[A.R. Khuda Bukhsh]
One of the new developments in homeopathic cancer research comes from an
unlikely place. Prof. Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh, a researcher in the
cytogenetics laboratory of the Department of Zoology, at the University of
Kalyani, in West Bengal, India and his team have conducted several studies in
the laboratory that, according to a recent Indian news reports, deserve our
attention.
West Bengal has a widespread problem of arsenic poisoning that can lead
to cancer. According to Khuda Buhksh, “conventional medicine does not have an
effective evidence-based treatment for arsenic-induced toxicity, although some
chelators, like DMSA and DTPA, have been tried without success.” Chronic
arsenic toxicity sets the
stage for multi-system diseases due to hematological complications or
hepatotoxicity. This may lead to malfunctioning or failure of organs, such as
the lungs or the liver.
Many of these cases will develop cancer of various organs.
In a series of experiments, the West Bengal researchers found that
Arsenicum album 30C can help remove arsenic from the body “The drug reduced
arsenic levels in blood
and urine of arsenic victims from Ghetugachhi village in Nadia
district,” according to Khuda-Bukhsh. “The blood levels of the
toxicity-denoting liver enzymes (like aspartate aminotransferase) returned to
almost normal levels after 3 months,” he added.
The scientists found that the arsenic level in urine fell dramatically
and levels in blood became normal by the 60th day. The researchers
also observed an increase in the level
of glutathione - a compound made up of amino acids, which demonstrates
recovery of normal liver function.
In one o the studies, published in the March 2006 issue of
Evidence-based Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, the researchers treated
arsenic victims from another village in the Nadia district.
They showed that two centesimal potencies (30 and 200) of the
aforementioned medicine brought the high levels of anti-nuclear antibodies (a
type of antibody that works against the body tissues) to normal levels. “We
have already shown efficiency of homoeopathic drugs in protecting or repairing
arsenic-induced DNA damage in mice,”
then Khuda-Bukhsh concludes, “the homoeopathic drug may trigger a
cascade action of relevant genes back to their normal functioning turning on
the body’s recovery.”
A more recent study, published in Science of the Total Environment, and
conducted in collaboration with researchers of the Boiron Laboratory,
Sainte-Foy-Lès-Lyon
in France, once again confirmed biological action from treatment with
homeopathic potencies. The researchers administered Arsenicum album 30C,
succussed alcohol and placebo to groups of randomly selected, arsenic
contaminated volunteers in Padumbasan, India.
The treatment apparently caused positive changes in elevated blood
levels of ESR, creatinine, and eosinophils. In the treated group, Arsenicum
album 30C increased the activities of various toxicity biomarkers indicating
hepatotoxicity, the prime feature associated with arsenic poisoning, notably AST,
ALT, LPO, and GGT. This therapy showed an increase in levels of hemoglobin,
PCV, neutrophil percentages, GSH content, and lowered G-6-PD activity. Most of
the subjects reported a better appetite
and improvement in general health. It is interesting that the 14
volunteers who dropped out during this study were mostly from the placebo
group. The authors concluded
that Arsenicum album 30C could possibly provide interim health support
to a large population at risk.
The results of these studies could lead to certain conclusions on the
role homeopathy can play in mitigating the effects of a substance that,
according to California’s Proposition-65, is considered a potent carcinogen. If
treatment with the drug Arsenicum album produces protective effects against arsenic
trioxide or against arsenic in
the groundwater that are measurable on multiple levels and even in the
DNA, it may also be effective in preventing or reversing cancers induced by the
poison.
A review of the homeopathic clinical literature shows that Arsenicum
album has been shown to counteract, and even reverse reliably, a broad spectrum
of cancers.
It is noteworthy that conventional medicine also uses arsenic trioxide
for cancer and leukemia treatment, but in unpotentized form. Dr. Soignet of the
Leukemia Service
of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center states that “low doses of
arsenic trioxide” are “standard treatment for acute promyelocytic leukemia
(APL) in the relapsed disease,” which induces differentiation and apoptosis of
APL cells, and the role of arsenic trioxide of newly developed APL is under
investigation.
More than 100 years ago, Dr. J. Compton Burnett explored the difficulty
of finding new cancer remedies with the standard proving method on healthy
volunteers, because producing cancerous pathology during a proving was not
feasible. He proposed searching for new cancer drugs by examining the
toxicological and iatrogenic records for
drugs that have caused cancer. He cited in an article published by the
British Medical Journal that reported on data collected by Jonathan Hutchinson
demonstrating that treatment with arsenic in crude form, under the allopathic
model, had caused epithelial and other cancers. The article quoted Sir Paget
stating that, “it cannot be doubted
that arsenic had power, in persons predisposed to it, to determine the
development of cancer.”
Tautopathy and Cancer
The tautopathic approach is a form of isotherapy with a drug in
potentized form that caused the disorder being treated. Hahnemann, in his comment on the effect
of potentized isopathics in Chronic Diseases, said, “For between idem and
simillimum there is no intermediate for anyone that can think; or in other
words between idem and simile only simillimum can be intermediate. Isopathic
and aequale are equivoval expressions, which if they should signify anything
reliable can only signify simillimum, because they are not idem (tauton).”
Thus, according to Hahnmenann the simillimum is the idem (lat. the
same), and thus the tauton (tauton; Greek for “the same”), meaning the curative
and “most similar” drug is always the substance that caused the disorder,
provided it is administered in potentized form. In the English language we make
a distinction between tautopathy and isopathy, reserving the name “tautopathy” for
“suffering caused by the same thing that was habitually used previously”, and
thus treatment with a potentized drug made from a substance or pathogen that
caused the respective disorder - I have coined the term pharmacode for such a
remedy, as the word farmakon (pharmakon) in Greek means both poison and drug-
and “isopathy” for a the treatment with an infectious product of a disorder or
disease, such as a discharge or tissue – a nosode. There has been confusion in
the use of these terms, and the word isopathy is often used for what properly
should be called tautopathy.
The use of carcinogens as cancer medicine in both conventional and
homeopathic practice seems to corroborate the truth of the homeopathic
hypothesis, especially if you follow Hahnemann’s view that isopathy (and
tautopathy) is, essentially, homeopathy: “Some wish to create a third method of
applying medicines to a disease, called isopathy. This is the cure of an
existing disease with the same infectious material. However, assuming it could
do so, it would still effect the cure through a Simillimum juxtaposed the
Simillimo, because it administers the infectious material only in a highly
potentized and thus in an altered form.” If drugs that can induce cancer have
curative effects when given in “low doses” (simple dilutions), highly
potentized drugs should be able to cure the disease while avoiding all negative
side effects.
In the Organon, Hahnemann also stated that in addition to natural
(miasmatic) chronic diseases, there also exist iatrogenic ones, which he deemed
the most difficult to cure
of all. (§74) We should add to these the chronic toxic environmental
diseases. Tautopathy has been a widely used tool of the classical homeopath for
over a century.
Homeopaths reported using the tautopathic method in complicated cases
where iatrogenic or environmental factors appeared to cause the present chronic
disorder, or where exposure to these drugs or toxins was found in the
anamnesis, and suspected to have triggered the disease.
Especially true in cancer. Because of the sparcity of symptoms
encountered in many cancer cases, some homeopaths have resorted to etiological
prescribing, using tautopathic strategies. The tautopathic method has been used
in cancer with apparent success. Its systematic use has led to the introduction
of new cancer remedies made from carcinogens by Burnett, Cooper, Jr., Clarke,
Grimmer, and others, using remedies such as Cobaltum, Methlyene Blue and Congo
Red, and Benzoquinone. Many studies confirm the tautopathic hypothesis. If we
accept Hahnemann’s view, tautopathy is simply homeopathy, however, strictly
speaking, this is so only provided the drug is used on the basis
of the symptoms. If given based on knowledge of the causative substance,
using the etiological methodology, it is properly called tautopathy.
Much of “homeopathic” laboratory research is conducted using the
tautopathic method. This is because the true homeopathic method would require
case-taking and individualization of symptoms which is nearly impossible with
laboratory animals. All of the West Bengal arsenic studies that employed
Arsenicum album are obviously tautopathic studies, including those conducted on
humans.
The most recent study by the West Bengal team in collaboration with
researchers from Boiron Labs was published in the Journal of Veterinary
Medicine. The team injected arsenic trioxide into mice, and then treated one
group with the homeopathic remedy Arsenicum album (a drug prepared from arsenic
trioxide, by progressive succussion and dilution), another group with
potentized alcohol, and a third group remained untreated. This trial used a
double-blinded procedure. Oral administration appeared to show protective
potential against arsenic trioxide induced chronic poisoning in mice.
There was a marked reduction of various chromosomal, nuclear, and sperm
head abnormalities, which would signify an anti-genotoxic effect from the
homeopathic remedy.
The West Bengal group had previously examined the effect of homeopathic
treatment on cellular damage produced by another group of carcinogens. They
tested whether
two potencies of the homeopathic drug, Cadmium sulphuricum could reduce
the genotoxic effects of Cadmium chloride (CdCl2) in mice. Genotoxic effects
constitute damage to the DNA of a cell, including mutation and possibly
neoplasms. The researchers also tried to determine the relative efficacy of
three administrative modes, i.e. pre-feeding, post-feeding and combined pre-
and post-feeding of the medicines.
The authors concluded that both Cadmium sulphuricum 30C and 200C were
able to counteract cadmium-induced genotoxic effects in mice. They found that
the combined pre- and post-feeding mode of administration was most effective in
reducing the genotoxic effect of Cd Cl2. These results are evidence that
homeopathic treatment may
be effective for prophylaxis and for the recovery from serious
environmental and occupational disorders.
Another study by this group tested the drug Mercurius solubilis in the
30C and 200C potencies fed in three administrative modes to mice who had been
poisoned with mercuric chloride. The treatment caused amelioration of genotoxic
effects, as measured by conventional endpoints, i.e. chromosome aberrations,
micronuclei, mitotic index, and sperm head anomalies. The amelioration of
Mercurius 200C seemed to be slightly more pronounced. The researchers concluded
that potentized drugs can serve as possible anti-genotoxic agents against
specific environmental mutagens, including toxic heavy metals.
One researcher wondered if homeopathic principles applied to the
efficacy against cancer of the common drug, aspirin. Morgan reviewed the
scientific evidence for a possible link between regular ingestion of aspirin
and a reduced risk of both colorectal and esophageal cancers. He then proposed
that a homeopathic mechanism was responsible for
the correlation. Since homeopathy employs small doses of the mother
compound, perhaps potencies of aspirin could be used to reduce the risk of
cancer in the general population or in patients with precancerous colorectal
and esophageal lesions. This approach would help to minimize the risk of
adverse side-effects of larger doses of aspirin on the digestive system. It may
lend support to the notion that the use of low-dose X-ray radiation and low
doses of toxic or carcinogenic elements in cancer therapy, such
as arsenic, cobalt, radium, etc., may actually constitute an unconscious
quasi-homeopathic effect, although their effect, as well as the safety of these
treatments, could presumably be increased applying the homeopathic methodology
by individualization of the medicine according to symptoms and the dose
according to the patient’s sensitivity.
A trial supporting the use of tautopathy in cancer is found in an
article from the April 2000 issue of the British Homeopathic Journal.52 It’s
author, Dr. Montfort, of the Instituto Superior de Medicina Homeopatica de
Ensenanza e Investigacion, Monterrey, Mexico, claims that homeopathy does not
have highly effective remedies for cancer
in its literature, and has been limited to palliating the adverse
effects of chemo/radiotherapy. As homeopaths, we could not disagree more with
this assertion. He is apparently unfamiliar with the work of Kent, Burnett,
Clarke, the Coopers, Grimmer, Nebel, Stauffer, Schlegel, Eizayaga, Patel,
Ramakrishan, and many others who collectively report positive effects from more
than a hundred drugs that are widely used in classical homeopathy.
Monfort studied a tautopathic treatment using environmental carcinogens
in humans. He reports on results of his experiments using ultra-diluted 10C and
12C potencies of chemical carcinogens used for 3-24 months in cancer patients,
usually in conjunction with conventional treatment. With this procedure,
complete remission or life extension was achieved for some cancer cases. Three
clinical cases are presented: a man with undifferentiated lung cancer; a child
with an astrocytoma and a woman with leiomyosarcoma. These results deserve to
be studied further. The successful use of potentized carcinogens in cancer
treatment appears to be an, as of yet, mostly untapped resource for new cancer
drugs.
A study published in 1983 by Roberfroid in Aspects of Research in
Homeopathy titled “Action of Hahnemannian Potencies upon Artificially Produced
Cancer in Animals” confirmed the tautopathic strategy by testing the
homeopathic drug Phenobarbital 9C on Phenobarbital-induced liver tumors in
rats, yielding positive results.
Most of our classical homeopathic cancer drugs are, in fact, derived
from carcinogens, such as Arsenicum, Cadmium, Aluminum, Aluminum silicate,
etc., and many are
listed in California`s Proposition 65 as carcinogens.
Other researchers tested the use of homeopathic/tautopathic treatment
for the adverse effects of radiotherapy.
Balzarini et al. assessed the effects of Belladonna 7C and X-ray 15C in
the treatment of acute dermatitis associated with radiation treatment. A
randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted
involving 66 patients who had been operated on for breast cancer and were
undergoing radiotherapy. The researchers found a statistically significant
benefit from the active treatment compared to placebo. The homeopathic
medicines appeared to have particular effectiveness in relieving the heat of
the skin. Chemotherapy and hormonotherapy did not seem to interfere with the
results.
There is a similarity between tautopathy and “hormesis”- which is the
toxicological observation that small doses of a toxic substance can induce
protective effects specifically against harmful doses from that same toxin. One
researcher who collected data confirming the hormesis effect found hundreds of
studies that appeared to show a hermetic effect.55 Several studies have also
confirmed this phenomenon for radiation exposure. This evidence combined with
the already cited studies lends further support to the use of potentized Radium
bromatum, X-ray, etc, in treatment of radiation induced injuries, and also in
the treatment of radiation induced cancer.
Effective Cancer Treatment without Side Effects?
Although in conventional medicine chemotherapies are used to treat
patients with malignancies, adverse effects are common, and damage to normal
cells is a widespread problem. Chemotherapy agents can do serious damage to the
cells of the bone marrow that play an important role in blood-formation. In
their search for potential alternative agents that can kill cancer cells
without adverse effects on normal cells, scientists with the Departments of
Cancer Biology and Laboratory Medicine at the University
Of Texas Department of Molecular Genetics, at the M.D. Anderson Cancer
Center, in Houston, Texas, have turned to evaluating homeopathic drugs. These
researchers
believe they may have found just such an agent in a common homeopathic
remedy, Ruta graveolens.
They tried the drug Ruta graveolens 6C along with Ca3(PO4)2 (calcium
phosphate) in the 3X potency in vitro and in vivo. Of 15 patients, 6 of 7
glioma patients showed complete regression of tumors.
The results of both in vivo and in vitro experiments showed that the
drug induced “survival-signaling pathways in normal lymphocytes and
death-signaling pathways in brain cancer cells” and that “telomere erosion
initiated cancer cell death and mitotic catastrophic events completed the
process.” The authors proposed that Ruta graveolens in combination with calcium
phosphate could be used as an effective treatment for brain cancers,
particularly gliomas.
Conventional cancer treatment can harm the DNA, and has the potential to
cause mutations, tumors and neoplasms. Homeopathic cancer drugs, in the
customary doses, apparently do not have these harmful effects. One study,
conducted at the Laboratorio de Citogenetica Humana, Centro de Ciencias
Biologicas, Universidade Federal do
Para, Belem, PA, in Brazil, evaluated the genotoxic effects of a
homeopathic combination treatment labeling it the Canova Method (CM).58 CM is a
homeopathic medicine developed for the treatment of patients with cancer and
for pathologies that involve a depressed immune system, such as AIDS. This
product is composed of homeopathic dilutions of Aconitum napellus, Arsenicum
album, Bryonia alba, Lachesis mutus and Thuja occidentalis. According to the
author of the study, it stimulates the immune system by activating and
accelerating the activity of macrophages and lymphocytes. Activated macrophages
stimulate the lymphocytes so they will increase their cytotoxic action in
response to tumoral growth or infection.
The study evaluated the genotoxic effects induced in human lymphocytes
treated with this homeopathic medication in vitro. The team scored structural
and numerical chromosomal aberrations for the assessment of induced genotoxic
effects, while evaluating possible variations in the mitotic index as a monitor
for induced cellular toxicity. Treatments with CM did not affect mitotic
indexes, nor did they provoke chromosomal aberrations, when compared with
untreated controls. There was no cytotoxicity
or genotoxicity at the chromosomal level.
In evaluating cancer treatments, ethical considerations prevent using an
allegedly “unproven” method, such as homeopathy, on humans. For this reason,
most studies are conducted in animals. In those studies, researchers often
resort to methods of inducing cancers with toxic substances. Several studies
have found that homeopathic treatment with classical homeopathic drugs may be
effective in protecting against, and even reversing, induced cancerous tumors.
While more evidence is needed, studies such as these maybe able to confirm
homeopathic treatment as a viable method to reverse certain cancerous tumors.
The West Bengal group published a study in the July 2004 issue of the
Indian Journal of Experimental Biology. They used several cytogenetical and
enzymatic protocols to test if Chelidonium 30C and Chelidonium 200C showed
anti-tumor activity, and if the homeopathic drugs had any action on genotoxic
damage produced by an -azo dye. Both potencies showed anti-tumor activity and
also modulated favorably some toxicity marker enzymes in liver, kidney and
spleen tissues of the carcinogen fed mice. The researchers concluded that the
microdoses of Chelidonium, having no visible ill effects of their own, may be
strong candidates for use in delaying development of or protecting against
liver cancer.
It is, of course, impractical to determine in these laboratory
experiments whether the choice of Chelidonium was in line with homeopathic
methodology – that is, whether
it was the simillimum of these afflicted mice. However, one may possibly
conclude that if a generic treatment such as this proves effective because it
uses drugs capable
of producing a grossly similar disorder, it would be reasonable to
conclude that a medicine chosen on the basis of similarity to the totality of
symptoms for a single
organism would be even more effective.
Biswas, et al., of the West Bengal group, conducted a study published in
the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2005 Oct;11:839-54, to
examine whether the homeopathic drug Carcinosinum 200C, fed alone and in
combination with Chelidonium 200C, had any differential protective effects
against the development of liver cancer in mice induced by
p-dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB) – a carcinogenic aniline dye still widely used
in the textile industry in many countries.
Both Carcinosinum 200C and Chelidonium 200C when administered alone
showed considerable ameliorative effect; but the conjoint feeding in
alternation of these two drugs appeared to have had a slightly greater protective
effect.
The researchers concluded that considering the toxic side effects of
conventional chemo-preventive drugs, alternative agents with minimal side
effects, such as homeopathic treatment, should be considered especially for
palliative measures. As in the previous study, these remedies were chosen as
generic treatment for liver cancer and no individualization was used. This
study also appears to support the clinical strategy of alternating a “specific”
drug homeopathic to the “disease” with a “constitutional” drug homeopathic to
the “patient,” as advocated by some homeopathic authorities, notably Eizayaga.
Pathak S, et al. once again collaborated with the West Bengal group to
conduct a trial published in the April 2006 issue of Molecular Cell Biochemistry
using the potentized homeopathic drug, Lycopodium 30C to analyze the protective
potentials in mice by using cytogenetic endpoints. The animals were also
chronically fed p-DAB to initiate and Phenobarbital (PB) to promote hepatic
cancer.
The effects of chronic treatment of the carcinogens were assessed at
different intervals of fixation, and compared with that of mice fed conjointly
with the carcinogens and
the homeopathic drug.
Both the assay systems indicated considerable protective potentials of
the homeopathic remedy against p-DAB induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice.
Lycopodium is commonly recommended by homeopaths for chronic liver
conditions and has been widely used as a “constitutional” cancer remedy to slow
the evolution towards cancer or to prevent it in the precancerous stage.
However, Fernior-Bernoville cautioned of its efficacy once cancer had already
developed, “In confirmed cancer
it barely has any value since it has no power over the tumoral element
as have in Thuja, Iodium, and Silicea. … The Lycopdium subject who becomes
cancerous will localize
his tumor preferentially on the liver, stomach or intestine.” The
results of this study seem to indicate that the effects of Lycopodium on cancer
pathology may have been underestimated.
Drug and Dose Specificity of Homeopathic Cancer Treatment
Evaluating whether a treatment has an effect on tumors requires the most
sensitive of tests. Ionic homeostasis is considered such a highly sensitive
test for the evaluation
of the functional state of a cell. The relative functional state of a
cell is evaluated according to the criterion of sodium, potassium and calcium
ion transfer across the cell membrane. The agents that promote elevation of
ionic homeostasis, as well as those which suppress it, are well known.
The Russian scientist Nadareishvili (Georgian Med News. 2006 July)
conducted a series of studies on the effect of homeopathy on the ionic
homeostasis of cells in normal
and tumor cells. The goal of one study was tracing the possibilities for
altering ionic homeostasis into one or another direction. This was done testing
the combined influence
of various factors: ionizing radiation, an electromagnetic frequency,
and a homeopathic remedy. The homeopathic preparation Phosphoricum acidum 14C
appeared to produce an increased effect over the combined effect of its
constituents. Phosphoricum acidum 200C stopped a decrease in the action of its
combined constituents under the same conditions. The researcher concluded that
there exists a dose-response relationship.
In another study he assessed the action of homeopathic remedies on ionic
homeostasis in the cells of Ehrlich carcinoma. He used a method of continuous
recording of sodium, potassium and calcium ions with selective electrodes in a
Ringer solution. He also monitored the activity of the enzymes that control the
transport of ions through the cell membrane.
The homeopathic preparation -stimulated phosphoric acid, at “dilutions”
of 14C and 42C- promotes ionic transport and Na, K-ATPase in Ehrlich carcinoma
cells.
Non-stimulated phosphoric acid, in potencies of 200C and 400C, on the
other hand, hampered these indices, thus corroborating an effect of homeopathic
potencies on Ehrlich carcinoma cells. The author also draws some important
conclusions on the nature of homeopathic potencies. He concludes that
structuring of the preparation increases with an increased number of dilutions
and, respectively, the “concentration of informational field” increases as
well.
Walchli C et al. studied pretreatment of human leukemia cell lines
compared to healthy cells with low concentrations and high potencies of Cadmium
followed by intoxication with crude cadmium.
The study found pretreatment with low doses increased cell viability
considerably in both cancerous and healthy cells, while high potencies only had
significant effect on healthy cells. This finding may have important
implications for selection of potency and dose in homeopathic treatment of
leukemia and other cancers.
Several researchers have focused on the question of whether homeopathic
drugs used in classical homeopathy are specific for certain types of cancer.
Jonas WB of the Samueli Institute, in Alexandria, VA, and his team conducted a
series of laboratory studies evaluating the effects of commonly used homeopathic
remedies in cell and animal models of prostate cancer.
MacLaughlin et al., of the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at
Georgetown University Medical Center, studied the effects of homeopathic
preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models.
They assessed if homeopathic potencies of Sabal serrulata, Thuja occidentalis,
and Conium maculatum had anti-proliferative effects cancer cells. They
conducted tests in vivo on mouse xenografts, and in vitro on human prostate cancer,
as well as on human breast cancer cell lines. In the homeopathic literature,
Sabal is a remedy that is used specifically for prostate cancer, whereas Thuja
and Conium have sometimes been used successfully in treatment of certain types
of breast cancer, where the symptoms fit.
Treatment with Sabal serrulata in vitro resulted in a 23% and 33%
decrease of cell proliferation at 24 and 72 hours respectively, and a 23%
reduction of DU-145 cell proliferation at 24 hours. The difference in reduction
is likely due to the specific doubling time of each cell line. No effect was
observed on human breast cancer cells with Sabal. Thuja occidentalis and Conium
maculatum did not have any effect on human prostate cancer cell proliferation.
In vivo, prostate tumor xenograft size was significantly reduced in Sabal
serrulata-treated mice compared to untreated controls.
No effect was observed on breast tumor growth from the other remedies.
The authors concluded that their study clearly demonstrates a biologic response
to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth.
This biologic effect was (a) significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to
controls and (b) specific to human prostate cancer. Sabal serrulata should thus
be further investigated as a specific homeopathic remedy for prostate
pathology, according to the authors.
Thangapazham RL, et al., with the Department of Pathology, Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, investigated
the effect of Conium maculatum, Sabal serrulata, Thuja occidentalis, Asterias
rubens, Phytolacca decantra, and Carcinosinum on prostate and breast cancer
cell growth, and on gene expression that regulates apoptosis = cell death.
Apoptosis is programmed cell death triggered by a variety of factors and
signals, and is one of the ways tumors may disappear, either naturally or as a
result of treatment. According to the scientists, none of the “homeopathic”
remedies tested in different potencies produced significant inhibitory or
growth-promoting activity in either prostate or breast cancer cells. Also, gene
expression studies by ribonuclease protection assay produced no significant
changes after treatment with the homeopathic medicines. According to the
author`s abstract, “the results demonstrate that the highly diluted homeopathic
remedies used by homeopathic practitioners for cancer show no measurable
effects on cell growth or gene expression in vitro using currently available
methodologies.” The use of the term “highly diluted” is noteworthy for reasons
illustrated below.
Another trial by Thangapazham RL, et al., examined the effects of Sabal,
Conium and Thuja, and a specially prepared Carcinosinum nosode on the
expression of cytokines and genes that regulate apoptosis. The researchers
assessed this in prostate cancer tissues extracted from animals responsive to
these drugs. The researchers noted no significant changes in the apoptotic
genes or the cytokines, tumor necrosis factor, or interferon-gamma in prostate
tumor and lung metastasis after treatment with homeopathic medicines.
According to the authors, “this study indicates that treatment with the
highly diluted homeopathic remedies does not alter the gene expression in
primary prostate tumors or in lung metastasis. The therapeutic effect of
homeopathic treatments observed in the in vivo experiments cannot be explained
by mechanisms based on distinct alterations in gene expression related to
apoptosis or cytokines. Future research should explore subtle modulations in the
expression of multiple genes in different biological pathways.” Note again the
emphasis on “highly diluted.”
In another one of these studies, one hundred male Copenhagen rats were
randomly assigned to either treatment or control groups after inoculation with
prostate tumor cells. Prostate tumor cells were exposed to five homeopathic
remedies. In vitro outcomes included tumor cell viability and apoptosis gene
expression. In vivo outcomes included tumor incidence, volume, weight, total
mortality, proliferating cell nuclear antigen expression, apoptotic cell death,
and gene expression.
The researchers found no effects on cell viability or gene expression in
three prostate cell lines with any of the drugs at any exposure time. However,
there was a 23% reduction in tumor incidence, and
for animals with tumors, there was a 38% reduction in tumor volume in
homeopathy-treated animals versus controls. Experimental animals with tumors
had a 13% lower average tumor weight. Tumors
in these treated animals showed a 19% increase in apoptotic cell death
and reduced PCNA-positive cells.
The findings indicate that selected homeopathic remedies for the present
study have no direct cellular anticancer effects but appear to significantly
slow the progression of cancer and reduce cancer incidence and mortality in
Copenhagen rats injected with prostate cancer cells – presumably by some other
mechanism.
Conceptual Confusion in Homeopathic Cancer Research?
Several of the cited studies appear to show signs of confusion with
regard to key homeopathic terms and concepts.67-70 One of these concepts is the
Law of Similars. Applying this law means treatment with a medicine that was
proven to cause symptoms similar to those being treated – for only such a use
of a drug deserves to be called “homeopathic.” Frequently, terms like
“homeopathically prepared” appear in lieu of the proper term, “potentized.”
This indicates a possible confusion of definition, thus implying that these
studies examine the efficacy of “homeopathic treatment.” Actually, they only
examine whether or not “potentized drugs” are effective.
Accordingly, in his paper on the conceptual errors found repeatedly in
peer-reviewed studies examining a central tenet of homeopathy, the “proving
hypothesis,” this author explained in greater detail the common confusion
between research testing the efficacy of “ultramolecular” drugs with research
testing the “homeopathic” hypothesis. He showed that arguments against “high
dilutions” cannot disprove the homeopathic effect, as it is also observed in
low potencies and even in undiluted drugs.
It is clear that the studies cited here do not examine the efficacy of
“homeopathic” treatment, as they claim, but of “potentized” drugs given on the
basis of indications that are other than homeopathic (allopathic). Granted, it
is difficult to examine the clinical efficacy of the homeopathic treatment
method in laboratory studies with animals, as individual case-taking of rodents
would be impractical, if
not impossible. There is also no evidence that homeopathic principles
can be applied to the treatment of mere cell lines, as in studies that purport
to examine the action of “homeopathic” drugs utilizing
in vitro experiments. Given the significant deviation of these studies
from standard homeopathic practice, it is surprising that the authors failed to
mention this fact, especially in the context of their comment on negative
results.
Furthermore, the authors of several of the cited studies referred to
potentized drugs as “high dilutions,” without explaining the importance of the
process of succussion. The term “high dilutions” is generally reserved for
drugs in potency levels beyond Avogadro’s number, i.e. above the 12C potency.
The use of high dilutions is by no means a requirement of homeopathic treatment,
and many practitioners never use them. In scientific studies, the notion that
these “high dilutions” have biological action is often referred to as the
“ultramolecular hypothesis.” When such a reference to “high dilutions” is made
in the context of negative results, as if to imply that the negative results
are likely due to the “lack of substance” of these preparations, this is worthy
of our attention.
This is especially true in those studies cited here where other factors
that could explain the negative results are not mentioned. For example, in the
MacLaughlin, et al. study, the authors failed to draw
the most probable conclusion, that Thuja and Conium may not have had
sufficient symptom affinity to the particular breast cancer cell lines tested
to warrant any positive results. The implication that
the negative results would somehow be relevant to the “high dilutions”
used, as implied in the above highly-publicized abstracts, is troubling. This
is especially so because the same studies appeared
to show efficacy of biological action from these potencies.
The premise for most efforts to examine homeopathic treatment or
homeopathic concepts in controlled trials is to find evidence for or against
claims that the homeopathic method is effective. However,
it is important for these researchers to remember that homeopathic
practitioners do not claim efficacy from “highly diluted drugs.” They claim
efficacy from potentized drugs. This should be understood and acknowledged. The
erroneous use of the term “high dilution” ignores the well-documented clinical
observation that the higher the potency, the stronger the effect of the
homeopathic drug. Early homeopaths believed that the “potency” or “power” of
the medicine lay in the dynamic “field-like” effect produced during mechanical
agitation – that is, during trituration or attenuation of the drug.
Thus the term “dilution” for a potentized drug, without reference to
succussion or trituration, negates the real nature of the potentized drug. If
it is the object of a study to examine homeopathic treatment, it should be
clear what the researchers are actually examining.
Hahnemann stated the matter as follows, “We still hear almost daily that
the homeopathic potencies are referred to as ‘dilutions’, even though they are
in fact the opposite. They constitute the actual disintegration of the source
materials and the emergence and expression of specific medicinal forces buried
in their innermost core, effected through rubbing and shaking, while the
non-medicinal medium for dilution enters merely as an auxiliary condition.Ӥ269
Elsewhere in the same paragraph, he compared the production and propagation of
a medicinal force within a non-medicinal medium, by shaking it between each
step, to the production and propagation of a magnetic force field. Here,
rubbing an iron or steel rod develops a latent potential, magnetizing the rod,
and conveys, even at a distance, the magnetic force that attracts iron shavings
or causes a compass needle to attract the South Pole and repel the North Pole.
Some scientists have proposed that the explanation for the effect
encountered in highly potentized drugs must be sought in the restructuring of
the solution with each repeated step of potentization, as
a result of adding mechanical energy during succussion. Modern
scientific studies have shed new light on the phenomenon of propagating
information in solutions, and several working hypotheses have been proposed to
explain the effect. In one of the above cited studies, Nadareisvilii observed
that the “concentration of the informational field” increases with increased
dilution. It is this increased concentration of information, or structuring of
the preparation, that accounts for the observed “increased” effect of the
higher potencies. Prof. Khuda-Bukhsh summarized the evidence with the words,
“the question of transfer and retention of medicinal properties in the
highly diluted homeopathic medicines has largely been satisfactorily explained
within the confines of the physical sciences.”
It is unlikely that the scientists who use the misleading terminology
are confused about the real nature of potentized drugs. What other possible
reason might these researchers have to, nevertheless, keep promoting the false
notion of “high dilutions?” The insistence on this terminology has all the
characteristics of editorial control - a consistent, carefully orchestrated,
semantic-ploy directed at homeopathy itself! Certainly, the recent widespread
debunking campaign about homeopathy in the mainstream media would support such
an interpretation. Do the interests that control editorial boards wish to steer
researchers away from conducting research on the real nature of potencies, on
the basis that since it is “implausible” and is no longer worth looking into?
The 2006 abstract of one of the Samueli Institute studies claims that
“despite extensive use of homeopathy for cancer and other serious conditions
with reported success, clinical and laboratory research
has been equivocal and no rigorous research has been done on cancer.”
The term equivocal means: “ambiguous; doubtful; of uncertain significance.” The
article ignored most of the studies cited here, presumably because they were
not “rigorous” enough? A more credible approach would have been to cite the studies
and to then show their shortcomings. One wonders why they failed to cite dozens
of high-quality laboratory studies published in peer-reviewed journals,
and yet they cited a controversial, two decade old editorial by Maddox, et al.,
entitled “High dilution experiments a delusion.”
A co-author of this editorial is James Randi, a magician, who along with
Maddox and NIH scientist Walter Stewart, accused Jaques Benveniste of
scientific fraud highly unusual circumstances. Are we being set up for another
“implausibility because of high dilutions” hoax?
A published analysis of clinical studies on homeopathic cancer treatment
appears to be laboring under similar editorial influence. According to Milazzo
S, et al., at the Department of Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter
and Plymouth, Exeter, UK, many cancer patients use homeopathic approaches “to
increase their body’s ability to fight cancer, improve their physical and
emotional well-being, and alleviate their pain resulting from the disease or
from conventional treatments.” 77 It strikes one as curious that the authors
could not find patients who sought to use homeopathic treatment
in hopes of actually curing the disease!
The authors stated aim in conducting a systematic review was to
“summarize and critically evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic remedies used as
a sole or additional therapy in cancer care.” They searched the literature
using medical databases. They included randomized and non-randomized controlled
clinical trials, including patients with cancer or past experience of cancer
who received single or combined homeopathic interventions. The methodological
quality of the trials was assessed. Six studies met their inclusion criteria
(five were randomized clinical trials and one was a non-randomized study); but
the methodological quality was variable, including some of the “high standard”
studies. Their analysis of published literature on homeopathy found
“insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in
cancer care.”
The authors claim that homeopathy is “highly controversial” because
there is no “plausible mode of action for these “highly diluted remedies.” As
in other studies, the authors appear to confuse, perhaps
as a means to an end, the relative dilution of a drug with its increased
level of organization. This, in turn, ignores the action of “information”
propagated and transferred by repeated agitation in the solvent that then acts
as a signal in biological systems, perceived by cell receptors and rapidly communicated
throughout the organism via known pathways.
Conclusion
The hard evidence from most studies cited here corroborates what two
hundred years of documented clinical observations have claimed: that homeopathy
has efficacy in treating cancer. However, regulatory agencies are not likely to
recommend homeopathic treatment any time soon because the clinical evidence is
still insufficient.
Many more clinical studies are needed to convince the skeptics that
homeopathy is a viable cancer treatment. Some states still have laws that
provide for penalties for the unauthorized use of “unproven cancer therapies.”
79, 80 Fortunately, Courts in other states have ruled that the law “does not
prohibit the terminally ill from receiving unorthodox treatment…”( ) Even the American
Medical Association takes a more lenient stand towards alternative treatment –
even in the hands of unlicensed practitioners – as compared to the past. Their
Code of Ethics now states that while “treatment which has no scientific basis”
is condemned (Opinion 3.01), under Opinion 3.04, physicians are free to refer a
patient “for therapeutic or diagnostic services to another physician, limited
practitioner or any other provider of health care services permitted by law to
furnish such services, whenever he or she believes that this may benefit the
patient.”
But is homeopathic treatment of cancer unproven? One analysis of
clinical studies showed insufficient evidence. However, insufficient clinical
evidence does not mean proof of lack of efficacy, nor lack of a scientific
basis for the treatment. The scientific evidence presented here is clear for
all to see: homeopathic drugs have proven biological action in cancer; in vitro
and in vivo; in animals and humans; in the lower as well as in the higher potencies.
Cancer patients are faced with a life and death decision when choosing their
treatment. Since most conventional treatments continue to be associated with
severe and sometimes fatal adverse effects, while homeopathy has been found to
be free from such effects, it would seem plausible and worthwhile, even urgent,
to step up the research on, and even the provision of, homeopathic treatment of
cancer and other diseases.
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum