scienceofhomeopathy.com Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes A novel treatment for human brain cancer INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 23: 975-982, 2003 975 SEN PATHAK1,2, ASHA S. MULTANI1, PRATIP BANERJI3 and PRASANTA BANERJI3 Departments of (1) Cancer Biology and (2) Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; (3)PBH Research Foundation, 10/3/1 Elgin Road, Kolkata 700 020, West Bengal, India www.virtualtrials.com Can homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth? Jonas WB, Gaddipati JP, Rajeshkumar NV, Sharma A, Thangapazham RL, Warren J, Singh AK, Ives JA, Olsen C, Mog SR, Maheshwari RK. Samueli Institute, 1700 Diagonal Road, Suite 400, Alexandria, VA www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models. Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):362-72 Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Effect of Homeopathic Medicines on Transplanted Tumors in Mice ES Sunila, Girija Kuttan, Preethi KC, Ramadasan Kuttan* Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev, 8, 390-394 www.apocp.org Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences Luc MONTAGNIER, Jamal A¨ISSA, Stephane FERRIS, Jean-Luc MONTAGNIER, Claude LAVALLEE www.springerlink.com JOSEPHSON: NOBEL PRIZE WINNING


  1. @GetMeThere1 Some are. But anyone who cares to look can read the literature for themselves now online, or at least abstracts. There is actually quite a long history of people who had remissions of cancer after homeoapthic treatment. This of course doesn’t go down well with non homeopathic ontology and rationalists like yourself. And admittedly homeopathy doesn’t fit the usual law of mass opposition preferred by most people.

  2. @Bandershot : People aren’t COMPLETELY fools, and people aren’t that self-destructive. It the studies were really THERE, SOLIDLY, it wouldn’t be ignored. There ARE a few scientists with a foot in each camp–they would be sounding the sirens if there was hard, irrefutable evidence that homeopathy worked–especially for something as significant as cancer.

    What there IS, is a few bits of “hopeful” info to feed YOUR rationalizations about homeopathy.

  3. @GetMeThere1 The first critcism of skeptics is that there are no scientific studies to support homeopathy. WHen we show that there are, sketpics say they’renot good enough. WHen we show them to be RCT’s pub’d in peer reviewed non homeoapthic journals, you say that anyone can find astudy to support his position . . except you, or course. Homeoapthy is as popular as it is because it works.

  4. Everybody trying to make a point can always find some (obscure) scientific paper somewhere that seems to support them. Creationists try to do it all the time. And in fact, there have been COUNTLESS papers purporting to show drug effects that were subsequently unable to be repeated.

    The fact is that homeopathic “researchers” have tried very hard to present evidence to skeptics, and haven’t yet made much of a case. If it really worked it would be easy to show it–it’s apparently not.

  5. @singring76 I can see why you’re signing your commentary “Idiot.” What you don’t want to know is that potentization refers to the succussion & dilution process that gives homeopathic remedies their strength. They were testing ionized water. Why would they “potentize” a control? LOL. You’re trying to convince yourself you know more about it than they do, twisting
    “potentized deionized water” around to mean “control.”

  6. @singring76

    You know, if you are going to cite studies in your videos, it may be a good idea to actually read them and be able to understand the findings. Just a hint…

  7. @singring76

    From the Material and Methods section:

    ‘homeopathic preparations of Sabal serrulata […] as well as homeopathically succussed deionized water..’

    ‘200 CH succussed water (DiUF 200 CH) mice treated
    with 100 μL of 200 CH potentized water’

    The solvent control was WATER. Potentized – but WATER, no ingredients. This is precisely why the authors discussd the possibility of the succussion process leeching active ions from the containers as a possible explanation for the effect seen!

  8. @Bandershot

    No need to consult the authors if you are an educated scientist. A scientifically illiterate ignoramus such as yourself would of course not know that in science, a control is a treatement using the carrier solvent WITHOUT the active ingredient, in this case Sabal serrulata. In other words, the ‘potentized’ control was deionized water! Plain and simple. And since the deionized water ALSO significantly reduced the tumor size, the results are INCONCLUSIVE! Idiot.

  9. @singring76 And you’re so smart that you can tell without having clarified any ot this with the authors, that because of what you’re insisting the definition of potentized is, the study’s conclusions are wrong? You’re desperate. Thanks for showing us all the limits of “rationalism” and in particular, your intelligence. What do you think the deionized water was potentized with, Einstein? Ionized water?

  10. @Bandershot

    The potentized deionized water was NOT a homeopathic remedy but a CONTROL which is why it is called a CONTROL idiot! You are apparently – as I suspected – scientifically illiterate or so boneheaded you are incapable of even picking up on results within YOUR OWN SOURCES that contradict your fanatical beliefs. I kind of suspected that when you stated that homeopathic treatment should be ‘bakced up’ by PRAYER?! LOL….

  11. When you get cancer, we’ll use homeopathic remedies rather than modern medicine then

  12. @singring76 Samueli was founded by Wayne Jonas, an MD & former dir. of the NIH. Jonas participated in most of the studies. Dig deeper, find Jonas did biological & NMR studies of hpathy at Walter Reed. But Samueli isn’t the only homeontological org. Look at MD Anderson. Question to you is why do you think you & others posing as “rationalists” have such a hard on about homeopathy? We now know what it is chemically, why don’t you?

  13. @singring76 Ok you idiot, it says “POTENTIZED,” not NON potentized! Apparently you’ve twisted this around to mean YOU THINK that because deionized water was used it meant IT WASN’T HOMEOAPTHIC! LOL! i.e. a repeating phenom in “rationalist” thinking: Twist some NON REF’d statement to fit what YOU want to believe, which you then use as your “license” for another put down, proving ONCE AGAIN the opposition to homeopathy is idiotic, not scientific.

  14. I also notice that ALL of the studies you cite were funded by the ‘Samueli Foundation’, an ‘alternative medicine’ funding body. What a ‘coincidence’!

  15. @Bandershot

    Page 367, bottom:

    ‘Animals treated with
    potentized deionized water showed reduced tumor
    growth as well when compared to untreated controls
    (P = .048).’

    Apparently you are unable to read your own citations.

  16. @singring76 Why haven’t you cited your claim? The study states: “In vivo, prostate tumor xenograft size was significantly reduced in Sabal serrulata-treated mice compared to untreated controls (P=.012) . . Our study clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth. This biologic effect was (i)significantly stronger to Sabal serrulata than to controls and (ii)specific to human prostate cancer. “

  17. @singring76 You’ve implied twice now that the solvent control affected cancer growth without quoting anything from the study to support it, contradicting the authors conclusion: “Our study clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth.” So far, you’re the one who seems to be picking cherries, and they appear to be rotten. Correct me! Where in the study do we find what you’re asserting? Use a quote from the study, please.

  18. @Bandershot

    ‘”In vivo, prostate tumor xenograft size was significantly reduced in Sabal serrulata-treated mice compared to untreated controls (P=.012) ‘

    To the UNTREATED control, yes. But unfortunately, the solvent control (which is the more informative one as you should know) ALSO was significantly different to the control. Which makes the results inconclusive. The fact that you don’t mention this in your video is a clear indication that you cherry-pick your results, as expected.

  19. @singring76 The silica hypothesis was postualeted in response by Milgrom to extensive NMR testing done by French applied phsyics team Rolland Conte et al; but it doesn’t explain differences detected within homeopathic solutions. See Demangeat’s NMR studies for more on this. Silica may simply be amplifying the signal. Google gas hyrdates; clathrates, Anagnostatos; nanobubbles; Rustum Roy.

  20. Well, I checked that Amri paper and as expected you ‘omitted’ certain results from that study.

    1.) Tumor growth was significantly supressed by the homeopatic remedy AND the carrying solvent control. Therefore, no conclusive result.

    2.) In the discussion, the authors give an extended explanation for how homeopathic remedies may have effects due to leeching of components from glass containers during preparation which they admit they did NOT include as control.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *