NO BEDSIDE MANNER REQUIRED

The pablum press suggests homeopathic effects come the doctor, not the medicine?
What a load of bullshit. Anyone can go buy a tube of a homeopathic remedy at the grocery store, take it and FEEL IT, without Dr. Nosewipe anywhere in sight.
No one has to say a damn thing.
The homeopathy haters simply aren’t satisfied unless they can make people doubt themselves as much they do themselves. Only people who are afraid to confront their own feelings can support an attitude as ignorant as that.
Science, or what they think is “science,” is one way to avoid confronting those feelings because it puts the onus of belief on somebody else, something else, other than their own feelings.
So this is for them.
A good decider, for them, would be the results obtained by in vitro testing of homeopathy.
In vitro testing, what is it?

As opposed to in vivo, which means in the living subject, in vitro means “in the glass.” It refers to laboratory experiments, done in test tubes and petri dishes.
Does anyone think we’d even have much of an argument about homeopathy if more was known about pre-clinical testing?

What a concept! All these monkeys in man suits blathering on about how the only way to prove homeopathy isn’t a placebo is in a large, double-blind random controlled clinical trial, using people, real live human beings who have real complaints they don’t want a placebo for. So if someone has to prove homeopathy works on something other than himself and is too chicken to try it out for themselves, then why not the dog, the cat, lab rats or a house plant?
While the homeopathy haters are crying about the lack of double blinding in clinical tests (which poses ethical problems) and insisting that homeopathy is dependent on the homeopathic interview, the real question being posed sub-textually is simply whether or not these substances have any objective, measurable effects at all. There are numerous ways to test for them using non-human subjects. I’ve tested their action on yeast and seeds and saw dramatic results.
Addition to proof, biochemical tests are ways to study posology.
There are very specific in vitro tests of homeopathy that get left out of the argument over homeopathy that would quickly end it. Homeopaths don’t present them as proof of efficacy and so they’re ignored by the pseudoscientists. But they are key to the argument over homeopathy. They are more easily blinded and randomised without any concern for the subject.

GOT SCIENCE?

If the homeopathy haters are the scientists they claim to be, and if homeoapths are the phshyicians they should be, they’d be asking, are there any in vitro tests of homeopathy, and if so, what are the results?

WITT

The best review of in vitro testing I’ve seen so far is the 2007 Witt review of biochemical tests done by a group of Germans: The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TF, Baumgartner S, Willich SN Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):139-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544864
The Witt review covers 67 experiments on homeopathics in six different categories: Non-cellular systems, cultured cells, erythrocytes, basophil granulocytes, neutrophile granulocytes and lymphocytes.
Witt grades these tests with eight criteria, with potential values as noted: Objectives (1), Controls (2), Blinding (1), Randomization (1), Consistency (1), Standardization (2), Statistics (1) and Presentation of Results (1).
A perfect score then is 10 points.
Most of the testing covered in the Witt review, ¾, show positive results. The most replicated in vitro test is the basophil degranulation test, introduced by Murieta in 1985, first done successfully by Poitevin in 1985 and made notorious by Davenas et al (with Benveniste) in 1988.
In the basophil category there are only three trials that unequivocably found no results. Three tests rated a perfect 10 by Witt: Hirst in 1993 found positive results, but dismissed them as being due to unknown factors since Hirst could not explain the mechanism; Belon in 1999, unequivocally reported positive results and Guggisberg in 2005, found positive action, but couldn’t match it to the objectives of exact replication.
The basophil degranulation test has been successfully replicated at least two dozen times. It is only one in six categories of biochemical testing. The other categories show similar results as the basophil degranulation test.
Witt concludes “Results have been reproduced in several independent laboratories, as well as in a multi-centre series of experiments. “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.”
The evidence is clear. Whereas the effect is not stable and the  mechanism not known by the experimenters, homeopathy works.
The biochemical tests prove it.

John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)
Hahneman College of Homeopathy

Advertisements

35 comments on “NO BEDSIDE MANNER REQUIRED

  1. Kaviraj says:

    John, did you notice the deafening silence from Guy Chapman? Not a peep!!!.

    Hey Guy, where are your over 200 papers showing it is not more than placebo? Peer reviewed and all? Your silence shows you are but a bluffer and a liar to boot.

    Like

    • MadGav says:

      Or… it could be that he is merely waiting for ‘you’ to respond to his original challenge?

      Obviously this is a very emotionally charged subject for many, but I do think it would better serve your case if you could refrain from attacking the person and instead focussing on the evidence they present.

      I would be interested in hearing your views on how homeopathy’s method of action can be explained through the use of quantum physics though. If you have any published research to back up those theories then so much the better.

      Like

      • johnbenneth says:

        Dear MadGav,
        Great request, and i thank you for asking it. This is how our discussions should be.
        There is quantum theory for homeopathy, or it would be more accurate to say that what claims to be quantum theory has been presented as an explanation for homeopathy, but I have little interest in it because the action and structure of homeopathic remedies should be, can be and are explained first through classical science, and this I have done. Unfortunately, in some regards, once people who have taken a position that there is no science to explain homeopathy are suddenly confronted with it, they immediately attempt to discredit the professor in the hopes that his scinetific explanation will get lost in the scuffle.
        This happened, as predicted, when I presented my findings at the Cavendish Laboratory, by invitation from Professor Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate for physics.
        He recorded the lecture and posted it with commentary. Andy Lewis, (Le Canard Noir), one of homeopathy’s many adversaries, instead of acknowledging easily verifiable facts central to the physical mechanics, chose to issue the usual put downs, ridicule and ad hominems.
        I am firmly convinced that adademia’s lack of persistent rigour in science has led to tolerance of a pseudoscientific mindset, which is most easily seen in the opposition to homeopathy. The research done by the homeoapthy haters is not to put homeopathy to a real test, but to read a study for the sole purpose of discrediting it.
        If a fraction of the time taken in attacking this consistently superior form of medicine was spent in analyzing the tests of modern allopathicc drugs, I doubt there would be much of an allopathic drug industry left in the wake of it.
        John Benneth, PG Hom – London (Hons.)

        Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        If I have not answerd to his “challenge” – what a silly notion to always challlenge and never have an impartial view to try and understand something – then I have more than done enough. He is not waiting for anything. He has no answers to the claim he would present as many papers to refute me, because such papers do not exist. As you can see from what I have published here, I am not afraid to publish that which has no conclusive evidence, because I am a honest scientist, as opposed to Guy, who never answers any charges but calls us fruads and so on.

        Ad hominem is engaged in by the opponents at every turn and opportunity, so my reaction to you was the same – excuses, since at least you want to have a debate. The point is that science has to be open-minded, which the so-called skeptics generally are not. They are a priory opposed and do not want to consider anything.

        That is at least a narrow-minded approach and we have given here some exaples of the fact that homoeopathy does something more than just being the effect of the doctor talking, which was the premise of the charge lain at our door. Homoeopathy does nothing, it is all the doctor talking that does it. So John decided to show that this premise is untenable. That is the issue here, not the value of the studies on cancer, but the fact they act.

        In homoeopathy the solvent is water or alcohol and I doubt you want to assign anti-cancer properties to either water or alcohol. So it is still the substance in the solvent that has the properties. Splitting hairs over the solvent does not answer the original charge either, so it is a little useless to side-track into an unrelated subject to the original premise. Let us stay on topic please. That is healthy debate.

        Like

      • Andy Lewis says:

        Benneth – you are a liar.

        As you well know, I did respond without “put downs, ridicule and ad hominems” in full about the total inadequacy of physical explanations of homeopathy.

        Here is the link again:

        http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/10/the-futility-of-finding-physical-explanations-for-homeopathy.html

        You have been there before as you left a barely coherent comment.

        And the reason I did not chose to “acknowledg[e] easily verifiable facts central to the physical mechanics” was because there were none. Remember, your talk had “clear deficiencies in the presentation” and you had a “failure to understand particular scientific issues”. You were described as an “‘enthusiast’ for homeopathy, not a scientist, and what he said in the seminar might well have made him look foolish.”

        Those are not my words, but Brian Josephson’s.

        Like

      • MadGav says:

        “In homoeopathy the solvent is water or alcohol and I doubt you want to assign anti-cancer properties to either water or alcohol.”

        In the study, 85% Alcohol was used as a solvent and I would definitely consider that concentration as potentially toxic to cells in a petri dish (although not just the cancerous ones, obviously).

        Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Yes, I was just looking for it and was concerned that he had answered and I had missed it. I thought for sure he would have a snappy comeback, but to slink off as he has done proves what lying dogs theswe people are. The Chapman Challenge should be taken on the road and offered to all these loud mouths who pretend to be scientists. I think Guy is to be congratulated for it.

      Like

      • Guy Chapman says:

        So take the challenge and publish the data in reputable peer-reviewed journals. You’ve not proven your basic premises other than by assertion. That’s why you have not convinced sceptics. Personally, I don’t give a toss if you never convince anyone, but you probably do, given that belief seems to be on the wane.

        Like

    • Guy Chapman says:

      Kaviraj unlike you I have what we in the west call a “job”. In my “job” I have to earn “money” by doing things that are “credible” and deliver “results”. These will all be unfamiliar concepts to you so I will let you have time to learn what they mean.

      You really do seem to have mistaken the internet for real life and assertion for proof. That is probably why you are derided by your opponents rather than being engaged as a respected debating opponent.

      Like

  2. Kaviraj says:

    Speaking about science fraud.

    U.S. Scientists Commit Most Research Fraud: Study.

    http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=122237

    So much for your peer reviewed science.

    Font Size
    A
    A
    A
    U.S. Scientists Commit Most Research Fraud: Study
    By Jenifer Goodwin
    HealthDay Reporter

    TUESDAY, Nov. 16 (HealthDay News) — A new study finds that nearly 800 research papers were retracted by medical journals for serious errors or faked data over the past decade, many of them authored by U.S. researchers.

    In fact, U.S. scientists were responsible for 169 of the papers retracted for seemingly inadvertent yet serious errors, as well as for 84 of the papers retracted for outright fraud, more than any other country.

    Like

  3. Kaviraj says:

    List of international and national non-homeopathic medical journals cited, which have published the results of methodologically reliable controlled clinical trials that prove the efficacy of homeopathic medicines.
    Experimental Model:
    Homeopathic Medicine Vs Placebo
    International Scientific Journal:
    • Lancet
    • British Medical Journal
    • Rheumatology
    • Phlebology
    • Pediatrics
    • Pédiatrie
    • Allergologie
    • British Journal Of Clinical Pharmacology
    • Pediatric Infective Diseases Journal
    • American Revue Of Respiratory Diseases
    • Archives Of Medical Emergency
    • Journal Of Head Trauma Rehabilitation
    • Canadian Medical Association Journal
    National Scientific Journal
    • Orthopädische Praxis
    • Therapiewoche
    • Kinderarzt
    • Forschungsmedizin
    • Revue Française De Gynécologie Et Obstétricie
    Experimental Model:
    Homeopathic Medicine Vs Corresponding Allopathic Reference Drug
    International Scientific Journal:
    • Cancer
    • Thrombosis Research
    • Journal Of Clinical Pharmacology
    • Archives Of Otolaringology/Head And Neck Surgery
    • Arzneimittel Forschung/Drug Research

    The Subject of “Publication Bias”

    The subject of “publication bias” was tackled in the meta-analysis conducted by Kleijnen (1991). However, this problem obviously does not relate to medical/scientific publications only.
    Many homeopathic studies with doubtful or negative results are rarely (if not exceptionally) published in homeopathy journals; they are more likely to be published and commented on with negative emphasis in official journals, even when certain subjects are not in line with their editorial strategy.
    Conversely, many favourable results obtained with homeopathic medicines as a result of methodologically correct studies are published in homeopathic journals and merely ignored, censored, minimised or hyper-criticised by official allopathic journals, perhaps for fear of taking a favourable approach to a subject that is still controversial.
    Despite the problem of publication bias, many prestigious national and international journals have published and given the right degree of emphasis to well-conducted homeopathic clinical trials simply because “the findings speak for themselves”, and science must take an impartial view.

    Like

  4. Kaviraj says:

    Approximately 400 publications obtainable from international data bases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, the British Library, Stock Alert Service, SIGLE, Amed, etc.) which relate to controlled clinical trials of nosographically defined disorders (accounting for approx. 80% of the homeopathy studies conducted up to December 2001) demonstrate the therapeutic efficacy of the homeopathic drug tested.
    No less than 98 studies (25%) were indexed in Medline between 1998 and 2001 alone, clearly indicating researchers’ increasing interest in homeopathy.
    We have excluded from our review studies which fail to comply with validated operational protocols; we relied in particular on the “Guidelines on planning, conduct and evaluation of multicentric studies” published in the German Official Federal Gazette No. 299, Vol. 4, 12, 1998.
    The exclusion criteria were consequently as follows:
    1) open studies (only the global efficacy of homeopathy can be considered with
    this method, not the effect of each individual drug)
    2) retrospective studies (which do not involve comparison with homogeneous
    groups)
    3) studies in which a number of therapeutic techniques were associated
    4) lack of homogeneity of the disorder among groups and within the same group
    5) small number of patients recruited
    6) defects in methodological procedure.
    When these exclusion criteria were applied, the number of publications was reduced to approximately 200. We therefore examined only placebo-controlled trials and trials which compared a homeopathic medicine with the corresponding allopathic reference drug, some of which have been published in major international non-homeopathic journals such as the Lancet, Cancer, the British Medical Journal, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, etc.

    Of the 106 studies (A) 77 (72,6%) demonstrated (conducted between 1944 and 2000) that the homeopathic medicine was SUPERIOR to the placebo.
    _ Of the 21 studies (B) 21 (100%) demonstrated (conducted between 1991 and 2001) that the homeopathic medicine was NOT THERAPEUTICALLY INFERIOR* to the corresponding allopathic reference drug.
    _ 1991 to 1999 = 8
    _ 2000 to 2001 = 13.

    Like

  5. Kaviraj says:

    The problems with RCTs are:
    • they are difficult to replicate (true also for conventional treatment: only 48% of all
    SSRI studies are significant);
    • they are invasive and expensive, inducing lack of interest due to a lack of funding;
    • blinded RCTs answer only the placebo question;
    • they make unwarranted presuppositions.

    Like

    • MadGav says:

      “blinded RCTs answer only the placebo question”

      Interesting assertion, Kaviraj and not one I’m familiar with. Care to expand on why you think that’s the case?

      Like

      • Kaviraj says:

        Because that is what they assess. Nothing else.

        Like

      • MadGav says:

        No, that’s a demonstrably false statement.

        A blinded RCT can compare several putative agents against a placebo arm. That would give a hierarchy of outcomes (and a direct assessment of whether one treatment was better than another).

        Like

  6. Kaviraj says:

    Guy, here is another one to ponder for you.

    If it’s a new problem, perhaps it demands a new approach. If it’s an old problem, it certainly does.

    Like

  7. Guy Chapman says:

    As usual, you guys are missing the point. For every “woo-hoo, lookit that” pro homeopathy paper you can cite, another systematic review or study emerges which says the opposite. You are never going to fix this argument without moving away from the tweedledum and tweedledee world of argument you inhabit and providing scientifically plausible answers to some crucial questions.

    You seem to want to play in the field of medicine, but want scientists to go away and leave you alone. That is not going to happen, and you know it, and you know why. So I have proposed some things you could do to start settling these arguments rather than endlessly rehashing them: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Homeopathy_challenge

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Guy, you cannot refute any of the papers. You always come with the false dictum that we have to answer your unfounded charges. You do not demand that particle physics answers to Newtonian physics. Similarly, our remedies differ from pharmaceutical poisons – particle physics has proven so.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117141432.html

      I like to point out the difference between generalised medicine as in Pharmaceutical poisons and the quantum potencies of homoeopathy. It is based on the same difference between physics and quantum physics. Quantum physics cannot be explained away by Avogadro’s limit, as little as homeopathic remedies can be explained away by it. ConMed is physics and homoeopathy is quantum physics. The two are mutually exclusive in terms and any comparison between the two must fall flat for those reasons alone.

      Another difference to be pointed out is that an RCT is not the right vehicle for testing, since we cannot assign qualities to homoeopathic medicines they do not posses. Just as we do not demand ConMed poisons to be tested the homoeopathic way – since they would utterly fail in the individualised prescription, there being no proving done with them, apart from the poisoning cases that provide but a gross symptom picture – it is unrealistic to demand that our medicines should be subjected to the testing methods as employed in the RCT.

      Your argument therefore does not hold any water. If this is all incorrect as you claim, prove it by citing as many studies we are wrong on this particular point.

      Like

    • Peter says:

      Dear Mr. Guy Chapman,

      can you please tell us what scientific background you have?

      Regards
      Peter

      Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      We quote the scientists and you claim we want them to go away? Most of the papers I quoted come from reputable scientists, working at reputable universities. I bet you did not even look at them. Your answer proves actually that as usual, you ignore all papers we quote. That again makes you ignorant. I wonder why I even bother to answer someone who just blathers away, without him having taken the trouble to read the posts.

      Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      If you’re not lying then you should be able to prove it’s true by simply citing us, for every study we show you, you come back and show us a study that disproves it. Here’s one from BMC Cancer. 2010 Mar 25;10:113. “In vitro and in vivo anticancer properties of a Calcarea carbonica derivative complex (M8) treatment in a murine melanoma model.
      Guimarães FS, Andrade LF, Martins ST, Abud AP, Sene RV, Wanderer C, Tiscornia I, Bollati-Fogolín M, Buchi DF, Trindade ES.
      Laboratório de Pesquisa em Células Inflamatórias e Neoplásicas Depto de Biologia Celular, Setor de Ciências Biológicas, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20338038?ordinalpos=1&itool=PPMCLayout.PPMCAppController.PPMCArticlePage.PPMCPubmedRA&linkpos=1
      Don’t worry, it’s in English. If what you say is true, then you should be able to come up with one in BMC or better, repub’d on PUBMED that disproves it. I have dozens more like this one ready to copy and paste here, and so i presume you do too. So let’s get started Guy Chapman, show us the study that attempted to replicate Guimarães and failed.
      Don’t bother to show me Shang, or something by Ernst, i.e. reviews and metas. Show me the study where they replicated the study and failed to obtain similar results. If you want to play in the field of medicine, you can’t make scientists go away and leave you alone. Right? That’s what YOU wrote. So we’re waiting, Guy, for all these citations you say you have to come pouring forth from your font of wisdom and learning, from your huge data bank the size of a planet.

      Like

  8. Mad Gav says:

    It’s hard to see ‘in vitro’ experiments as more than an initial step when it comes to testing the effects of substances intended to be used on living creatures. While working with isolated cells can provide some useful information, only by testing on an intact organism can you fully assess the impact on its many interlinked systems (and, obviously, animal models are never going to exactly equate with the interactions expected in a human being).

    The paper quoted in the main posting above, Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):139-41, states in its conclusions: “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.” This is the key point of any experimental paper. You post your method, findings and conclusions and then other experimenters attempt to repeat (and hence further validate) your claims.

    It then goes on to say that: “A general adoption of succussed controls, randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments.” Indeed, it could be easily argued that without those three measures, it would be challenging at best to deem such a trial as ‘robust’ (given the inevitable bias these measures seek to minimise).

    Rather than proving any biochemical action, this paper is, in fact, suggesting an avenue along which further research would be useful.

    Like

    • Kaviraj says:

      Mad Gav,
      That shows you we are honest enough to post papers that do not always support our stance. Your claim it is the main paper is however dishonest. You just cherry-pick one and ignore the others, some of which have replicated previous attempts and came to the same conclusions. Your moniker shows the careful observer though, that you may not have all it takes to assess anything properly. Someone who calls himself Mad, well, need I say more?

      Like

      • MadGav says:

        Ad hominem attacks seem unnecessary, or at least ill-advised, Kaviraj.

        To quote the late Robert Anton Wilson: “Of course I’m crazy, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. I’m mad but not ill.”

        Anyway, back to the thread (rather than the comments section), if Mr Benneth didn’t say: “The best review of in vitro testing I’ve seen so far is the 2007 Witt review of biochemical tests done by a group of Germans: The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TF, Baumgartner S, Willich SN Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):139-41” and then go on to discuss it (as opposed to any other papers) in his blog-piece then I appologise for the misreading.

        If, however, that was the only paper he mention, I feel justified in calling it
        “the paper quoted in the main posting above” as well as pointing out the selective quoting of the paper’s conclusions.

        The task of critically appraising each and every paper to which links have been posted in the comments’ section is rather a large one (as you can no doubt see). Starting at the top and working down seems like the most sensible approach (unless you would recommend a particular paper upon which to focus instead).

        Like

  9. Clearly, these cells in a glass must realise that they are being treated. It has to be so. Homeopathy is just placebo. Professor Ernst and Colquhoun tell us this all the time! And they can’t be wrong. Can they?

    Like

  10. Kaviraj says:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19491143

    Bioactivity of the Murex Homeopathic Remedy and of Extracts from an Australian Muricid Mollusc Against Human Cancer Cells.

    Benkendorff K, McIver CM, Abbott CA.

    School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, 5001, Australia. kirsten.benkendorff@flinders.edu.au.
    Abstract

    Marine molluscs from the family Muricidae are the source of a homeopathic remedy Murex, which is used to treat a range of conditions, including cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro bioactivity of egg mass extracts of the Australian muricid Dicathais orbita, in comparison to the Murex remedy, against human carcinoma and lymphoma cells. Liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC-MS) was used to characterize the chemical composition of the extracts and homeopathic remedy, focusing on biologically active brominated indoles. The MTS (tetrazolium salt) colorimetric assay was used to determine effects on cell viability, while necrosis and apoptosis induction were investigated using flow cytometry (propidium iodide and Annexin-V staining respectively). Cells were treated with varying concentrations (1-0.01 mg/ml) of crude and semi-purified extracts or preparations (dilute 1 M and concentrated 4 mg/ml) from the Murex remedy (4 h). The Murex remedy showed little biological activity against the majority of cell lines tested. In contrast, the D. orbita egg extracts significantly decreased cell viability in the majority of carcinoma cell lines. Flow cytometry revealed these extracts induce necrosis in HT29 colorectal cancer cells, whereas apoptosis was induced in Jurkat cells. These findings highlight the biomedical potential of Muricidae extracts in the development of a natural therapy for the treatment of neoplastic tumors and lymphomas.

    PMID: 19491143 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]Free Article

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16813505

    Effect of low doses and high homeopathic potencies in normal and cancerous human lymphocytes: an in vitro isopathic study.

    Wälchli C, Baumgartner S, Bastide M.

    Institute for Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. waelchli@hiscia.ch
    Abstract

    OBJECTIVES: Biologic effects of high homeopathic potencies can be studied in cell cultures using cell lines or primary cells. We hypothesized that primary cells would be more apt to respond to high potencies than cell lines, especially cancer cell lines. We set out to investigate the effects of low doses and high homeopathic potencies of cadmium chloride, respectively, in an intoxication model with human primary lymphocytes compared to a human leukemia cell line (Jurkat).

    DESIGN: Cells were pretreated with either low concentrations (nM-microM) or high potencies (pool 15-20c) of cadmium for 120 hours, following which they were exposed to a toxic treatment with a range of cadmium concentrations (8-80 microM) during 24 hours. Cell viability was eventually assessed by use of the MTS/PES assay. Controls included a vehicle (NaCl 0.9%) for the low concentrations of cadmium or water 15-20c for cadmium 15-20c. A total of 34 experiments were conducted, 23 with low concentrations and 11 with high potencies of cadmium. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance.

    RESULTS: Pretreatment with low concentrations or high potencies of cadmium significantly increased cell viability in primary lymphocytes after toxic challenge, compared to control cells (mean effect +/- standard error = 19% +/- 0.9% for low concentrations respectively 8% +/- 0.6% for high potencies of cadmium; p < 0.001 in both cases). The pretreatment effect of low doses was significant also in cancerous lymphocytes (4% +/- 0.5%; p < 0.001), albeit weaker than in normal lymphocytes. However, high homeopathic potencies had no effect on cancerous lymphocytes (1% +/- 1.9%; p = 0.45).

    CONCLUSIONS: High homeopathic potencies exhibit a biologic effect on cell cultures of normal primary lymphocytes. Cancerous lymphocytes (Jurkat), having lost the ability to respond to regulatory signals, seem to be fairly unresponsive to high homeopathic potencies.

    PMID: 16813505 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12963976

    Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel treatment for human brain cancer.

    Pathak S, Multani AS, Banerji P, Banerji P.

    Department of Molecular Genetics, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. pathak_sen@yahoo.com
    Abstract

    Although conventional chemotherapies are used to treat patients with malignancies, damage to normal cells is problematic. Blood-forming bone marrow cells are the most adversely affected. It is therefore necessary to find alternative agents that can kill cancer cells but have minimal effects on normal cells. We investigated the brain cancer cell-killing activity of a homeopathic medicine, Ruta, isolated from a plant, Ruta graveolens. We treated human brain cancer and HL-60 leukemia cells, normal B-lymphoid cells, and murine melanoma cells in vitro with different concentrations of Ruta in combination with Ca3(PO4)2. Fifteen patients diagnosed with intracranial tumors were treated with Ruta 6 and Ca3(PO4)2. Of these 15 patients, 6 of the 7 glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors. Normal human blood lymphocytes, B-lymphoid cells, and brain cancer cells treated with Ruta in vitro were examined for telomere dynamics, mitotic catastrophe, and apoptosis to understand the possible mechanism of cell-killing, using conventional and molecular cytogenetic techniques. Both in vivo and in vitro results showed induction of survival-signaling pathways in normal lymphocytes and induction of death-signaling pathways in brain cancer cells. Cancer cell death was initiated by telomere erosion and completed through mitotic catastrophe events. We propose that Ruta in combination with Ca3(PO4)2 could be used for effective treatment of brain cancers, particularly glioma.

    PMID: 12963976 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20511672

    Encapsulated plant extract (Gelsemium sempervirens) poly (lactide-co-glycolide) nanoparticles enhance cellular uptake and increase bioactivity in vitro.

    Bhattacharyya SS, Paul S, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.

    Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani 741235, West Bengal, India.
    Abstract

    Ethanolic extract of Gelsemium sempervirens (family: Loganiaceae), henceforth to be called EEGS, is used in various traditional systems of medicine. In homeopathy, EEGS is known as mother tincture of G. sempervirens, which is generally used to treat pain and respiratory ailments. We demonstrated earlier anticancer activity of crude EEGS by in vitro studies on human HeLa cells. To test the hypothesis if nanoparticle-encapsulated extract (now onwards to be called NEEGS) could enhance cellular uptake and thereby improve bioactivity, we formulated nanoparticle encapsulation based on poly (lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) and confirmed encapsulation by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy. EEGS was encapsulated with 81.6% efficiency in PLGA biodegradable nanoparticle formulation and F68 (polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene) was used as a stabilizer. Dynamic laser light scattering and SEM indicated a particle diameter of 122.6 nm. The zeta potential of the drug-loaded nanoparticles was -14.8 mV. NEEGS was characterized for their biological activities in a skin cancer cell line A375 in vitro. NEEGS exhibited relatively rapid (30 min) and more efficient cellular uptake than their un-encapsulated counterpart (45 min). Analysis of data of apoptosis study using Annexin V-FITC, terminal transferase dUTP nick end labeling assay and DNA ladder revealed that encapsulated EEGS was more potent than their un-encapsulated counterpart in inducing apoptosis of A375 cells. Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction data of survivin, cyclin-D1, caspase-3, PCNA and p53 also corroborated well to suggest greater potentials of NEEGS as anticancer agents.

    PMID: 20511672 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Let us see what the scoffers have to say.

    Like

  11. Kaviraj says:

    For the scoffers among the socalled “skeptics” there are some more studies.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19698142

    Stimulation of lymphocyte anti-melanoma activity by co-cultured macrophages activated by complex homeopathic medication.

    Guimarães FS, Abud AP, Oliveira SM, Oliveira CC, César B, Andrade LF, Donatti L, Gabardo J, Trindade ES, Buchi DF.

    Departamento de Biologia Celular, Laboratório de Pesquisa em Células Inflamatórias e Neoplásicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba – PR, Brazil. ferbiocel@yahoo.com.br
    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: Melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer, and the most rapidly expanding cancer in terms of worldwide incidence. Chemotherapeutic approaches to treat melanoma have been uniformly disappointing. A Brazilian complex homeopathic medication (CHM), used as an immune modulator, has been recommended for patients with depressed immune systems. Previous studies in mice have demonstrated that the CHM activates macrophages, induces an increase in the number of leukocytes and improves the murine response against Sarcoma-180.

    METHODS: Here we studied the interaction of mouse lymph node lymphocytes, co-cultured in vitro with macrophages in the presence or absence of the CHM, with B16F10 melanoma cells.

    RESULTS: Lymphocytes co-cultured with macrophages in the presence of the CHM had greater anti-melanoma activity, reducing melanoma cell density and increasing the number of lysed tumor cells. There was also a higher proportion of activated (CD25+) lymphocytes with increased viability. Overall, lymphocytes activated by treatment destroyed growing cancer cells more effectively than control lymphocytes.

    CONCLUSION: Co-culture of macrophages with lymphocytes in the presence of the CHM enhanced the anti-cancer performance of lymphocytes against a very aggressive lineage of melanoma cells. These results suggest that non-toxic therapies using CHMs are a promising alternative approach to the treatment of melanomas. In addition, they are attractive combination-therapy candidates, which may enhance the efficacy of conventional medicines by improving the immune response against tumor cells.

    PMID: 19698142 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    The published report has also the stats:

    1471-2407-9-293-4.jpg

    1471-2407-9-293-6.jpg

    1471-2407-9-293-1.jpg

    1471-2407-9-293-2.jpg

    Like

  12. Kaviraj says:

    John what about the test done with Phytolacca on cancer cells?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20043074

    Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells.

    Frenkel M, Mishra BM, Sen S, Yang P, Pawlus A, Vence L, Leblanc A, Cohen L, Banerji P, Banerji P.

    Integrative Medicine Program-Unit 145, Department of Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA. frenkelm@netvision.net.il
    Abstract

    The use of ultra-diluted natural products in the management of disease and treatment of cancer has generated a lot of interest and controversy. We conducted an in vitro study to determine if products prescribed by a clinic in India have any effect on breast cancer cell lines. We studied four ultra-diluted remedies (Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja) against two human breast adenocarcinoma cell lines (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) and a cell line derived from immortalized normal human mammary epithelial cells (HMLE). The remedies exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against the two breast cancer cell lines, causing cell cycle delay/arrest and apoptosis. These effects were accompanied by altered expression of the cell cycle regulatory proteins, including downregulation of phosphorylated Rb and upregulation of the CDK inhibitor p27, which were likely responsible for the cell cycle delay/arrest as well as induction of the apoptotic cascade that manifested in the activation of caspase 7 and cleavage of PARP in the treated cells. The findings demonstrate biological activity of these natural products when presented at ultra-diluted doses. Further in-depth studies with additional cell lines and animal models are warranted to explore the clinical applicability of these agents.

    PMID: 20043074 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Homeopathy works, regardless the desire of “professor” turkey that they don’t.

    Here is another for that cackler.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101766

    Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models.

    MacLaughlin BW, Gutsmuths B, Pretner E, Jonas WB, Ives J, Kulawardane DV, Amri H.

    Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
    Abstract

    The use of dietary supplements for various ailments enjoys unprecedented popularity. As part of this trend, Sabal serrulata (saw palmetto) constitutes the complementary treatment of choice with regard to prostate health. In homeopathy, Sabal serrulata is commonly prescribed for prostate problems ranging from benign prostatic hyperplasia to prostate cancer. The authors’ work assessed the antiproliferative effects of homeopathic preparations of Sabal serrulata, Thuja occidentalis, and Conium maculatum, in vivo, on nude mouse xenografts, and in vitro, on PC-3 and DU-145 human prostate cancer as well as MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cell lines. Treatment with Sabal serrulata in vitro resulted in a 33% decrease of PC-3 cell proliferation at 72 hours and a 23% reduction of DU-145 cell proliferation at 24 hours (P<.01). The difference in reduction is likely due to the specific doubling time of each cell line. No effect was observed on MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells. 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 (P=.012). No effect was observed on breast tumor growth. Our study clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth. This biologic effect was (i)significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to controls and (ii)specific to human prostate cancer. Sabal serrulata should thus be further investigated as a specific homeopathic remedy for prostate pathology.

    PMID: 17101766 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101764

    Effect of homeopathic treatment on gene expression in Copenhagen rat tumor tissues.

    Thangapazham RL, Rajeshkumar NV, Sharma A, Warren J, Singh AK, Ives JA, Gaddipati JP, Maheshwari RK, Jonas WB.

    Department of Pathology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests that the inability to undergo apoptosis is an important factor in the development and progression of prostate cancer. Agents that induce apoptosis may inhibit tumor growth and provide therapeutic benefit. In a recent study, the authors found that certain homeopathic treatments produced anticancer effects in an animal model. In this study, the authors examined the immunomodulating and apoptotic effects of these remedies. Materials and

    METHODS: The authors investigated the effect of a homeopathic treatment regimen containing Conium maculatum, Sabal serrulata, Thuja occidentalis, and a MAT-LyLu Carcinosin nosode on the expression of cytokines and genes that regulate apoptosis. This was assessed in prostate cancer tissues, extracted from animals responsive to these drugs, using ribonuclease protection assay or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.

    RESULTS: There were no significant changes in mRNA levels of the apoptotic genes bax, bcl-2, bcl-x, caspase-1, caspase-2, caspase-3, Fas, FasL, or the cytokines interleukin (IL)-1alpha, IL-1beta, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-beta, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-alpha, IL-2, and interferon-gamma in prostate tumor and lung metastasis after treatment with homeopathic medicines.

    CONCLUSIONS: 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.

    PMID: 17101764 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101763

    Can homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth?

    Jonas WB, Gaddipati JP, Rajeshkumar NV, Sharma A, Thangapazham RL, Warren J, Singh AK, Ives JA, Olsen C, Mog SR, Maheshwari RK.

    Samueli Institute, 1700 Diagonal Road, Suite 400, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA.
    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: Homeopathy is a complementary medicine widely used around the world. 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. In 1999, the US National Cancer Institute evaluated the effects of homeopathic treatment of cancer from a clinic in India and has released a request for protocols to conduct further research into this treatment. Therefore, the authors conducted a series of carefully controlled laboratory studies evaluating the effects of commonly used homeopathic remedies in cell and animal models of prostate cancer.

    STUDY DESIGN: One hundred male Copenhagen rats were randomly assigned to either treatment or control groups after inoculation with prostate tumor cells.

    METHODS: Prostate tumor cells DU-145, LNCaP, and MAT-LyLu were exposed to 5 homeopathic remedies. Male Copenhagen rats were injected with MAT-LyLu cells and exposed to the same homeopathic remedies for 5 weeks. 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 (PCNA) expression, apoptotic cell death (terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase mediated d-uridine triphosphate nick end labeling), and gene expression (rAPO-multiprobe).

    RESULTS: There were no effects on cell viability or gene expression in 3 prostate cell lines with any remedies at any exposure time. There was a 23% reduction in tumor incidence (P < .0001), and for animals with tumors, there was a 38% reduction in tumor volume in homeopathy-treated animals versus controls (P < .02). At time of killing, experimental animals with tumors had a 13% lower average tumor weight (P < .05). Tumors in these treated animals showed a 19% increase in apoptotic cell death (P < .05) and reduced PCNA-positive cells.

    CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that selected homeopathic remedies for the present study have no direct cellular anticancer effects but appear to significantly slow the progression of cancer and reduce cancer incidence and mortality in Copenhagen rats injected with MAT-LyLu prostate cancer cells.

    PMID: 17101763 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    I think this shows sufficient proof that homoeopathy DOES WORK, regardless the denial of the homoeophobes.

    Like

    • MadGav says:

      Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells.

      Frenkel M, Mishra BM, Sen S, Yang P, Pawlus A, Vence L, Leblanc A, Cohen L, Banerji P, Banerji P.

      (pdf of full paper available here: http://scepticsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/Cytotoxic-effects-of-homeopathic-remedies-on-breast-cancer-cells-2010.pdf)

      My first thought is, where are the statistics? Confidence intervals and the like would be really useful, (by which I mean essential), in assessing the significance of any response, those tiny ‘graphs’ and really don’t cut the proverbial mustard.

      Then there is this, apparently throw-away: “All four remedies had very similar HPLC chromatograms to each other, with only trace amounts of limited number of peaks. They were not significantly distinct from the solvent and they lacked the distinct peak seen in the solvent

      What was the distinct peak in the solvent and why did the remedies lack it (given that they were concocted using the same solvent)?

      The cancer-killing effects of the solvent are discussed here: “As shown in Fig. 1A, the solvent reduced the viability of all three cell types; the overall reduction in cells at different doses of solvent was about 30% for MCF-7, 20-30% for MDA-MB-231 and 20% for HMLE cells.”

      This is a detail that demands statistical evidence just to prove that *any* cytotoxic effect isn’t simply due to the (supposedly inert) solvent.

      I’m not a subscriber to the ‘International Journal of Oncology’ but I am surprised that this paper made it through any peer review system.

      Like

      • johnbenneth says:

        Why aren’t you stating what the authors said the results were, rather than implying your own? You’re cherry picking the results in order to confuse them. Frenkel says “The results revealed that the inhibitory effects were higher for the longer period of treatment and greater inhibition was caused by the remedies than by the solvent. Among the four remedies investigated, Carcinosin and Phytolacca, reproducibly revealed relatively higher inhibitory effects in replicate experiments.”
        Because they report few differences in the chromatograms is not grounds to dismiss observations of action. It’s irrelevant to the question, can ultra-diluted remedies have cytotoxic effects on breast cancer cells?
        It is merely your armchair opinion of it to imply anything else. Youhave done nothing more than read the report, if that. Youcan report nothing of your own in vitro or in vivo action, and you have no0thing to offer that authoritatively appraises Frenkel. You act like you actually know something. How hypocritical, that you can sit there and pose as an authority on this subject by merely making vague assertions about what it should be, without showing any correlary whatsoever from your own study or anyone elses. We could just as easily pick apart your attemtpts to debunk it as being niased, feeble and weak minded.
        If you really are intent on debunking this test from your chair, stop using an anonymous name, reveal your criteria and how you value it, show the attempt that was made to replicate it, and THEN apply the same cirtieria to THAT test.
        Break out of your solipsism. go beyond the horizon to a place youhaven’t seen before. Put it to your own test and honestly reveal the results, as we have done. Then, when you have done this, you will have my respect. Until then,shut up, open a book instead of your mouth.

        Like

      • MadGav says:

        Because the original poster already cut and paste the abstract.

        The problem is that while they state that the results of the treatment group and the control group were different, without knowing the confidence intervals, it is impossible to judge whether that difference is statistically significant (or whether it could have simply occurred through chance).

        Critical appraisal (I’d recommend the book, ‘How to read a paper’ – Trisha Greenhalgh as an excellent starting point), is the process of carefully and systematically examining research to judge its trustworthiness, and its value and
        relevance in a particular context. It does not require a reader to reproduce the original science.

        What it does is allow clinicians to find and use research evidence reliably and efficiently.

        It you wish to critique my comments then please do so (that is, after all, what spurs the scientific process).

        Like

    • MadGav says:

      Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):350-5.
      Effect of homeopathic treatment on gene expression in Copenhagen rat tumor tissues.
      Thangapazham RL, Rajeshkumar NV, Sharma A, Warren J, Singh AK, Ives JA, Gaddipati JP, Maheshwari RK, Jonas WB.

      Full paper available here:

      http://www.homeopathy.org/research/cancer/Thangazpazham-2.pdf

      This is another paper that suffers from a lack of statistical data. I’m not entirely sure why you included this paper.

      In the full paper the conclusion reads as follows: “Our experiments show that the investigation of specific gene expression analysis for apoptosis and cytokine alteration may not provide sufficient insights into the mechanisms of homeopathic treatment of prostate cancer. Investigation of the homeopathic treatment of cancer may require novel and sensitive methodologies such as global gene array analysis to detect subtle differences to account for the beneficial effects of homeopathic treatment in vivo. We are planning to study the changes in protein levels using proteomics in the future.

      Sadly, as stated earlier, this avenue of research has yet to be follow up (at least according to PubMed).

      Like

What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s