Curr Onc Rep 2007 Sep;
9(5): 337-44
40. Soignet SL Clinical Experience of arsenic trioxidein relapsed
actue promyelocytic leukemia. Oncologist 2001; 6 Suppl. 2:11-6
41. Burnett, JC. Tumours of the breast and their treatment and care
by medicines. B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India. 1989:112-120.
42. Hahnemann CFS Chronic diseases: Their peculiar nature and their
homeopathic cure. B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd, New Delhi, India. 1984; 1:152.
43. The Compact Oxford Unabridged English Dictionary. Second
Edition. Clarendon Press. Oxford, England 1993; 671:2014.
44. ibid.; 127:823
45. Hahnemann, Christian Friedrich Samuel. Organon der Heilkunst. Textkritische Ausgabe der von Samuel
Hahnemann für die sechste Auflage vorgesehene Fassung. Bearbeitet,
herausgegeben und mit einem Vorwort versehen von Joseph Schmidt. Karl Haug
Verlag, Heidelberg. 1992; (56)389-99:102. Engl. transl. by author 46. Burnett
JC. The Best of Burnett. B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd., New Delhi, India.
47. Patel RP. What is Tautopathy? Hahnemann Homeopathic Pharmacy.
Hahnemann House. Cottayam, India. Sixth Edition 1988.
48. Banerjee P et al. A
potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum
album 200, can ameliorate genotoxicity induced by repeated injections of
arsenic trioxide in mice. J. Vet. Med.2007; A -54:370-376
49. Datta SS et al.
Comparative efficacy of two microdoses of a potentized homoeopathic drug,
Cadmium Sulphuricum, in reducing genotoxic effects produced by cadmium chloride
in mice: a time course study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2001; 1:9. Epub 2001
Nov 23.
50. Datta S, et al.
Comparative Efficacy of Pre-feeding, Post-feeding and Combined Pre- and Post
feeding of Two Microdoses of a Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Mercurius
Solubilis, in Ameliorating Genotoxic Effects Produced by Mercuric Chloride in
Mice. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2004 Dec; 1(3): 291-300. Epub 2004
Aug 18.
51. Morgan G. Aspirin chemoprevention of colorectal and oesophageal
cancers. An overview of the literature and homeopathic explanation. Eur J
Cancer Prev. 1996 Dec; 5(6): 439-43
52. Montfort H et al. A
new homeopathic approach to neoplastic diseases: from cell destruction to
carcinogen-induced apoptosis. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2002 Apr 10; 2:4.
53. Roberfroid M. Action of Hahnemannian potencies upon artificially
produced cancer in animals In: Boiron J, Abecassis J, Belon P, eds. Aspects of
Research in Homeopathy, Lyon, France: Boiron; 11-18.
54. Balzarini A, et al. Efficacy
of homeopathic treatment of skin reactions during radiotherapy for breast
cancer: a randomised, double-blind clinical trial. Br Homeopath J. 2000 Jan;
89(1): 8-12.
55. Calabrese EJ. Hormesis: changing view of the dose-response, a
personal account of the history and current status. Mutat Res. 2002 Jul;
511(3): 181-9.
56. Fukushima S, et al.
Hormesis and dose-response-mediated mechanisms in carcinogenesis: evidence for
a threshold in carcinogenicity of non-genotoxic carcinogens. Carcinogenesis.
2005 Nov; 26(11): 1835-45. Epub 2005 Jun 23.
57. Pathak S, et al. Ruta
6 selectively indices cell death in brain cancer cells that proliferation in
normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel treatment for human brain cancer.
Int J Onc. 2003; 23:975-982
58. Seligmann IC et al.
The anticancer homeopathic composite “Canova Method” is not genotoxic for human
lymphocytes in vitro. Genet Mol Res.
2003 Jun 30; 2(2): 223-8.
59. Biswas SJ et al.
Evaluation of protective potentials of a potentized homeopathic drug,
Chelidonium majus, during azo dye induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. Indian
J Exp Biol. 2004 Jul; 42(7): 698-714.
60. Biswas SJ et al. Efficacy
of the potentized homeopathic drug, Carcinosin 200, fed alone and in
combination with another drug, Chelidonium 200, in amelioration of
p-dimethylaminoazobenzene-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. J Altern
Complement Med. 2005 Oct; 11(5): 839-54.
61. Eizayaga XF. Treatise on homeopathic medicine. Ediciones
Marecel. Buenos Aires. 1991.
62. Pathak S, et al.
Protective potentials of a potentized homeopathic drug, Lycopodium-30, in
ameliorating azo dye induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. Mol Cell Biochem.
2006 Apr; 285(1-2): 121-31. Epub 2006 Mar 15.
63. Fortier-Bernoville M, Grimmer AH Homeopathic Treatment of
Cancer. B. Jain Publishers (PVT) Ltd., New Delhi, India. 1998:12
64. Nadareishvili GG, el al. Comparative analysis of the influence
of various factors in different combinations on the ionic homeostasis of a
cell. Georgian Med News. 2006 Aug;(137): 109-11.
65. Nadareishvili GG. Influence of some homeopathic preparations on
tumor cells. Georgian Med News. 2006 Jul;(136): 99101.
66. Walchli C, et al.
Effect of low doses and high homeopathic potencies in normal and cancerous
human lymphocytes: an in vitro
isopathic study. J Altern Complement Med. 2006 Jun; 12(5): 421-7.
67. MacLaughlin BW et al.
Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular
and animal models. Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec; 5(4): 362-72.
68. Thangapazham RL et al.
Homeopathic medicines do not alter growth and gene expression in prostate and
breast cancer cells in vitro. Integr
Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec; 5(4): 356-61.
69. Thangapazham RL et al.
Effect of homeopathic treatment on gene expression in copenhagen rat tumor
tissues. Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec; 5(4): 350-5.
70. Jonas WB et al. Can
homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth? Integr Cancer Ther 2006 Dec;
5(4): 343-349
71. Mueller M. Prover susceptibility and ascending dose: did recent
placebo-controlled trials disprove the homeopathic proving hypothesis? Am
Hom.2006; 12:92-98.
72. Hahnemann, Christian Friedrich Samuel. Organon der Heilkunst. Textkritische Ausgabe der von Samuel
Hahnemann fúr die sechste Auflage vorgesehene Fassung. Bearbeitet,
herausgegeben und mit einem Vorwort versehen von Joseph Schmidt. Karl Haug
Verlag, Heidelberg. 1992; (269)1338-40:214. Engl. transl. by author.
73. Resch V, Gutmann G. Scietnific Foundations of Homeopathy.
Barthel& Barthel Publishing. English Edition of the revised German
Text.1987: 324-336.
74. Witt C, et al. High
homeopathic potencies are different from potentized solvent when investigated
with the REDEM technology. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2005 Feb;
12(1): 6-13.
75. Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of
action of homeopathic drugs: an overview. Mol Cell Biochem. 2003 Nov; 253(1-2):
339-345.
76. Maddox J et al High dilution experiments a delusion. Nature. 1988;
334:287-291
77. Milazzo S et al.
Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer. 2006 Feb;
42(3): 282-9. Epub 2006 Jan 11
78. Walker M Dirty Medicine: Slingshot Publications. London
1993:224-235
79. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Report on
Unconventional Cancer Treatments. Chapter 10. Laws and Regulation affecting
Unconventional Cancer Treatments. OTA 1990.
80. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Report on
Unconventional Cancer Treatments. Chapter 11. Laws and Regulations Governing
Practitioners who offer Unconventional Treatments. OTA 1990
81. State of North Carolina v Howard, 337 S.E. Rtp. 598, 1985.
Manfred Mueller, MA,
RSHom (NA), CCH, is a homeopathic consultant in private practice since 1986.
Since 1995, he has conducted integrative medicine consults at the UNC Memorial
Hospital and has been on the Consultant Teaching Faculty of the Program on
Integrative Medicine. His practice has been an official clinical rotation site
for medical students from across the United States. Mr. Mueller been president
of the North American Society of Homeopaths since 2005. He may be reached
at Manfred@thehomeopathiccollege.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment