What ever may be effect,placibo or nano medicine  I have observed that homeopathy and herbal treatment some time works Requires further research

Many thanks for these precious answers.

I worked many years in the field of a presumptive scientific research field of homeopathy and something "puzzling" was even reported. However, the fact that homeopathy is growing up within civilized and industrialized countries has an anthropological yet not scientific reason. This may justify both the increasing number of hospitals and big pharmas. however, we never observed the same increase with sound, rigorous and certified (reliable) publications in OFFICIAL MEDICAL JOURNALS, rather than in NICHE SPECIALIZED JOURNALS. There's nothing or less....

Authorative experts are waiting for a full, wondrous demonstration that high dilutions containing "structures", with a puzzling, odd physical property, work on complex organisms and then this evidence possibly reported and readable on Nature or Science or Cell or PNAS or so forth....I'm waiting too, though quite hopeless....With regards to anmals...well...we are completely naive when addressing their absence of a placebo effect. They feel greatly better than us our feelings, behaviour and smell related to our intentions...this may explain a Pavlovian conditionment due to our attitude towards animals...

Spoons are not bended by our mental intentions.....

It is easy to draw a wrong conclusion about the benefit of treatment. I was about 6 years of age and had an acute episode of diarrhoea one day, my sister who was a little older than me  treated me with salt water drinks every half an hour. I felt very ill by the end of the day and the homeopathy doctor was requested to visit urgently by my parents. The diarrhoea had stopped some hours before. As the doctor arrived I vomited a large quantity of clear salt water. The doctor gave me a single dose of homeopathic medicine. I felt very well and attributed  the healing effect to the medicine.. It is more likely that emptying the stomach of the hyper tonic saline cured my problem. How rigorously was the milk production measured before and after the homeopathic diet, was it placebo controlled?

Excellent answer, thank you Ranjit!

My question is: why any meta-analysis published on authorative non niche biomedical journals and randomized trials give only negative evidence? how about all those people claiming for wondrous healing thanks to homeopathy? thousands of people tell about Holy virgin in Medjugorie....this should be TRUE.....yet except for Catholic Church...since now. Millions of people telling the same truth do not demonstrate that their truth IS a truth....(unless you have many rigorously published papers on official biomedical scientific literature..., I mean unless Catholic Church states that Holy Virgin appearance REALLY occurred in Medjugorie)... 

Interesting discussion. Thank you. Salvatore, I think there are many problems with the research. Until recently most clinical studies attempted to 'fit' homeopathy into a pharmaceutical model resulting in very poor model and external validity. However where external validity is maximised,  internal validity is compromised, and studies representing the totality of the therapeutic system of homeopathy are therefore rejected from high quality journals. It is challenging to achieve both. However I believe progress is beginning to be made, with innovative trial designs which may unravel the current conundrum.

Below are two recently published works which I think clarify the debate somewhat, and the journals they are published in are well respected. The meta analysis of individualised homeopathic medicines shows a tentative suggestion of the specific effect of individualised medicines. But how few studies of this sort have been done!

The second manages to tease out the specific effects of individualised medicines (from the consultation) and shows them to be non-inferior to fluoxetine, and  helpful with menopause sx where fluoxetine is not, with minimal risk of bias.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathy. Mathie et al. 2014; Systematic Reviews; 3:142

Individualized Homeopathic Treatment and Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression in Peri- and Postmenopausal Women (HOMDEP-MENOP Study): A Randomized, Double-Dummy, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. 2015. Emma del Carmen Macías-Cortés, Lidia Llanes-González, Leopoldo Aguilar-Faisal, Juan Asbun-Bojalil. PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0118440 March 13, 2015

Dear Philippa, thank you very much for your answer! i was aware about the existence of these papers. however.Mathies's publication concluded "Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects.Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation" and the very recent paper by the excellent Colleague Emma del Carmen Macías-Cortés regards post-partum depression, through a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Beck Depression Inventory and Greene Scale. 

However, the Authors did mention which remedies (potencies) they used in IHT: they only referred to "The selection of the individualized remedy was carried out after the case history by a certified medical doctor, specialized in homeopathy with 18 years experience in classical homeopathy based on Hahnemann's methodology described in paragraphs 83–104 of the Organon of Medicine, 6th edition".... 

Namely...a medical approach that dates back to 1814 or 1833. The fifth and last edition, published in 1833, contains several novelties, such as the theories of the "vital force" and "the dynamization of medicines". In previous editions Hahnemann

had in several places spoken rather slightingly of the vital force and its influence on the production and cure of disease, but these expressions are either eliminated or greatly modified in the last edition, and the "vital force" occupies quite a different and a much more important position in regard to disease, its cause and cure. The

doctrine of dynamization of medicines by the pharmaceutical processes peculiar to homoeopathy, which had only been hinted at in previous editions, is in this edition distinctly stated.

It is difficult to ascertain if a possible herbal effect of homeopathy (Csupor D, Boros K, Hohmann J. Low potency homeopathic remedies and allopathic herbal medicines: is there an overlap? PLoS One. 2013 Sep 3;8(9):e74181) occurred without knowing which remedies (potencies) were used and whether the patient/practitioner relationship (as explained in aphorisms 83-104) exerted a major role in the resulting outcome, rather than homeopathy...

A comment of mine on the latest HRI Congress in Rome

Hi Salvatore ,

Where you have studied homeopathy . Please do what you cite  , yourself and report failures . Be wise or if  otherwise come to me and see animals located miles away from me get cured without Pavlovian  complex of feeling , behaviour ,and smell ! Hope you will enjoy this live study rather than boring journals as well as your stay in India !

P.K.Sethi

My dearest Prof Prem Sethi,

as you studied homepathy, while I didn't, you should warrant for a wider joining of minds than mine so to be able to dismiss by naive critical comments, surely based on animal ethology and psychobiology, about the fact that animals sense humans while they are approaching to cure them. Obviously, as I am a boring scientist, I would like to meet a Colleague of mine able to completely dismiss and remove this doubt and finally any possible bias. That's all. 

Do you sincerely believe on this possibility....without prejudice....or do not?

Best wishes

Salvatore

Obviously, every health and healing modality needs to be rightly studied.  If they work, keep them.  Homeopathy has been around for over 200 years.  It has to have some merit to have lasted that long.  It's not as tho it is Allopathic, which has been supported by enormous funds from the Rockefellers.  It has stood on its own.  End it?  Are you kidding?  What are you afraid of?  That it might work?  All forms of medicine work in the hands of skilled practitioners.  It's just a matter of using them rightly, intelligently, and skillfully.

Oh yes, sure, Leonard! Physicians probe any outcome coming from any even odd medical practice or whatsoever is defined as medical practice, by patients' recovery of their wellbeing and healing. Obviously this is true both for modern, allopathic medicine and homeopathy, CAMs, Chinese medicine, ayurveda, anthroposophic medicine and so forth. You are right WITH an enormous bias: if your wife or daughter or son are seriously sick and were hit by a serious disease endagering life to grave, YOU will turn your hopes to that MEDICINE with the BEST evidence (both empirical and scientific) gathered since then.

Or not?

Still, homeopathy needs sound and rigorous evidence in high IF journals, less empiricism, an EBM verified approach and a reproducible, reliable and assessed model (scientifically demonstrated) of working. Then I will trust homeopathy to save my children life.....only then....sorry, for this. I have the same attitude when I am going to buy a car... why not for health?

A car is not a human body.  Poor comparison.  When loved ones are in great or dire need, we naturally "pull out all the stops" and go to that which in all our experience and understanding "works".  We are speaking hypothetically, of course, in this case. 

In life-threatening circumstances, it's usually some combination of allopathic, Naturopathic and perhaps Acupuncture.  In chronic degenerative disease, Naturopathic almost always wins.  Allopathic is more for acute cases and pain relief, and doesn't work very well with chronic disease.  It has been used more as palliative.  Acupuncture is good for both acute and chronic.  

Real medicine is about teaching patient self-responsibility.  It is participatory medicine on the part of both doctor and patient.  Any hack can treat.  The real healer requires the Pt to be straight, to be accountable for the disease process, to participate in the healing process.  This often means getting off drugs, getting into purification, taking raw diet, changing to life-positive lifestyle.  This means kicking some butt, challenging the Pt to change his or her act.  Not just prescribing a drug.  Any fool can do that.  And many do, unfortunately.  

BTW, this is not just philosophy.  I speak from 43 years of clinical experience.

Your last sentence sounds really similar to that one claimed by Bellavite (Bellavite et al Int J High Dil Res 2011; 10(37):325-337). Both your sentences may sound as: "I worked more than 20  years in astrology and UFOs contact...please, I know my way..I am the only person authorized to ascertain that this event is REAL.!"

Ok. We are not cars, surely, we are human beings, this is an excellent edge on the complex landscape shown by medical art to suggest Prof Frass' emergency  homeopathy for the next people who crashed with his car on a gross tree and is rapidly brought to emergency care...Cars again?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgxzSUxxRzE

Hi Salvatore

So you mean if you approach a  sick  or  wounded lion in  a jungle safari park with a bagful of evidenced based medicine, sensing  clemency  it will extend it's paw ... come sir ,give me  a  shot and cure me ! Haven knows who cures and who kills ?

Sir , i repeat  owners come to me , narrate symptoms , get medicine , and feed it to sick animal . How do they know the new  avatar of the owner as a healer ! Will some animal ethologist or psychobiologist  explain me .

Homeopathically  yours

P.K.Sethi

Sir, please, kindly send me some sound scientific report where hungry or angry (having bored by wounds) lions are cured with homeopathy if they caught a thorn in the paw....Did they open lion's jaws and put inside sugar globuli under its tongue? Sure? Brave homeopaths...!!!

Sir,

That was with reference  animal ethology and psychobiology  which affect cure in animal and not homeopathy ! I have practiced veterinary medicine there is nothing  like this or placebo effect in animals . I have treated tigers with extreme tenesmus  in dysentery with homeopathy  secured in squeez  cage but not  a free roaming one , because they do not differeniate who is who ! I gave  medicated pills inserted in a lump of meat . First hand user report super scientific .

P.K.Sethi

I know that homeopathy works in children, in adults and in animals. All of this cases I have to administrate only one remedy for each patient: human or animal . If my choice of medicine is correct it will cure  the person or animal. When the moves to a better health does not occur you have made a wrong choice and you must  try again choosing another homeopathy remedies or prescribe another medicine:the allopathic!

Marisa C. Christensen 

There was a very good meta analysis done in Australia. This one minute video summarizes the results of the study: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-homeopathy-just-placebo/ Click on "sources cited" to see the citation of the study.

I am so sorry to see such ignorance in people of such high standing. Please do not let yourselves be fooled by all this anti-homoeopathy nonsense.  The Australian report was a copy of the UK one, which was orchestrated by pharmaceutical lobby group Sense about Science. Switzerland does not agree!  And this was after an extensive review including of cost.  I refer you to the many test tubes studies if you still believe placebo effect is an adequate explanation, including of cancer cells dying under the influence of micro-dilute remedies.    The truth is homoeopathy is so cheap, safe and wide-ranging in its application that we could  rescue all of our medical services by scrapping enormous drugs bills and using this system instead.  I can only assume those who continue to say otherwise  have ties of some sort (emotional or financial) with the  drug companies who want to eradicate this system as it becomes more and more popular and drugs more clearly harmful to so many of us. 

I would like to reply on my own by reporting a post from Prof Edzard Ernst

Many thanks

http://edzardernst.com/2014/10/homeopathy-for-cancer-a-new-and-remarkable-study/

Yes  downsizing homeopathy is machination of phama industry through sponsored study and meta analysis .Prof. Edzard be adviced to visit  www..pbhrfindia.org and study dr. benergee's work .

P.K.Sethi

Quite.  By quoting this person you have simply proved my pointy.   so sad to see you being taking in like this and missing out on a great future in real medicine.

Jennifer, bless your heart, woman, you are fighting an uphill battle against Big Pharma apologists (and maybe even shills and trolls).  Why bother dignifying their contentious silliness with an intelligent response---or even any response?  I write here merely to provide you with support.  Homeopathy works.  Period!  In the hands of skilled practitioners, all of these medical arts and sciences can be applied rightly and effectively.  To those who understand, no further explanation is necessary.  To those who do not, none is possible.

Follow the money. Homeopathy and its related therapies generally do not use require medicines, so the pharma industry spends its money to denigrate alternative medications, including funding non-objective -- and essentially unethical -- "research". Physicians who were not taught these therapies and fear loss of business, in knee-jerk fashion lash out in opposition.

Homeopathy works, and has for hundreds of years. That Indian medicine man, with his herbs and salves, knew what he was doing. Those Chinese practitioners have been trained for generation after generation to solve illnesses with these therapies.

You may poo-poo anecdotal evidence, but when the field itself has little funding and such wealthy enemies, you need to question what really is going on.

Good call, Rod!  

The wealthy and powerful are often terrified of losing their wealth and power.  Traditional medicine has proven itself and has stood the test of time.  Those who have studied the history of allopathic medicine know of its inherent dangers.  And yet, it can be used rightly and benefit the Pt.  Unfortunately, the industry behind allopathic is rife with corruption, a huge out-of-control corporate beast that has caused enormous harm.  The discriminating healer understands this--and acts accordingly in his and her profession.  

Physicians need so much to be rightly schooled.  They need the highest teaching.  The lowest level of practice is treatment, treating disease, which may be needed.  The next level up is prevention--but...prevention still involves disease (preventing disease).  The next level above that is health promotion--which is only about health.  However, the highest level of practice is Radical Healing, which is health beyond cure.  Few have even heard of it.  And yet, its need is great.  

Is it a coincidence that most of the homeopahy apologists these days are not medical professionals? It has been a long time since homeopathy has been proven to be worthless, yet it is still trying to sneak through the back door.

Who , how and where , proved HOMEOPATHY  ts worthless ! I understand you yourself  never did so .

P.K.Sethi

It is not a coincidence that most attackers of homeopathy have never studied or practiced homeopathy. It is to be expected that practitioners of a discipline would embrace their discipline's principles and philosophy as it is the basis of their training and clinical experience. But they are not the only ones who support it.

A skilled lay homeopath treated me successfully when doctors told my father I would never recover from massive brain damage and would probably be a vegetable the rest of my life. I am grateful every day to not be a vegetable. I would have been grateful during those first 10 years after the ABI if a competent medical professional had been kind enough to give me anything approaching such "placebos" in efficacy.

I have become cautious, however, to avoid mentioning homeopathy to medical doctors in a research context, in order to avoid being scorned. I know the power of it, and it has often become my medicine of choice. I have also read some of the research that purports to invalidate it. There often seem to be flaws in methods that do not fairly replicate clinical practice, especially the individualized nature of the prescribing or other issues.  I have also read homeopathic explanations of why it works, and I have not yet found one that fully satisfies me.

However there is much in allopathic practice that was not evidence-based for many years, yet treatments proceeded based on physicians' clinical experience. Some medicines worked despite not having plausible explanations for them, like willow bark and aspirin, and other medical practices were discarded, like bloodletting. Our understandings are corrected as we progress.

I cannot imagine denying people the lifesaving benefits I and others have received from homeopathy. It would be a massive tragedy and foolish to close homeopathy clinics, simply out of an incomplete understanding.

P.K. Sethi,

Of course I never did so, why would I waste my time for such bias in 21st century? If you need scientifical proofs I recommend study of paper by Shang et al from 2005 published in Lancet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589

Rosi Goldsmith,

With all the respect, your personal story from childhood and consequential beliefs have no scientific value.

Sincerely,

PP

The question crosses both legal statutes in individual countries and medical science. Allowing the use of homeopathic preparations is currently the subject of legal consideration by the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S.; a country where their prescription and use as over-the-counter remedies was 'grandfathered', but never examined in the light of conclusive scientific evidence:

http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda_law_blog_hyman_phelps/2015/06/will-ftc-kill-homeopathic-products-or-will-fda.html

As might be expected, Canadian regulations allowing the sale of homeopathic preparations are also under scrutiny:

http://mjlh.mcgill.ca/blog.php?blog_id=144

http://mjlh.mcgill.ca/blog.php?blog_id=145

From its inception, homeopathy was based on the "law of similars", meaning that substances diluted to the point of containing virtually none of the starting material would treat the symptoms produced by the same substance when taken by a healthy individual in undiluted form. It follows that homeopathy deems to treat the symptoms and not the underlying etiology of disease.

Even if multiple, independent, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trials on individual homeopathic preparations for a given disease or condition were to be undertaken, their regulation as OTC drugs in the U.S. (if not elsewhere) is precluded by the requirement for conclusive evidence demonstrating both their efficacy and mechanism of action. Failing that, they were never regulated as dietary supplements in the U.S., and there is no logical reason to assume they could be in future.

Over many decades of practice, I have heard stories from patients on how they were helped by Homeopathics.  I have known MDs who have praised and practiced Homeopathy "on the sly" along with their conventional medical practice.  Personally, I never took the time to learn it.  What surprises me is the pseudo-scientific attitude some take regarding anything that has not been "officially accepted".    

At some point, experience shows us the limits of science.  There is far more happening here than what we can measure on the gross material level.  Real science is open-minded, has no philosophy, and never condemns anything outright--or even based on a few tests.  And, as we all know, there is, unfortunately, "science" that is wrongly performed, that is bought and paid for, and whose results are therefore known in advance.  Moreover, to indulge in absolute affirmations--including the affirmation of scientific materialist philosophy--is a gross misuse of the authority of science.  On that basis, some of the comments that I have seen here do not appear to deserve the dignity of a response.

Leonard Mehlmauer: Like you, I know people who have claimed they benefited from homeopathic remedies. In my studies of early chemistry, it became apparent that the process of "potentization" by succusion employed in homeopathy was adopted from alchemy. Given that contributions of alchemists to chemistry are not in dispute, I agree that we need to keep an open mind. What I don't know is whether the same individuals benefited from a placebo effect, which would eventually have worn off. In any case, it was not my duty to follow up.

Without further evidence to the contrary, it is not my intention to entirely relegate homeopathy to placebo; however, leaving aside any currently accepted, measurable mechanism of action, in the absence of sufficiently controlled clinical trials, there are limits to accepting homeopathic preparations or any other treatment on the basis of trust.

Pawel  Plosaj

And i believe  you never studied  HOMEOPATHY  and made comments out of ignorance ! Shang's meta analysis  published in  Lancet is  hypocrisy  . Come to me and see how homeopathy works in clinic .

with regards

P.K.Sethi

Some links of interest:

Canadian government: A Recent (July 31, 2015) change in label instructions for homeopathic preparations following their promotion as substitutes for vaccines:

http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2015/54460a-eng.php?_ga=1.185011753.1884503896.1438554023

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/nosode-homeopathic-labels-must-read-not-vaccines-or-alternatives-to-vaccines-health-canada-1.3176008

Opinions and facts from a former homeopath:

http://edzardernst.com/category/homeopathy/

Questioning the evidence for homeopathic remedies in the UK:

The evidence for David Tredinnick MP. Feb. 23, 2015; http://www.zenosblog.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZZsDi_RoLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dKCojucC1A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6yqd_qr3Xk

Homeopathy has already stood the test of time.  It remains and pertains, despite attacks by the prevailing mode of medicine backed by Big Pharma.  I am told that, like Acupuncture and the radial pulses, it takes a good 20 years to get proficient at it.  Makes sense.  I have heard too many good reports about it to simply dismiss it.  Obviously, it works--in the right hands.  And beyond placebo.  

There have been silly tests set up to evaluate certain sciences.  Take Iridology, e.g.  It is terrifying to Big Pharma, mainly because it is "natural".  It has been stigmatized by a ridiculous "test" it was given some decades ago, and yet it is taught in Russian medical schools and practiced in Russian clinics--because it works.  It has its strengths and weaknesses, as do all methods of evaluation.  Homeopathy, though, is a means of treatment.  Naturopathy was forced out of legality in the 1920s by Rockefeller-backed Big Pharma.  And yet, it is the oldest form of medicine.  

Far more people have suffered and died as a result of pharmaceutical drugs and Allopathic practice than from Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Acupuncture and Reflexology combined.  And yet, drugs and Allopathic procedures have been "rigorously tested".  This is not to say these should be banned, as we know that many are eminently worthwhile.  We also know that many should never have been used.  Every type of medicine should be rightly tested.  Many drugs simply have not.  Has Homeopathy?

Amazing how money, power and politics can cloud the mind, narrow the thinking, make one prejudiced.  Ask yourself: What do I have to lose if Homeopathy is allowed to be practiced?  Big Pharma ruthlessly suppressed Acupuncture, Naturopathy and Chiropractic, and yet they have prevailed--because they work and the people trust them.  The efficacy of a given method or medicine cannot be silenced forever.  Crushed to Earth, it will rise again.

Do I have to study astrology to know it is completely useless?

Some years ago, a group of prominent scientists got together and decided Astrology was, as you say, "useless".  The point here is this: what right do scientists have with such a philosophy?  They did not carefully study Astrology to come to this conclusion.  It was mere opinion, and yet their opinion was published--because of their fame, their notoriety.  Such is phony science.  Nor am I necessarily defending Astrology here.  GET THE POINT!  Science must have no such philosophy.  It is about rigorously studying everything and with an open mind!   

So, do you have to study Astrology to know if it is useful or useless?  Yes!  Of course.  To not do so and to make a claim about it is called "prejudice".  That is prejudging something before having studied it.  Or, haven't you heard? 

Obviously, I welcome the famous Shakespeare's sentence There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio). To catch the truth about those things you can meet in the reality, you are able to use different approaches and languages, sentiment, imagination, mathematics, faith, philosophy and...science. If you want to retrieve whatsoever is scientific in astrology, which exists in our human reality, you have to use science. What else?

Ranjit  Mal

Ignorance  is a curse .Try to be a master and not jack .

P.K.Sethi

Dear Dr Sethi, 

please try to show a respectful attitude towards colleagues who post their reply on my question. Writing a full name and then posting the sentence ignorance is a curse and then try not to be a jack...I did not find is a really polite approach..in my opinion...sorry for this...

Sir,

Please do not feel offended . What i mean  learn  do and then have your say  with authority ....simple . Sorry if you are hurt .Haven only knows what astrology has to do with medicine ?

P.K.Sethi

Dr Sethi,

I would like to know what gives you the right to call Shang's meta-analisys a hypocrisy.

"What astrology has got to do with medicine" Astrology and homeopathy are based on same nonscientific thinking. another thing calling names whilst expresses emotions, it does not constitute a rational argument.

On the subject of the Swiss report, a critical evaluation of the statistical results dispels the notion that the findings were in favour of homeopathy. Moreover, the report itself was not by the government of Switzerland, as some homeopaths have led others to believe:

http://edzardernst.com/2014/05/homeopathic-optimism-the-case-of-the-swiss-report/

In the U.S., the FDA recently invited comments on the regulation of homeopathic preparations from the public and the scientific community alike. After allowing an extension, the commentary period will end on August 25, 2015. A letter to the FDA from the Society for Science-Based Medicine succinctly describes the present status of homeopathic drug preparations in the U.S. with respect to their regulation and the failure of the FDA to exercise the same laws required for other over-the-counter drugs:

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/society-for-science-based-medicine-comment-to-fda-on-homeopathic-drug-regulation/

P.Plosaj /R.K.Mal

Oh ...sir first study Homeopathy and you know validity of my remark on futile work of Shang et. el. and  it's relationship with science.

homeopathically yours

P.K.Sethi

As a practitioner of medicine you will have studied biochemistry and physiology, did you find support of the concept that infinite dilution gives infinite strength of a chemical compound, or thereabouts? That is a basic issue.

https://www.hri-research.org/2015/03/nhmrc-publishes-flawed-report-despite-concerns-raised-during-public-consultation/

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/media/news/response-by-the-homeopathy-research-institute-to-australian-nhmrc-2

Best regards,

Hi ,

• How homeopathy works is yet yet not understood .My concern is it must cure and it is doing well in my clinic since last 20 years .How many sceptics have tested failure  and success of homeopathy in a clinical setting  on payment ( no research grant ) ?

P.K.Sethi

Hi, Dr. Sethi., with respect to Dr. Chirumbolo, he is citing a citation of a flawed, biased report on homeopathy. As is the publication of Shang et al in The Lancet 2005 (also completely biased). 

Ghosts and the light bulb

During my recent holiday time, the light bulb of the bathroom lighted suddenly by alone, i.e. without switching on the button. My nephew Leon told me about a story of ghosts interesting that house and any time this odd event occurred I suspected that trivial shadows, created by lights from moving cars or people outside the window in the middle of night, were really spirits. So, I calculated the statistics of the random association between light bulb working on autonomously and appearing of silent spirits (i.e. ghosts). I found an ANOVA positivity on 75 events of p = 0,00123, Tukey's post-hoc. So, I scientifically concluded that ghosts do exist (really!!!) and are able to switch on the bath light...at least until my sister left the house...Her I-phone interfered with the electric cable of light bulb as the phon was connected with the wire....At her departure no more ghosts....

I wondered iwhether even for other kind of hard convictions, statistics is useful without a plausibility....

I am not well aware how Homeopathy medicines are prepared. While infinite dilution may not give infinite strength ,but at the same time in physics nanosized particles can give an enormous strength. Why not medicines?

Dr. Sethi, You are asking us to study something that no one knows how it works. You say it works but there is no proof. Why do you not do a survey that would be 100% above criticism, covering all eventuality  and show us that homeopathy works. Till then it is as true as astrology. I have studied astrology in the past and know the basis of the faith system. Astrology is fake.

Insights into the Current Situation of CAM in Europe: Major Findings of the EU Project CAMbrella

http://www.karger.com/Journal/Issue/257354

Rasbindu Mehta. Thank you for posing that question. Nano particle is about the particle size and not about the particle number. Homeopathy by progressive dilution determines the number of molecules without affecting the particle size. Thus the two are not comparable. If one insists that the power of nano particle is equated to the near infinite dilution it is speculation without any scientific basis.

Hi  Eizayaga ,

With due respect to Dr. Chirumbolo's chair in university  ,which he got by virtue of his studies , he cites and comments on homeopathy  which he never studied !

Hi Mal , lab. work and D.B.P.C.C.trials are never fool proof , in clinic application on natural sickness is gold standard . How many drugs which have passed the rigid protocol were withdrawn with  penalty  from the market i need not tell you ,  better search and ponder what i say ? Next time you come to India on vacation please come down to me and watch what  i claim , not from me but from actual  beneficiaries - Vox  Populi, Vox Dei .

P.K.Sethi

Dr Chirumbolo studied homeopathy in the past and realized it needs to be further investigated...my "the light bulb" childish story may give an explanation of this concern....  

Dr. Sethi.  You have suggested that D.B.P.C.C. is not fool proof. Many drugs passed rigid protocol but were withdrawn. I hope you are not suggesting that we abandon such methods and rely on personal opinion only.

Thank you for your invitation, I am sure I shall be very impressed but unfortunately will not prove that Homeopathy works. I think you rely too much on subjective observation and are unable to see the viewpoint of those who are trying to be objective. I hasten to add that hardly any one is totally objective. I again invite you to do a real good trial, carefully avoiding errors and all possible criticisms and prove once for all that you are right. With best wishes. 

As the question of regulation for homeopathic preparations is about to receive unprecedented attention, the following posts will be useful to those who may wish to document the events:

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/society-for-science-based-medicine-comment-to-fda-on-homeopathic-drug-regulation/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-federal-trade-commission-takes-on-homeopathy-maybe/#more-38814

The idea is not mine, but needs repeating: as we have discovered the vital  need for diversity in life forms on this planet, so we need  diversity among forms of preserving health and responding to illness and injury. The model called scientific medicine has produced many "miracles", especially in urgent or trauma situations, but its costs and side effects (in both economic and human terms) are making it less and less tenable as a candidate for the position of sole legitimate, insurable form of treatment for everything and judge of whether or not other forms of treatment have a right to exist. Even old JDF Rockefeller, whose wealth supported the globalization of "scientific medicine" himself followed homeopathy --and lived to 98. People in this--and every other country--need the freedom to  choose what forms of health care they prefer, and a diverse set of alternatives and information from which to make our choices.

A 1998 study of hospitalized  patients ,published in Journal of AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION  reported that in 1994 , adverse drug reaction accounted for more than 2.2 million serious cases and over 100,000deaths ,making A.D.R. one of the leading   cause of hospitalization  and death in United States !

Salvatore sir , please tell what has gone wrong with  evidenced based scientific medicine.

P.K.Sethi

The biggest problem with Homeopathy is that in most of the cases it is practiced by non qualified people and there is dearth of  scientific research and documentation. However, the clinical experience of many patients state, that it is definitely quite effective in dermatological and Allergic disorders. 

Prem, Syed: Good work!

Since both allergic disorders and dermatological problems are highly susceptible to placebo, well controlled trials will be needed to substantiate the effects.

Clinical cure of both disorder  in animals are beyond placebo effect . I do agree with Syed even university graduates are below average .The fault lies with   the system which is not serious with this treatment modality !

P.K.Sethi

Homeopathy has been around for about 200 years and has been used successfully by those well trained and experienced.  Same with Naturopathy, the oldest form of medicine, which goes back pre-history: get a good practitioner and you're in good shape.  Same with the Johnny-come-lately Allopathy: get someone who knows what he/she is doing and how to use it rightly, and it works fine.  Same for Massage, Acupuncture and many other forms of medicine.  

These days, science is steeped in materialism, closed off from the many layers of human experience.  What is not understood is often frightening to those closed-minded or narrow-minded "evidence-based", "only-if-I-can-see-it", pseudo-scientific cultists.  They tend to be in the same league as the downtown fundamentalist religionists.  However, the wise, open-minded healers will base their comments on direct experience, reasoning from facts, and on competent testimony.  Like Traditional Medicine, the efficacy of Homeopathy has stood the test of time. 

Leonard Mehlmauer, . Evidence based opinion is actually the basis of science and not pseudo science. It appears you do not believe in science in any case. That should end any debate about Homeopathy having any scientific basis.

No, I am referring to Big Corporate (the tobacco industry, e.g.) and Big Pharma, who have rather consistently paid for the "scientific" results they wanted.  Real science has no philosophy, and is open to all possibilities.  It doesn't close itself off to the possibility, e.g., that Homeopathy could work.  I was trained as a scientist and have practiced clinically for almost 44 years (since Feb 1972).  During that time, I have experience many healing modalities and have seen weakness and strengths in them all.  They all have their various areas of application.  

I must agree with Dr. Mehimauer. I know of horror stories, not only of Big Corporate paying for scientific results, but also of them literally banishing researchers who did not take their hints as to what those results should be. "Science" -- even "peer reviewed" science -- is no more immune from fraud than the average lay profession. Scientists with underlying but unspoken motives have been trying to trash homeopathy and other holistic modalities for decades. "Follow the money" has long been good advice when trying to determine motives. There is a whole webblog on retractions of peer reviewed scientific journal articles. I get at least one notification from that blog every day.

Rod, I couldn't have said it better.  For most of my career, it's been a runny battle with apologists (and lately shills and trolls) for Big Pharma.  And it's unfortunate, because of all the good certain drugs have done.  It's just this underlying fear in that industry, fear of losing business to traditional and natural medicine and healing, that expresses itself in often painful ways.  Some of the comments I (and others) have suffered do not deserve the dignity of a response.  

This recalls to mind the quote from Benjamin Rush, MD, Surgeon General to the Continental Army and signer of the US Constitution: 

“Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.”

Unfortunately, as the more sensitive and intelligent healers know, such a dictatorship has been in place for the last hundred years.

Thank you  Krzysztof Bohdan. This is truely a pseudodiscussion.

I have no problem with those who chose to remain intentionally ignorant about homeopathy and other holistic modalities. However, I strongly object to those who attempt to ban these modalities because of their ignorance, such as observed above. The use of hollow but inflammatory words such as "grotesque" and "viciously" and "fake" serve only to emphasize their insistent ignorance of these effective means of diagnosis and treatment.

On the wisdom of your argument, Rod, I rest my case.

Rod Russell, "those who chose to remain intentionally ignorant about homeopathy", actually homeopathy is a placebo and that is why you are making such a fuss. Can you kill any one with homeopathy, no you ca`t that is why there is no regulation about homeopathic practitioners. Please do`t blame big pharmas, they were not in existence before the regulations were made Can you cure any one with homeopathy, of course you can  cure  people by the placebo effect. Placebos work even people know they are taking placebos.. 

Obviously, Ranjit Kumar Mal, based upon your comment above, you choose to remain intentionally ignorant about homeopathy.

..........And listen Mal , ignorance is no excuse !

Sir

The one who can make allopathy as cheap, as non-reactionist, and as easily available to all as Homeopathy is certainly right in giving a funeral to the latter.

Regards

Mohammad, unfortunately that just ain't gonna happen.  Pharma drugs and allopathic procedures have caused far too many deaths and far too much suffering.  We're talking millions and millions of people all over the world for the past century and more--especially under the Rockefellers.  That form of medicine has done far more harm than good.  Big Pharma is essentially a criminal enterprise that ruthlessly suppresses helpful, natural and traditional forms of medicine---anything it perceives as a threat to its power.  Power corrupts--because of egoity.  Meanwhile, the juggernaut rolls on.  Therefore, we must remain true to our hearts and use all types of medicine intelligently and morally--albeit within the parameters of Big Pharma's legal limits, restrictions and prohibitions.      

No doubt allopathy is better than any other form of healing sciences, like, homoeopathy, yoga, unani, ayurveda, acupuncher, acupressure, massage, natural healing etc. The credit goes to research and advancement done in the field of surgery in allopathy. But recently, it has become unaffordable to a very large section of the population in the developing countries. It is pathetic to see that recently allopathy is playing in the hands of pharma companies and few unethical doctors. Greed has overtaken the spirit of service. It is high cost of medical treatment in allopathy which is driving patients to find relief in homoeopathy. Some soul searching is needed for allopathic doctors. Instead of finding limitations and faults with homoeopathy, need is to develop a package for holistic treatment of the poor in the society. Here all medical sciences should come together and take pledge to serve the humanity.  Cooperation and not competition is the need of hour. So let homoeopathy or any other medical science to prosper and not end, and allopathy should serve with ethics and pure soul.           

Yes, Subodh, agreed with everything you say except your first sentence.  All types of medicine have their right application.  Allopathic is only one form, and it is very limited in its right use.  As I've suggested, it has been greatly abused for over a century.  BTW, surgery is an ancient form of medicine that has been co-opted by allopathic.  It was practiced in pre-historic types as trepanning.  The oldest form of medicine is Naturopathic, which uses natural foods, herbs, the sun, water and other simple and (unfortunately for Big Pharma) unpatentable materials and methods.  The fact that natural herbs and foods have been available to cure cancer for centuries terrifies Big Pharma, which ruthlessly suppresses any and all data that appears to the public in that regard.  However, thanks to the Internet, this information is becoming available to people everywhere.  Big Pharma's days of abuse are coming to an end.

 Dear Leonard and Subodh Sirs

Your concerns are more than valid and I do support your conclusions. Medical ethics, in a capitalist pharma sector, is not visible not only to the naked eyes but also to the binoculars. The poor do not find any meaning in the omnipotent capitalist lexicon save as working machines under perfectly manipulative circumstances.

Regards

Mohammad, sir, how right you are!  I could not have said it better.  We live under a system that desperately needs positive change.  And there are a number of ways of accomplishing that change.  It starts with us, the individual practitioners, healers, doctors, researchers and other scientists.  We absolutely MUST follow our best senses and speak from our hearts.  We must be open-minded as well as open-hearted, compassionate, honest and truthful.  We must maintain full integrity, no matter how difficult.  It all begins with us.

Dear and respected Leonard Sir,

I do appreciate your concerns.

... "It all begins with us'... and it must begin with us... 

Della serie: "Caspita, quanto se ne parla!" e pure sul blog....(non basta Pubmed?)

Nel loro articolo1 Magnani, Conforti, Zanolin ed altri, hanno concluso che una pianta (Gelsemium Sempervirens) preparata secondo la farmacopeia omeopatica (soluzioni ultradiluite anche oltre il numero di Avogadro) ha avuto effetto ansiolitico in cavie simile al Buspirone, un farmaco ansiolitico. Sarebbe un risultato interessante visto che l'evidenza scientifica attuale2,3 ha sempre puntato sull'effetto placebo quale motivo principale degli effetti dell'omeopatia. Ma in questo studio ci sono alcuni punti discutibili.

Nonostante alcune evidenze statistiche della ricerca non sembrano accurate e sono discutibili (per esempio la mancanza di risultati dose-effetto o le numerose non significatività di molti risultati delle preparazioni ultradiluite) vorrei concentrarmi su altri aspetti.

L'omeopatia sostiene di basarsi sulla personalizzazione dei trattamenti ed un esperimento con le cavie è lontano dalla vantata personalizzazione del rimedio ultradiluito. L'omeopatia inoltre afferma di essere capace di curare le cause delle malattie e non i sintomi, contrariamente all'obiettivo di molti farmaci standard.

L'ansia delle cavie discussa in questo studio tuttavia è un sintomo scatenato da uno stimolo specifico. In questo caso sono stati trascurati due dei princìpi dell'omeopatia.

C'è un altro elemento che rende le conclusioni di questo studio forzate ed arbitrarie. Come confronto è stato scelto il Buspirone, un farmaco ansiolitico agonista parziale del recettori serotoninergici 5HT1A.

Nello studio, le preparazioni testate sulle cavie (preparazione omeopatica, Buspirone e gruppi di controllo) per l'analisi statistica sono state somministrate per 9 giorni.

Il Buspirone è conosciuto4,5 per la lentissima insorgenza di effetto6,7,8 e per l'effetto sedativo minimo9.

Da studi di farmacocinetica e trials clinici sappiamo che il Buspirone non ha effetto ansiolitico prima di 2-4 settimane (ed oltre10) e questo è il suo principale difetto nella cura dei disordini ansiosi.

Paragonando i gruppi trattati con Gelsemium ultradiluito con cavie trattate con un farmaco che potrebbe essere ancora inefficace dopo soli 9 giorni di test è probabilmente equivalente a paragonarli con un farmaco inerte o meglio, ancora inefficace, le conclusioni dello studio quindi, che il prodotto ultradiluito abbia avuto effetti simili al Buspirone, sono scorrette. Questa conclusione sarebbe stata ottenibile aspettando almeno 2 settimane di somministrazione di Buspirone per raggiungere l'effetto ansiolitico massimo di questo farmaco.

Con il metodo utilizzato nello studio al massimo possiamo concludere che il prodotto ultradiluito ha qualche effetto simile ad un farmaco ancora inefficace (se il Buspirone fosse ancora non efficace, com'è probabile).

Questo progetto impreciso dello studio può confermare l'ipotesi dell'autore o l'ipotesi che gli studi sull'omeopatia hanno fatto da diverso tempo che le diluizioni omeopatiche non sono più efficaci di un placebo?

Una migliore analisi statistica ed il confronto con un farmaco più efficace e dall'azione più rapida può condurre a conclusioni più precise e definitive.

I valori di F per i vari gruppi, come definiti dall'autore, nelle tabelle da 1 a 3 non mostrano delle differenze statisticamente significative. I valori di F riscontrati sono 0.34 - 0.46 - 0.28 contro un Fcritico di 2.26.

I valori di F per esperimenti, nelle stesse tabelle mostrano differenze statisticamente molto significative. I valori di F riscontrati sono 41 - 25 - 48 contro un Fcritico di 2.44.

Il valore F per gruppi, nella tabella 4 mostra delle differenze statisticamente significative, essendo pari a 2.29 con Fc 2.25. F per esperimenti in tab. 4 è pari a 2.64 (Fc = 2.44). Il gruppo di maggior discordanza è il controllo A: eliminandolo si ha F gruppi = 1.72 (Fc 2.38), F esperimenti = 1.93 (Fc 2.48).

Il valore F per gruppi, nella tabella 5 mostra delle differenze statisticamente significative, essendo pari a 2.26 con Fc 2.25. F per esperimenti in tab. 5 è pari a 3.47 (Fc = 2.44). I gruppi di maggior discordanza sono qui il controllo A ed il buspirone: eliminandoli si ha F gruppi = 1.66 (Fc 2.38), F esperimenti = 3.39 (Fc 2.48).

Riassumendo:

1 Non vi è differenza tra prodotto omeopatico, buspirone e placebo nei test OF. Questo è riconosciuto anche dall'autore. Quindi OGNI differenza riscontrata nei test OF è puramente causale e non va commentata.

2 Non vi è differenza tra prodotto omeopatico, buspirone e gruppo di controllo B nel test di permanenza alla luce. Questo è riconosciuto anche dall'autore. Quindi OGNI differenza tra i gruppi di cui sopra riscontrata nel test è puramente causale e non va commentata.

3 Non vi è differenza tra prodotto omeopatico e gruppo di controllo B nel test di permanenza alla luce. Questo è riconosciuto anche dall'autore. Quindi OGNI differenza tra i gruppi di cui sopra riscontrata nel test è puramente causale e non va commentata.

Alla luce di quanto espresso, figura 2 non dovrebbe essere inclusa nell'articolo e tutte le considerazioni espresse non hanno fondamento statistico.

http://medbunker.blogspot.it/2011/07/omeopatia-ghiandole-di-rospo-e-veleno.html#comments

Della serie: "Caspita, quanto se ne parla!" e pure sul blog....(non basta Pubmed?) PART 2

LA REPLICA DELLA GUNA su Medbunker

Quanto ostracismo nei confronti dell’omeopatia!

GUNA non ha l’abitudine di assumere iniziative legali contro pareri negativi espressi sul web – non l’ha mai fatto - neanche quando detti pareri lo giustifichino come in questo caso, in quanto lesivi del profilo commerciale di Suoi prodotti, in quanto crede nella liberà circolazione delle informazioni su internet (ed anzi la incoraggia concretamente, si veda www.guna.it/nopatent ). Tuttavia la disponibilità dell’azienda al dialogo non dev’essere confusa con una “patente” di libera diffamazione: la “volatilità” del web non autorizza ad ignorare le più elementari leggi dello Stato a tutela delle persone giuridiche, che valgono anche sul web.

Ciò premesso, vorremmo rivolgerci a tutti i lettori di questo blog che non siano viziati da pregiudizi nei confronti dell’omeopatia per offrire loro un punto di vista differente. Raggiunto questo scopo, non replicheremo ad ulteriori commenti, al fine di non alimentare sterili polemiche, ma ci pare di poter affermare con tutta certezza che la sfida per dimostrare il funzionamento dell’omeopatia sia vinta in partenza.

Prova ne sono non solo gli oltre 11 milioni di italiani che usano l'omeopatia (rapporto Eurispes 2009) e che evidentemente ne traggono beneficio – anche volendo riconoscere l’effetto placebo, e come dimostreremo non crediamo sia applicabile all’omeopatia, bastasse quello a curare una reale malattia gli ospedali sarebbero superflui, e sappiamo che così non è - oppure gli oltre 20.000 medici italiani che prescrivono farmaci omeopatici con crescenti riscontri positivi, ma anche una serie di lavori scientifici che depongono inequivocabilmente a favore dell'omeopatia. E’ davvero semplice documentarsi, se realmente ed in buona fede ci si volesse fare un’opinione obiettiva sull’efficacia di questi farmaci. E sottolineo: farmaci, non “rimedi”, perché tali li riconosce anche la Direttiva Europea sul Farmaco approvata nel 2006 e recepita nel nostro ordinamento (anche se in Italia solo parzialmente applicata, purtroppo). Molti di questi studi sono stati pubblicati su riviste scientifiche di rilievo internazionale assolutamente convenzionali come The Lancet, British Medical Journal, etc, e sono stati condotti nel rispetto dei criteri e delle metodologie scientifiche attualmente imposte: gli studi sono stati effettuati sia verificando l'efficacia del farmaco omeopatico verso il placebo o verso l’omologo allopatico di riferimento, sia testandone l'efficacia in vitro, come dimostra la raccolta dei soli studi scientifici più significativi pubblicata e scaricabile da chiunque gratuitamente da questo indirizzo internet http://www.guna.it/archivio/prodotti/65/le%20prove%20scientifiche%20efficacia.pdf

In ragione di quanto esposto - e per la mancanza di una vera regolamentazione di questa disciplina, che sarebbe opportuno avere in fretta - l'omeopatia non può essere liquidata con attacchi pretestuosi e violenti come purtroppo è di moda in Italia, poiché è una realtà di fatto di cui bisogna tenere conto.

Lucietta Betti, dal 1980 apprezzata ricercatrice dell'Università di Bologna e Professore di Patologia Vegetale presso lo stesso Ateneo, è revisore per riviste scientifiche internazionali e da anni si interessa dell’effetto dei rimedi omeopatici sulle piante, con risultati estremamente interessanti (si veda la breve bibliografia al fondo del post). Soffriranno anche le piante di “effetto placebo”? Anche per le piante varrebbe il fenomeno paranormale di cui parla l’autore di questo blog secondo cui le piante guarirebbero perché ci credono? Curioso che un’edera possa farsi condizionare dal terapeuta, quasi fantascientifico…idem dicasi per gli animali: cosa ne sa una mucca di cosa si aggiunge alla sua biada? Eppure esistono medicinali omeopatici per uso veterinario utilizzati da anni e con grande soddisfazione degli operatori. La Betti ha affermato in una recente intervista al quotidiano La Stampa: “Quando mi sono accorta che con trattamenti omeopatici ad altissima diluizione si potevano ottenere risultati significativi e ripetibili ho sentito traballare tutte le mie certezze scientifiche. Questo però mi ha stimolato ad andare avanti perché penso che la curiosità sia l'atteggiamento giusto per chi si occupa di scienza.”. Saggia come Cristiano Rumio, Professore di Anatomia Umana presso la Facoltà di Farmacia dell’Università degli Studi di Milano, il quale dopo insistenti e ripetuti test di laboratorio ha dovuto ammettere innanzitutto a se stesso, con la medesima onestà intellettuale della collega Betti, l’efficacia di bassi dosaggi di particolare molecole (le interluchine) nella cura dell’asma allergico. Il risultato delle sue ricerche è stato recentemente pubblicato su una rivista internazionale (Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, indicizzata in Medline). Ovviamente – come tutte le medicine – l’omeopatia a volte NON funziona. Ma mi preme ricordare che nei soli Stati Uniti sono circa 123.000 i pazienti che muoiono ogni anno per effetti iatrogeni dei farmaci allopatici (studio pubblicato nel 2000 su JAMA, rivista scientifica internazionalmente nota, che classifica gli effetti collaterali dei farmaci come 3° causa di morte dopo malattie cardiovascolari ed i tumori). Allora cosa dobbiamo dire? Che la medicina allopatica è una minaccia per l'umanità? Non penso proprio. Chi vuole conoscere meglio il rapporto tra medici e omeopatia, può anche consultare il sito http://www.medibio.it, nella sezione NEWS c’è una raccolta di pareri di medici italiani sull’argomento. L'omeopatia, come diverse altre medicine complementari e tradizionali, è riconosciuta appunto in complemento alla medicina ufficiale in quasi tutti i Paesi occidentali civilizzati tranne l'Italia, ed anche in seno all’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità il ruolo delle medicine non convenzionali/complementari non è più in discussione da anni. Tutte le agenzie sanitarie regolatorie dei vari Ministeri della Salute del mondo sono composte da scriteriati? Non penso. E sono incompetenti i 20.000 medici iscritti all'Albo che in Italia quotidianamente utilizzano l'omeopatia/omotossicologia per curare i loro pazienti? Sono ignoranti gli accademici universitari che hanno condotto ricerche che ne comprovano l'efficacia? Sono incompetenti i legislatori Europei, che con una Direttiva esecutiva del 2006 hanno parificato in tutta Europa il farmaco omeopatico al farmaco allopatico? Alla luce di quanto esposto il fatto che l’omeopatia funzioni parrebbe fuori discussione; il discorso dovrebbe allora legittimamente spostarsi sul perché questo paradigma medico funziona, e qui il confronto è più aperto che mai.

Ma trovo molto curioso che anche le ricerche del Prof. Luc Montagnier, appena pubblicate sul “Journal of Physics" – l’organo di stampa di una delle più prestigiose società scientifiche di fisica al mondo, che esiste da più di 150 anni - che dimostrano l'esistenza di una "memoria dell'acqua biologica", in grado di mantenere traccia del DNA batterico anche al di sotto alla soglia minima di presenza dello stesso, vengano così ridicolizzate. Vero è che non può essere il principio di autorità a regolare la scienza, ma si tratta comunque di un Premio Nobel per la Medicina, e non di un medico omeopata. Anche perché se la pista di ricerca di Montagnier trovasse ulteriori conferme la contrapposizione che ormai da oltre un secolo vede da un lato i chimici classici e dall’altro gli omeopati sarebbe definitivamente superata spostando il discorso dalla bio-chimica alla fisica quantistica. Interessante anche leggere sul Corriere della Sera le parole dei ricercatori e professori universitari che hanno replicato a chi con ben poca cognizione di causa ha criticato l’esperimento di Montagnier:

http://www.corriere.it/salute/11_luglio_27/omeopatia-replica-remuzzi-aio_478d8822-b836-11e0-a142-4db684210d8b.shtml

Il redattore del blog, che non è un giornalista e quindi con le Sue affermazioni travalica sicuramente il diritto di cronaca, scrive inoltre del Guna Awareness e del fatto che conterrebbe solo “intrugli” e che l’Azienda produttrice (noi, appunto) non riuscirebbe ad ottenerne l’approvazione alla commercializzazione in Italia. Un’ulteriore bugia, tra le tante faziosità lette su questo blog. Innanzitutto il farmaco non può essere commercializzato in Italia non perché non l’Azienda non riesce a farlo approvare ma perché in base alla legislazione non aggiornata vigente nel nostro paese dal 1995 non sono autorizzabili nuovi medicinali omeopatici: il Ministero della Sanità infatti non ha ancora attivato la procedura amministrativa per la registrazione di nuovi farmaci, come prevista dalla Direttiva Europea sui farmaci – vincolante anche per l’Italia - ben 7 anni fa. Il farmaco è invece approvato dall’FDA l'ente governativo statunitense che si occupa della regolamentazione dei prodotti alimentari e farmaceutici, senza dubbio uno dei più autorevoli al mondo.

Per la cronaca inoltre il GUNA Awareness non contiene “ghiandole di rospo” come sostenuto in una battuta tra ironica che – al di fuori del ristretto numero di lettori di questo blog - rischia di mettere in ridicolo chi l’ha fatta, ma Ossitocina, un ormone implicato in molte funzioni fisiologiche, e anche molecola fondamentale nella promozione della socializzazione, dell’affettività e dell’attaccamento.

Di cosa ci si dovrebbe vergognare visto che gli studi clinici osservazionali svolti sul GUNA Awareness in America stanno dando risultati estremamente incoraggianti? Forse del fatto che centinaia di soggetti autistici, soprattutto bambini, in trattamento con questo medicinale hanno mostrato significativi miglioramenti? Cosa che infastidirà certamente chi ha un approccio “dogmatico” alla scienza e di “caccia alle streghe” rispetto al paradigma medico omeopatico, che rientra a pieno titolo tra le discipline di medicina non convenzionale/complementare riconosciute dall’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità in occasione della conferenza di Pechino 2008 e che è riconosciuto come “atto medico” da un decennio dalla stessa Federazione Nazionale Ordini dei Medici nel nostro paese.

Della serie: "Caspita, quanto se ne parla!" e pure sul blog....(non basta Pubmed?) PART 3