Homeopathy Research Institute Reveals Flaws in Australian Study

The HRI or Homeopathy Research Institute does an incredible amount of scientific analysis and research.

The anti-homeopathy report published by the Australian Research Council has been questioned by their scientific experts and others. The HRI make some impressive points and bring up significant doubts about the report’s validity which have yet to be addressed by the Australian Council.

  • NHMRC did the homeopathy review twice, producing two reports, one in July 2012 and the one released to the public in March 2015.
  • The existence of the first report has never been disclosed to the public – it was only discovered through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
  • NHMRC say they rejected the first report because it was poor quality despite it being undertaken by a reputable scientist and author of NHMRC’s own guidelines on how to conduct evidence reviews.
  • FOI requests have revealed that a member of NHMRC’s expert committee overseeing the review process – Professor Fred Mendelsohn – confirmed the first review to be high quality saying –  “I am impressed by the rigor, thoroughness and systematic approach given to this evaluation [….] Overall, a lot of excellent work has gone into this review and the results are presented in a systematic, unbiased and convincing manner.” 
  • NHMRC said the results of the second report published in 2015 were based on a “rigorous assessment of over 1800 studies”. In fact results were based on only 176 studies.
  • NHMRC used a method that has never been used in any other review, before or sinceNHMRC decided that for trials to be ‘reliable’ they had to have at least 150 participants and reach an unusually high threshold for quality. This is despite the fact that NHMRC itself routinely conducts studies with less than 150 participants.
  • These unprecedented and arbitrary rules meant the results of 171 of the trials were completely disregarded as being ‘unreliable’ leavingonly 5 trials NHMRC considered to be ‘reliable’. As they assessed all 5 of these trials as negative, this explains how NHMRC could conclude that there was no ‘reliable’ evidence.
  • Professor Peter Brooks, Chair of the NHMRC committee that conducted the 2015 review, signed conflict of interest formdeclaring he was not “affiliated or associated with any organisation whose interests are either aligned with or opposed to homeopathy”,despite being a member of anti-homeopathy lobby group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’
  • NHMRC’s guidelines state that such committees must include experts on the topic being reviewed, yet there was not one homeopathy expert on this committee.

 

Advertisements

Remarkable Cure of Brain Cancer Leads to Study of Homeopathy

In this video, Gemma Hoefkens describes her amazing experience of being treated by homeopathy whilst having end stage terminal brain cancer. After conventional treatment was given to no avail, she was given months to live. Her homeopathic treatment led to a remarkable improvement to the point where she studied and became a homeopath.

 

In Vitro Study Shows Homeopathy Preparations Have Significant Antimalarial Activity

A study published in the International Journal of Medical and Health Research has shown that the Malaria Nosode and the homeopathic remedies Malaria officialis and China officialis inhibits heme crystallization in Malaria infections. The study was done at the Department of Pharmacology in Nair Ch. Hospital, Mumbai, India.

The study has shown anti-disease activity of an ultra-dilute (potentized) homeopathic preparation. The Malaria nosode prepared by potentizing Plasmodium falciparum organisms has demonstrated antimalarial activity, which supports the basic principle behind homeopathy, the law of similar.

Digestion of hemoglobin in the food vacuole of the malaria parasite produces very high quantities of redox active toxic free heme. Hemozoin (beta-hematin) formation is a unique process adopted by Plasmodium species to detoxify free heme. Hemozoin formation is a validated target for most of the well- known existing antimalarial drugs and considered to be a suitable target to develop new anti-malarial agents. The possible mechanisms of free heme detoxification in the malaria parasite and the mechanistic details of compounds, which offer antimalarial activity by inhibiting hemozoin formation, is the current area of research.

In the given study, all the three samples Malaria nosode 30c (coded as PFA), Malaria officinalis 30c and China officinalis 30c exhibited inhibition of hemozoin and the inhibition was greater than the positive control Chloroquine diphosphate used in the study. All the three samples when used in various combinations also exhibited inhibition greater than the positive control. The vehicle controls alcohol and potentized alcohol had also exhibited inhibition but the inhibition of samples was greater than the controls used.

International Journal of Medical and Health Research ISSN: 2454-9142, Impact Factor: RJIF 5.54 http://www.medicalsciencejournal.com
Volume 3; Issue 7; July 2017; Page No. 65-68

Public Health Expert Criticizes USA’s FDA for New Homeopathy Regulations

Public health expert, Dana Ullman has written an article on Mercola.com that is critical of the United States Food and Drug Agency for going after homeopathic remedies instead of dealing with the pharmaceutical industry’s serious problems.

On this web site we have written a number of articles on how the pharmaceutical industry and medical industry attacks homeopathy to deflect the dangerous effects of pharmaceutical drugs. Even though homeopathy has a remarkable 200 year history of safety, the FDA, which is supposed to deal with these issues, is doing the same. This is to deflect its inability to deal with pressing issues that are causing serious harm and death such as the opioid crisis and conventional pharmacuetical drugs that have caused thousands of serious side effects including death for those taking them. Since homeopathic remedies have such a profound history of safety, (especially relative to the pharmaceutical industry), the only way they can create more regulations for homeopathic remedies is to judge that homeopathic remedies “might” cause problems.

Dana Ullman, MPH, Masters of Public Health says:

The FDA does not have a history of going after any Big Pharma company on the grounds that a drug “might” cause problems (some potential problems of the FDA prohibiting access to certain homeopathic medicines based on theoretical grounds are discussed later in this article). The previous FDA guidelines have been in use since 1988, and these guidelines provide specificity as to how homeopathic medicines can be marketed and sold.
In contrast, the new guidelines seem to allow the FDA to provide enforcement based on a vague and undefined “risk/benefit” that could change from one year or decade to another. Further, homeopathic medicines have an impressive record of safety, with relatively rare exceptions.

Read more in his article…