14 replies to this topic

[Soma]

I have personally been one that has always assumed that homeopathy operated on placebo. I have heard the same assumption repeated throughout these forums innumerable times and it is understandable- how could it be anything but when there is essentially infintessimally minute quantities of active compounds in the solutions. Even the notorious "debunker" James Randi has a TED talk about how homeopathy is an utter scam.

Recently I came across some studies with animals using homeopathic preparations, and this caused me to rethink my assumptions. I mean, how exactly does the placebo effect work with animals? However it is that some of these things produce biophysical changes, it certainly can't be placebo when the changes occur in animals. I just picked a few of the first studies that came up but there are literally hundreds.

So, does anyone venture to offer a mechanism for homeopathy?

If homeopathy is nothing but a sugar-pill scam, how does it produce these changes in animals?



Homeopathic Thuja 30C ameliorates benzo(a)pyrene-induced DNA damage, stress and viability of perfused lung cells of mice in vitro.
Mukherjee A1, Boujedaini N, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To examine if the ultra-highly diluted homeopathic remedy Thuja 30C can ameliorate benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)-induced DNA damage, stress and viability of perfused lung cells of Swiss albino mice in vitro.
METHODS:
Perfused normal lung cells from mice were cultured in 5% Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium and exposed to BaP, a potent carcinogen, at the half maximal inhibitory concentration dose (2.2 μmol/L) for 24 h. Thereafter, the intoxicated cells were either treated with Thuja 30C (used against tumor or cancer) or its vehicle media, succussed alcohol 30C. Relevant parameters of study involving reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation, total glutathione (GSH) content, and generations of heat shock protein (hsp)-90 were measured; the cell viability and other test parameters were measured after treatment with either Thuja 30C or its vehicle media. Circular dichroism spectroscopy was performed to examine if Thuja 30C directly interacted with calf thymus DNA as target. For ascertaining if DNA damaged by BaP could be partially repaired and restituted by the remedy, 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole staining was performed.
RESULTS:
Thuja 30C increased cell viability of BaP-intoxicated cells significantly, as compared to drug-untreated or drug-vehicle control. A minimal dose of Thuja 30C significantly inhibited BaP-induced stress level, by down-regulating ROS and hsp-90, and increasing GSH content. Thuja 30C itself had no DNA-damaging effect, and no direct drug-DNA interaction. However, it showed quite striking ability to repair DNA damage caused by BaP.
CONCLUSION:
Thuja 30C ameliorates BaP-induced toxicity, stress and DNA damage in perfused lung cells of mice and it apparently has no effect on normal lung cells.
J Integr Med. 2013 Nov;11(6):397-404. doi: 10.3736/jintegrmed2013054.
PMID: 24299603
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24299603



Calcarea carbonica induces apoptosis in cancer cells in p53-dependent manner via an immuno-modulatory circuit.
Saha S1, Hossain DM, Mukherjee S, Mohanty S, Mazumdar M, Mukherjee S, Ghosh UK, Nayek C, Raveendar C, Khurana A, Chakrabarty R, Sa G, Das T.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Complementary medicines, including homeopathy, are used by many patients with cancer, usually alongside with conventional treatment. However, the molecular mechanisms underneath the anti-cancer effect, if any, of these medicines have still remained unexplored. To this end we attempted to evaluate the efficacy of calcarea carbonica, a homeopathic medicine, as an anti-cancer agent and to delineate the detail molecular mechanism(s) underlying calcerea carbonica-induced tumor regression.
METHODS:
To investigate and delineate the underlying mechanisms of calcarea carbonica-induced tumor regression, Trypan blue dye-exclusion test, flow cytometric, Western blot and reverse transcriptase-PCR techniques were employed. Further, siRNA transfections and inhibitor studies were used to validate the involvement of p53 pathway in calcarea carbonica-induced apoptosis in cancer cells.
RESULTS:
Interestingly, although calcarea carbonica administration to Ehrlich's ascites carcinoma (EAC)- and Sarcoma-180 (S-180)-bearing Swiss albino mice resulted in 30-35% tumor cell apoptosis, it failed to induce any significant cell death in ex vivo conditions. These results prompted us to examine whether calcarea carbonica employs the immuno-modulatory circuit in asserting its anti-tumor effects. Calcarea carbonica prevented tumor-induced loss of effector T cell repertoire, reversed type-2 cytokine bias and attenuated tumor-induced inhibition of T cell proliferation in tumor-bearing host. To confirm the role of immune system in calcarea carbonica-induced cancer cell death, a battery of cancer cells were co-cultured with calcarea carbonica-primed T cells. Our results indicated a "two-step" mechanism of the induction of apoptosis in tumor cells by calcarea carbonica i.e., (1) activation of the immune system of the host; and (2) induction of cancer cell apoptosis via immuno-modulatory circuit in p53-dependent manner by down-regulating Bcl-2:Bax ratio. Bax up-regulation resulted in mitochondrial transmembrane potential loss and cytochrome c release followed by activation of caspase cascade. Knocking out of p53 by RNA-interference inhibited calcarea carbonica-induced apoptosis thereby confirming the contribution of p53.
CONCLUSION:
These observations delineate the significance of immuno-modulatory circuit during calcarea carbonica-mediated tumor apoptosis. The molecular mechanism identified may serve as a platform for involving calcarea carbonica into immunotherapeutic strategies for effective tumor regression.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24053127


Immunomodulation of Homeopathic Thymulin 5CH in a BCG-Induced Granuloma Model.
Bonamin LV1, Sato C, Zalla Neto R, Morante G, Cardoso TN, de Santana FR, Coelho Cde P, Osugui L, Popi AF, Hurtado EC, Mariano M.
Author information

Abstract
The present study analyzed the immune modulation mechanisms of thymulin 5CH in a granuloma experimental model. Male adult Balb/c mice were inoculated with BCG into the footpad to induce granuloma, which was quantitatively evaluated. The phenotypic characterization of phagocyte, T- and B-lymphocyte populations in the peritoneum, and local lymph node was done by flow cytometry. During all experimental periods, thymulin 5CH and vehicle (control) were given ad libitum to mice, diluted into the drinking water (1.6 × 10(-17) M). After 7 days from inoculation, thymulin-treated mice presented reduction in the number of epithelioid cytokeratine-positive cells (P = 0.0001) in the lesion, in relation to young phagocytes. After 21 days, the differentiation of B1 peritoneal stem cells into phagocytes reached the peak, being higher in thymulin-treated mice (P = 0.0001). Simultaneously, the score of infected phagocytes in the lesion decreased (P = 0.001), and the number of B1-derived phagocytes, CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes in the local lymph node increased in relation to control (P = 0.0001). No difference was seen on the CD25+ Treg cells. The results show that thymulin 5CH treatment is able to improve the granuloma inflammatory process and the infection remission, by modulating local and systemic phagocyte differentiation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23431344

Two homeopathic remedies used intermittently provide additional protective effects against hepatotoxicity induced by carcinogens in mice.
Bhattacharjee N1, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.
Author information

Abstract
The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether potentized cholesterinum (Chol) intermittently used with another homeopathic remedy, Natrum Sulphuricum (Nat Sulph) can provide additional benefits in combating hepatotoxicity generated by chronic feeding of carcinogens, p-dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB), and phenobarbital (PB). Mice were categorized into subgroups: normal untreated (Gr-1); normal + alcohol "vehicle" (Alc) (Gr-2), 0.06% p-DAB +0.05% PB (Gr-3), p-DAB+PB+Alc (Gr-4), p-DAB+PB+Nat Sulph-30 (Gr-5), p-DAB+PB+Chol-200 (Gr-6), p-DAB+PB+Nat Sulph-30+Chol-200 (Gr-7), p-DAB+PB+Nat Sulph-200 (Gr-8), and DAB+PB+Nat Sulph-200+Chol-200 (Gr-9). Hepatotoxicity was assessed through biomarkers like aspartate and alanine aminotransferases (AST and ALT), acid and alkaline phosphatases (AcP and AlkP), reduced glutathione content (GSH), glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and analysis of lipid peroxidation (LPO) at 30, 60, 90, and 120 days and antioxidant biomarkers like superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and glutathione reductase (GR) were assayed. Electron microscopic studies (scanning and transmission) and gelatin zymography for matrix metalloproteinases were conducted in liver. The feeding of the homeopathic drugs showed intervention in regard to the increased activities of AST, ALT, AcP, AlkP, GGT, LDH, and LPO and decreased activities of G6PD, SOD, CAT, GR, and GSH noted in the intoxicated mice, more appreciable in Groups 7 and 9. Thus, combined therapy provided additional antihepatotoxic and anticancer effects.
Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier B.V.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22898065

[gt35r]

Do not just copy paste a study as authority. Always check the following.

 

1.Where was it Publish?

2.Has this been reproduced?

3. What is the external validity?

4. What is the internal validity?

 

To be brief, the studies above have not been reproduced and have poor external validity. In general, all the studies you list have very broad statements about biomarkers but make not effort to explain much. 

 

[Soma]

Do not just copy paste a study as authority.
 

I never said that these studies were authoritative. I just think that the fact that there are hundreds of studies that demonstrate results utilizing homepathic compounds deserves further investigation rather than the typical dismissive attitude that it usually invokes. I admit that I was one of those that thought homeopathy was nothing but sugar-pill scamming.

 To be brief, the studies above have not been reproduced and have poor external validity. In general, all the studies you list have very broad statements about biomarkers but make not effort to explain much. 
 

Well, that may be it...it is difficult to explain a mechanism when it is ostensibly not compatible with current understandings in science. I think that is generally why homeopathy is dismissed by so many without even taking the time to research it- because there is currently no explanation for it under our current understanding of physiology and the natural world. When a phenomenon doesn't mesh neatly into the current understanding of things, it is said to be nonexistant. It is just easier and neater that way.

I remember reading experiences veterinarians have had treating animals with homeopathic preparations and observing quite impressive changes. How is this accomplished? Placebo by proxy?

Edited by Soma, 25 April 2014 - 04:18 PM.

[BlueCloud]

 

I remember reading experiences veterinarians have had treating animals with homeopathic preparations and observing quite impressive changes. How is this accomplished? Placebo by proxy?

 

That's a good question. But are we sure that the products they used were 100% homeopathic, and not a mixture of homeopathy and "normal" dosages of active herbal supplements ?

[beatsme]

Animal studies are notorious for experimenter effects. You will notice that none of the studies you mention describe a double-blind procedure. Without double-blind, it is trivial for the experimenters to bias the results, even unconsciously.

[gt35r]

 

Do not just copy paste a study as authority.
 

I never said that these studies were authoritative. I just think that the fact that there are hundreds of studies that demonstrate results utilizing homepathic compounds deserves further investigation rather than the typical dismissive attitude that it usually invokes. I admit that I was one of those that thought homeopathy was nothing but sugar-pill scamming.

 To be brief, the studies above have not been reproduced and have poor external validity. In general, all the studies you list have very broad statements about biomarkers but make not effort to explain much. 
 

Well, that may be it...it is difficult to explain a mechanism when it is ostensibly not compatible with current understandings in science. I think that is generally why homeopathy is dismissed by so many without even taking the time to research it- because there is currently no explanation for it under our current understanding of physiology and the natural world. When a phenomenon doesn't mesh neatly into the current understanding of things, it is said to be nonexistant. It is just easier and neater that way.

I remember reading experiences veterinarians have had treating animals with homeopathic preparations and observing quite impressive changes. How is this accomplished? Placebo by proxy?

 

 

Like I said before. What is the quality of he study? Was it double blind? What is the internal validity? Has it been repeated?

 

 

The quality of the experiment is poor; at best it just makes sweeping remarks about broad range of biomarkers. It was not double blind. Also, not repeated or duplicated. 

 

homeopathy is dismissed because this is the best result they can publish. If you knew how to read scientific literature you would laugh at these publications. They are not interesting one bit. 

 

These are not repeated, studies done on a small sample size or rodents; not double blind, not repeated, no measures taken to maintain internal validity. Forget about any external validity btw. These papers are not even good enough to be pilot sties. 

Edited by gt35r, 26 April 2014 - 05:36 AM.

[Absent]

Subjects like this that have yet to be truly understood, whether placebo or not, can indeed be interesting. Double blind rigorous studies are needed like others have said. One big issue in the scientific community is that for every research study that is conducted, there are thousands that go unpublished because the researchers were not able to explain results, or the results were simply to inconsistent to be worth publishing, but this doesn't mean they weren't there. Most scholars would right off small anomalies in various data sets as experimental flukes, when really it could be some not-understood mechanism.

 

The real reason I posted was because I felt the need to point out that it is laughable to use James Randi as a sort of worthwhile mention. He's nearly as full of shit as some of these subjects he claims to debunk and disprove - he is nothing short of a radical attention seeker.

 

 

[Soma]

Subjects like this that have yet to be truly understood, whether placebo or not, can indeed be interesting. Double blind rigorous studies are needed like others have said. One big issue in the scientific community is that for every research study that is conducted, there are thousands that go unpublished because the researchers were not able to explain results, or the results were simply to inconsistent to be worth publishing, but this doesn't mean they weren't there.  Most scholars would right off small anomalies in various data sets as experimental flukes, when really it could be some not-understood mechanism.
 

Yes. Thanks for offering a balanced and reasoned counterpoint.
 

The real reason I posted was because I felt the need to point out that it is laughable to use James Randi as a sort of worthwhile mention. He's nearly as full of shit as some of these subjects he claims to debunk and disprove - he is nothing short of a radical attention seeker.
 

I didn't mention James Randi as a proof against homeopathy, but merely as an example how the polemic has filtered down into pop-culture by virtue of his own TEDTalk "debunking" of it. I had just recently seen it on a blog and it came to mind when I was writing this.

I have not read any of his "debunking" efforts of psi phenomena or the paranormal which he has been known to do, so I cannot speak to any of that. But, I don't think displaying a skeptical curiosity about the potential of a poorly understood mechanism possibly existing with homeopathy can be equated with outright superstitious witch-doctorism.

A placebo only works when you don't know its a placebo, no? Does a placebo work when you know it is a placebo? Of course not- look as the way trials are designed. Then why have so many people used homeopathic preparations feeling full well that they were useless sugar pills and expecting nothing in terms of results, only to discover that they were deriving benefits from them. This, according to some people I have spoken with. I don't know how to explain that.

[gt35r]

To date there is no good reason to believe homeopathy works; show me one double blind study of homeopathy that has been reproduced. Actually just show me one good quality double blind study of homeopathy. Don't be upset at people who are skeptical one the burden of proof has not been met.  

 

If you make a claim about the validity of something and you can not support it then don't expect people to not be skeptical. I am not even asking for a mechanism of action I am just asking for a good reason to believe it works. The mechanism of action can come later but for now provide a good study that shows that it works. 

 

There are too many people make too many claims to not be skeptical.

 

 

[Dolph]

 

A placebo only works when you don't know its a placebo, no?

 

No, that's actually dead wrong. Placebos work just as well given "open label", as strange as that may be.

[Mind]

More interesting results from open-label placebos: https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/28452193

 

This bolsters the argument for the effectiveness of homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, and other non-traditional treatment options, that have been often called "scams". Knowing the power of the placebo effect, the only point you can make about some of these treatments is that they are over-priced (making them more of a financial scam, than scientific scam).

 

The placebo effect is real and it is powerful - just difficult to harness. One thing that should come out of decades of placebo research is that there are many ailments that have a significant psychological component that is not being addressed.

[RWhigham]

Rejecting homeopathy apriori is de rigueur to most of the scientific literati. We see so many ignorant beliefs by the uneducated and religious; everything that doesn't fit our training looks like superstition.  Homeopathy IS impossible by current science. Looking for a rational explanation without some fundamental new discovery is likely hopeless.

 

The discoverer of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, was a meticulous physician/chemist/scientist. When he discovered the power of dilutions with repeated scussions he was well aware that there was no physical explanation.  He called it a "spiritual" effect.

 

The placebo effect is just as mysterious. So is healing by visualization. So is acupuncture. So is dowsing. But, like Galileo said, "Never the less ... it's so"  

 

 

Edited by RWhigham, 03 June 2017 - 04:21 PM.

[Benko]

deleted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Benko, 03 June 2017 - 09:07 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

 

Background

 

A rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

 

Conclusions

 

The quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5366148/

[RWhigham]

To the small minded person who marked me "ill-informed"  Your arrogance for what you have not experienced and know nothing about defines you. Are you James Randi?

 

In contrast, James Watson [antiagingfirewalls.com] says "20% of what I know is wrong. Trouble is, I don't know which 20%". 

Edited by RWhigham, 03 June 2017 - 11:06 PM.