Homeopathy cancer cure or quackery?

Homeopathy - cancer cure or quackery?

I wish I understood, I really do. But I dont. Whenever anyone starts talking to me about homeopathy, I am afraid I am always reminded of Henry Fords comment about advertising: Half my advertising budget is wasted. I just wish I knew which half.

Homeopathy is the butt of jokes, the target of self-styled quackbusters, of skeptics and magicians. They say there is no evidence that any of it does anything positive for anybody; that there is no science behind it; that the solutions are diluted down so many times there is nothing of the original compound left. But Im not sure those claims are true. The skeptics live in a world of dogma where propaganda rules. There is research. I found it, Double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials. So I return to my first thought. 50 per cent of homeopathy seems to work; I just dont know which 50 per cent.

Why, oh why cant we have some serious research? Not on one or two bits, but across the board. 

Then I read a report commissioned by the Swiss Government on Homeopathy. The Swiss Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme (Bornhoft and Matthiessen 2011) concludes clearly that homoeopathy has real world effectiveness, is appropriately in demand by the Swiss population, is safe when prescribed by professional homoeopaths and should be available to the Swiss public through Federal Government and Cantons and be included in the Swiss statutory health insurance scheme with costs of treatment being reimbursed to patients accordingly. (See Dana Ullman -CLICK HERE)

Homeopathy is widely used in countries from Germany to India but in the UK we seem to have a few hundred skeptics or quackbusters, determined to see its use ended; to see it condemned as junk medicine with no evidence to support it. If that is true, the Health Authorities should deal with the issue. If it is not, is it right that a few hundred hecklers should remove a potential treatment from 2 million people living with cancer in the UK?

Worse, the more stupid of these hecklers claim that because they see no evidence for homeopathy, and homeopathy is a Complementary or an Alternative Medicine, ALL Complementary and Alternative therapies are therefore without evidence. QED. Yes. I know this extrapolation is tosh, but I observe fully grown Professors who make it none-the-less.

So I am puzzled.

Firstly, because I know a number of homeopaths and at least eight of them (in the UK and France) trained as Doctors of Medicine. Seven years hard work to learn their subject, given up to retrain as homeopaths and these are clearly very bright and capable men?

When I ask why?, they always tell me that orthodox medicine doesnt cure the problem, but homeopathy does. They tell me that many orthodox medical treatments harm the patient, but homeopathy doesnt. They simply believe homeopathy is better medicine than drugs, chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

When I ask them for evidence, they may tell me about some breast cancer patients where studies showed that side-effects diminished, mental state improved and so on. And thats about it. Not a lot of evidence to base your lifes work on, is it?

Secondly, I cannot believe the Swiss Government Scientists are fools, no more than the German Health Authorities or those in India come to that. (India has one of the most advanced biologic development programmes in the world; their medicine is rapidly overtaking the Wests.)

Thirdly, every week at CANCERactive we receive reports, always from women with breast cancer, that homeopathy did help them through the ordeal of breast cancer treatment - both radiotherapy and chemotherapy. They are adamant. One lady even wrote up her story for us. (Click Here to read Homeopathy and breast cancer.)

Placebo effect or reality?

That is easily explained, say the skeptics. Its the placebo effect. Told that you are receiving a treatment, even a drug, some people are cured while some have side-effects even though the pill was actually sugar. As one skeptic Professor says, Of course, there is nothing wrong with using placebos if tickling feet makes you feel better then so be it. Just dont try to teach how it works in Schools or Medical Institutions because you will be lying to people        .

Could water have a memory?

I decided to go and find out, starting my research only recently in 2012. What prompted this belated action was the Swiss Report, and then a book my daughter was reading over Christmas about the memory (for want of a better word) of water. No, I havent gone mad.

The book was by Dr Masaru Emoto (The hidden messages in water) and featured Electron Microscope photographs of water molecules. Some had been talked to about love, some shouted at, some listened to music etc. And the electron microscope pictures showed vastly different shapes for the molecular structure once the water was frozen. So can the mind really influence the world, is the power of positive thinking in us all? Importantly, if homeopathis remedies were so diluted down that few or no molecules remained, would there still be some sort of imprint left in the water, and would it be capable of influencing someones health?

Theres even been a video of the book - What the bleep do we know? Indeed, anyone who has traveled in India and China would ask Western medical experts the same. As always I keep an open mind in these things; according to a review of Emotos research evidence by Kristopher Setchfield, BA, of Castleton State College, Vermont, I am right to. He feels the whole study is pseudoscience, poorly executed and with a number of significant scientific flaws. (I have to say, I wasnt too convinced by Setchfields research either! Pots and kettles I thought.)

There has also been a triple-blind study where 2,000 of Emotos supporters sent good thoughts into some water, which sadly failed to reflect their positive thoughts when the pictures were taken. But Emoto is undaunted. He has his evidence. His pictures tell the story, he claims.

Anyway, I was intrigued, if hardly convinced.

And then I came across Luc Montagnier. Luc devoted his life to the study of viruses predominately from the Institut Pasteur in Paris. He has a Nobel prize to his name, with a degree in Natural Sciences and he is a Doctor of Medicine. A dozen or so years ago he was trying to separate a small bacterium, Mycoplasm pirum, from the main HIV virus which it so often accompanies. He used filters of the right size and assumed the liquid, which was now sterile, was now clear of the bacterium. A further polymerase test failed to detect any DNA present.

However, to Montagniers surprise, when the filtrate was incubated with lymphocytes that were not infected with Mycoplasm (according to the most stringent tests), the bacterium was regularly recovered.

Montagnier could only conclude that some DNA memory must have been left in the water, and after extensive tests he discovered the sterile water was actually emitting low frequency electronic waves indicating that something had remained.

But then we already know that molecules intercommunicate by electromagnetic signals, which bring them together for biochemical reactions. Nobel Prizes have been won over recent years for work with polysaccharides and other compounds and how they communicate electonically and electromagnetically with each other.

This finding has led to a great number of scientific studies particularly by Dr Mae-Wan Ho. (Mae-Wan Ho: The real Bioinformatics Revolution). But can Biophysics really explain how such a weak electromagnetic field has such a strong blueprint it could reform a microorganism out of supplied DNA. Mae-Wan Ho has tried to answer that in his paper, then book Quantum Coherent Water, Non-Thermal EMF effects & Homeopathy.

So, is there any meaningful research?

So, I started my research into Homeopathy and, yes, I did find a couple of (it has to be said, poorly executed) research studies on how breast cancer patients did have their side-effects helped by homeopathic medicines, at levels which cannot be put down to simply the placebo effect. I am sure there are more - the above mentioned Dana Ullman is the leading light Homeopath in the USA and he says there are lots of studies on his web site.

Then I found papers relating to epidemics - apparently, it is claimed, that homeopathic treatments come to the fore in times of epidemics and this is documented in a tome called Genus Epidemicus.

I also discovered that homeopaths have a number of nosodes that the do use to treat cancer patients. For example:

Carcinosin is a nosode remedy ie one made from diseased human tissue, for example cancereous breast tissue, and has widespread use amongst homoeopaths treating cancerous and pre cancerous patients. The Ramnakrishnan protocol details of uses this remedy.

Conium Maculata, or hemlock, is used in breast treatments especially Fibromyomas, in hepatomas and secondaries after cirrhosis, and prostate cancer.  Conium is also prescribed weekly to lower PSA.

Thuja Occidentalis (the cypress tree) is used in hyperplasia of tissues and has been used where asthmatic bronchitis has precursed cancer of the throat, larynx, vocal chords especially where nodules have appeared on the vocal chords.

Ruta Graveolens or Rue is best known for strains/sprains of small ligaments, eye strain and bruised bone pains. In the cancer sphere it is now used with brain tumours and in bowel cancer.

OK. But do they work? Do we have evidence?

1 An article by the people at the magazine What Doctors Dont tell you. And this explains that there is a large body of data and research from centres in India, which has been furthered by the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas and has been independently monitored by The American Governments own National Cancer Institute. And they use treatments such as Ruta. (CLICK HERE to go to article)

2 An article from Natural News (www.naturalnews.com) which is somewhat less specific and refers to the use of homeopathy to treat epidemics, as I mentioned above. (CLICK HERE to go to article)

Taking these, and the references you will find on Dana Ullmans site (Evidence-based Homeopath www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman ) the only sane conclusion is that it is just not true to say that homeopathy has no research to support it.

BUT.

And it is a very big BUT, I would have hoped (I think that should read, we all would have hoped) for more specific research studies on more specific cancers and featuring more particular treatments, by now. After all, homeopathy has been around for a hundred years or more.

Our general article on homeopathy can be found by CLICKING HERE.

In 2010 I decided to ask a top British Homeopath to document the use of homeopathy in cancer and support it with research (we always specify the need for research in third party articles) - we should keep an open mind. However, nearly three years on, and I am still waiting for the article. This speaks volumes.