| Much more than a placebo: | |
| Homeopathy pushes back cancer | |
| Obituary Dr Prasanta Banerji | |
| Allegedly no more effective than a placebo, and yet the "impossible" medicine of homeopathy has managed to reverse thousands of cases of cancer in India. | |
| Doctors call it "nonsense on stilts", medical professors have bullied governments and health authorities into no longer offering it through Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) – and yet studies funded by the US government show that homeopathy could be our best defence against cancer. According to clinical trials, several homeopathic remedies are as effective as chemotherapy, and thousands of cancers have regressed through homeopathic treatment alone. | |
|
|
The extraordinary success of homeopathic remedies – preparations diluted several hundred times – in some of the most feared illnesses is demonstrated daily in several homeopathic clinics in Calcutta, India. According to a report on the work of the Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, 21,888 patients with malignant tumours were treated exclusively with homeopathy between 1990 and 2005 – they received neither chemotherapy nor radiotherapy. |
| Clinical assessments show that the tumours completely regressed in 19 per cent (4,158 cases) and were stabilised or improved in a further 21 per cent (4,596 cases). Patients whose tumours stabilised were subsequently followed for between two and ten years to monitor the improvement (Banerji, 2008).
This suggests that homeopathic remedies alone produced regression or at least stabilisation in 40 per cent of all cancer cases – a success rate comparable to the best results of conventional medicine, but without the weakening side effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The Banerji Foundation's homeopathic therapy – the "Banerji Protocol" – has been independently tested under laboratory conditions, and two of the remedies used, Carcinosinum and Phytolacca, proved as effective against breast cancer cells as the chemotherapeutic drug Taxol (International Journal of Oncology, 2010; 36: 395–403). All remedies used by the Banerji Foundation are available on the retail market, and Ruta C6 is only one of several regularly prescribed. The protocol involves the use of state-of-the-art screening devices and a mixture of remedies – two approaches that contrast with classical homeopathy, which prescribes only one remedy tailored exactly to the individual patient's physical and mental profile. |
|
 © Gerhard Seybert - Fotolia.com |
First attention The work of the Banerji Foundation first attracted Western attention in 1995, when Dr Prasanta Banerji and his son, Dr Pratip Banerji, presented a study of 16 cases of brain tumours at the 5th International Conference on Cancer Research that had regressed through homeopathic remedies alone. |
|
They had already been testing homeopathic remedies on cancer patients in their foundation since 1992 and said they were now treating about 120 cancer patients daily. Dr Sen Pathak, Professor of Cell Biology and Genetics at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) at the University of Texas in Houston, contacted the Banerjis, and together they carried out a test of two homeopathic remedies, Ruta C6 and Calcium phosphoricum D3, on 15 patients with brain tumours. In six of seven patients with gliomas the tumours completely regressed. In a complementary in vitro laboratory study the scientists found that the remedies induced cell-death signalling pathways in the cancer cells (International Journal of Oncology, 2003; 23: 975–82). The result is striking. Gliomas are considered incurable; of 10,000 people diagnosed annually with malignant gliomas in the US alone, only about half are alive a year later and only a quarter two years later (The Washington Post, 20 May 2008). The scientists at MDACC were so impressed by the results that they began offering homeopathic remedies as part of their cancer treatment. In 1999 the US government's National Cancer Institute (NCI) independently tested the Banerji Protocol on ten patients with various tumours. In four cases of lung and oesophageal cancer the NCI researchers confirmed partial responses to the homeopathic remedies. None of the patients had previously received conventional cancer treatment. The NCI concluded that there was sufficient evidence of effectiveness to support further research into the protocol – a historic decision, as it was the first time that an official medical institute in the USA had worked with an alternative therapy for cancer treatment (Oncology Reports, 2008; 20: 69–74). |
|
|
In the laboratory To understand how homeopathic remedies act on cancer cells, eight scientists from MDACC tested four remedies – Carcinosinum C30, Conium maculatum C3, Phytolacca decandra C200 and Thuja occidentalis C30 – on two human breast cancer cell lines. Over periods of one to four days about 5,000 cells were exposed to the remedies and to a placebo – the solvent without the remedies' active ingredients. The experiment was repeated three times. Two of the remedies – Carcinosinum and Phytolacca – produced responses of up to 80 per cent, indicating they induced apoptosis, programmed cell death. By comparison the placebo achieved only a 30 per cent reduction; the effect of the homeopathic remedies was therefore more than twice that of the placebo. The strongest effects were also seen with the higher dilutions (which in the "upside-down" world of homeopathic medicine means the higher potency) and with longer exposure times. The remedies triggered an "apoptotic cascade" that disrupted the normal growth cycle of the cancer cells, yet, the researchers found, the surrounding healthy cells remained untouched. In other words: they targeted only the cancer cells, whereas chemotherapeutic drugs attack all dividing cells. And the effect of Carcinosinum and Phytolacca proved, the researchers said, to be as strong as that of Taxol (paclitaxel), the most frequently prescribed chemotherapeutic drug for breast cancer (International Journal of Oncology, 2010; 36: 395–403). |
|
 Ruta graveolens |
Ruta to the fore! Although Carcinosinum and Phytolacca performed well in the laboratory, many of the Banerji Foundation's patients with remarkable results take Ruta C6. This emerged from a survey of 127 American patients with brain tumours, half of whom were grade IV, the terminal stage before death. Of the 127 patients, 18 who received only Ruta and no conventional treatment had tumours that were completely gone on MRI scans. In a further nine patients the tumour had significantly |
|
regressed. In about half of all patients studied the tumours remained stable, but in 27 patients they grew. Overall, about 79 per cent of the surveyed brain tumour patients believed that Ruta had given them either a major or at least some benefit. In an earlier study by the foundation, 72 per cent of all patients who used Ruta alongside conventional chemotherapy for brain tumours achieved normal to major improvement with this combined therapy. This suggests that Ruta alone is more effective or at least as effective as the drug, but without its weakening side effects. In a separate study of brain tumour cases – 148 patients with malignant gliomas and 144 with meningiomas – treated in the foundation between 1996 and 2001, the 91 patients treated exclusively with Ruta and Calcium phosphoricum had an average survival of 92 months, whereas eleven patients treated conventionally with only adjunctive homeopathy survived 20 months. In addition, seven per cent of the solely homeopathically treated patients experienced a complete cure, 60 per cent an improvement, 22 per cent a stabilisation, where the cancer neither improved nor worsened, and in eleven per cent it worsened or the patient died (Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, www.pbhrfindia.org). |
|
|
Further research Outside India, research into the effects of homeopathy on cancer is severely restricted, mainly because homeopathy there is assumed to produce only placebo effects and is therefore labelled an unethical treatment. For this reason homeopathy in most Western studies is classed as palliative therapy, which can help patients cope better with the rigours of chemo- and radiotherapy. In one study 100 women with breast cancer received a one-hour consultation with a homeopath who was to help them with three symptoms that had arisen as side effects of conventional treatment and were chosen by the women themselves. The 67 patients who completed the homeopathic treatment with two follow-ups all reported "marked improvements" in their hot flushes, fatigue, anxiety and depression, although the remedies did not relieve pain (Palliative Medicine 2002; 16: 227-33). |
|
| In another study of women with breast cancer, homeopathic remedies were tested against placebo for hot flushes after taking the drug tamoxifen. The women received either individualised homeopathic treatment, a homeopathic complex remedy, or a placebo. In this experiment 26 women received the active remedy, 30 took active remedy plus a placebo, and 27 received only placebo. Both groups receiving the active remedy – whether alone or combined with placebo – reported an improvement in symptoms compared with the pure placebo group | |
|
(Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2005; 11: 21-7). |
|
|
Homeopathy also helped to alleviate some side effects of radiotherapy in a group of 32 women with breast cancer. In the homeopathically treated group – compared with a control group of 29 patients who did not receive homeopathic remedies – hyperpigmentation after radiotherapy and its generalised side effects were reduced (British Homoeopathic Journal 2000; 89:8-12). The homeopathic remedy Traumeel for skin and muscle problems was successfully tested in several trials. In one it was given to 15 patients aged 3 to 25 who had undergone stem cell transplantation for their cancer to treat stomatitis ("mouth ulcers"). Compared with a placebo given to another 15 patients, Traumeel was able to "significantly reduce" the severity and duration of stomatitis (Cancer 2001; 92: 684-90). In a second study Traumeel was tested against stomatitis in 20 patients with various tumours and reduced symptom duration to only six days, compared with 13 days in the placebo group (Biomedical Therapy 1998; 16: 261-5). Individually prescribed homeopathic remedies helped a group of 45 women being treated for breast cancer. They were prescribed for symptoms occurring after oestrogen decline. The severity of hot flushes and other symptoms – with the exception of joint pain – decreased, while the women's overall quality of life and wellbeing increased (Homeopathy 2003; 92: 131-4). Another group of 20 women recovering from breast cancer treatment including tamoxifen also reported improvements in the severity and frequency of their hot flushes (Homeopathy 2002; 91: 75-9). |
|
|
The black hole The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently joined the Western chorus claiming that homeopathy can produce nothing but placebo effects. In response to the campaign by the Voice of Young Science (VoYS) Network, which calls for a ban on funding homeopathy in developing countries, the WHO stated that homeopathy is not a treatment for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), tuberculosis or malaria. Dr Robert Hagan, a member of the VoYS Network, welcomed the WHO statement and commented: "We need governments across the world to recognise the dangers of homeopathy in life-threatening conditions" (BBC News, 20 August 2009; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8211925.stm). And yet homeopathy does exactly that in India. In that culture it is recognised as a genuine medical therapy and governed by laws that ensure the proper training and registration of homeopaths. It is astonishing that good medical studies – supported by the US government and leading American academics – are not acknowledged, let alone discussed in the West. Cancer is such a serious threat that every route to its cure must be explored with an open mind and not left to the intrigues of the pharmaceutical lobby and academics. Conventional medicine offers no effective solutions and yet blocks everything that might be capable of helping, especially when it is something so "impossible" and such "nonsense" to its scientific thinking as homeopathy. |
|
|
Facts: Homeopathy in India Mahatma Gandhi, the father of modern India, called homeopathy "a subtle method of treating patients economically and non-violently. The government must encourage and protect it in our country." And so it happened. In 1960 the Maharashtra Act – also known as the "Bombay Act" – ordered the formation of an examination board to oversee homeopathic education and the establishment of the new colleges required, as well as a homeopathic commission responsible for the registration and selection of practitioners. Nine years later a new law set up a central body to regulate homeopathy and Ayurveda, the traditional Indian medicine. In 1973 the Homeopathy Central Council Act was enacted, standardising homeopathic education and allowing homeopaths to practise in different states of the country. This legislation formalised a rich homeopathic tradition in India that began in 1839, when the Romanian physician John Martin Honigberger successfully cured the Maharaja of Punjab of vocal cord paralysis. Honigberger had learned homeopathy from Dr Samuel Hahnemann, its founder, and became convinced of its effectiveness after curing himself of malaria. After treating the Maharaja, Honigberger went to Calcutta, where he became known as the "cholera doctor" after his successful homeopathic treatment of cholera. In 1867 Dr Salzar from Vienna began teaching homeopathy in India, and two of his students opened the first homeopathic college in India in 1878. The British occupiers were, however, not very favourable to homeopathy, so it did not flourish until after India gained independence in 1947. |
|
 © Rynio Productions - Fotolia.com |
Facts: The new science of water Regardless of the public ridicule met by his compatriot Jacques Benveniste for his theory that water has a memory, virologist and Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier has now confirmed that water indeed stores frequencies, and this also applies to the dilutions used in homeopathy. Montagnier, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the link between HIV and AIDS, |
|
found that solutions containing the DNA of viruses and bacteria can "emit low-frequency radio waves". These waves influence surrounding molecules and cause them to organise into nanostructures. These organised molecules in turn are also able to emit waves. Confirming what homeopaths have claimed for centuries, Montagnier discovered that the information-emitting waves remain in the water after dilution, often down to dilution levels commonly used in homeopathy (Interdisciplinary Science, 2009; 1: 81-90). Montagnier's discoveries corroborate those of the French immunologist Jacques Benveniste, who spent his last 15 years researching water and its ability to "remember" substances even when they have been highly diluted. But after he published his original paper in the prestigious journal Nature (Nature 1988; 333: 816-8), Benveniste was visited in his laboratory by the journal's editor John Maddox and the "quackbuster" James Randi. They claimed Benveniste had been unable to reproduce the findings that had inspired his report, effectively accused him of "quackery" and ruined his reputation. |
|
|
Facts: Not just water Scientists and doctors call homeopathy nonsense because the active ingredients are so heavily diluted. Most remedies are diluted beyond Avogadro's number – the smallest concentration at which molecules of the original substance could still be present. Any homeopathic remedy at potency C12 (= 1,200 dilution steps) and above lies beyond Avogadro's number, so theoretically it should consist only of water. Skeptics therefore argue that any effect of a homeopathic remedy must be a placebo effect or a "feel-good factor". But homeopathy turns conventional science and medicine on its head: it claims higher dilutions are more potent, so that the remedy's strength increases the more often it is diluted. Conventional science has no explanatory model for the efficacy of homeopathy, and yet a meta-analysis of 75 studies concluded that 67 of them showed an effect well beyond a placebo effect (Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2007; 15: 128-38). These effects could even be detected with highly sophisticated measurement techniques such as
|
|
|
Facts: Homeopathy and the NHS The National Health Service (NHS) of Great Britain spends about £100 billion annually, of which £4 million goes on homeopathy, mainly funding the four homeopathic hospitals in the United Kingdom. Even though this expenditure is negligible, doctors continue to call for its complete abolition. Medical groups have pressured Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to stop offering homeopathic treatment to their patients, while the British Medical Association (BMA) – the doctors' union – has urged the UK government to ban homeopathy entirely. At the BMA meeting where one doctor called homeopathy "nonsense on stilts", the government was also urged to place all homeopathic remedies in pharmacies in a special "placebo section" (Mail Online, 2 July 2010; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290861/Homeopathy-remedies-labelled-placebos-banned-NHS-say-leading-doctors.html). |
|
| More titles on homeopathy and cancer can be found here | |
|
Contacts/further links
|
|
