Monthly Archives: April 2019

Homeopathy and Haemophilia

Haemophilia let us look at the work that has been executed by Dr.Tapas Kundu and his team.

The first research paper was successfully published in www.sciencedirect.com in 2011, which reads:

Homoeopathic Medicines substantially reduced the need for clotting factor concentrates in haemophilia patients; results of a blinded, placebo controlled cross over trial.

This was a single blind placebo trial in 28 persons with severe (24) and moderately severe (4) patients of haemophilia. This study was conducted over a period of two years. During the firstyear,patients were given placebo and during the second year, acute medication was prescribed as and when the need arose, and also a deeper constitutional remedy was simultaneously administered. If the patient did not respond in the first six hours of medication, they were given factor concentrates.

During the first year there were a total of 203 bleeding episodes in 28 patients. This had come down to a phenomenal 28 bleeding episodes in the second year of observation with homeopathic remedies. The pain score and behavioural scores improved significantly and so did the need for analgesics. No patient developed inhibitors!

Arnica, Ledum pal, Mag phos and Hypericum were most useful for pain while Arnica Hamamelis andMillefolium were of use in acute bleeding. Calc flour was of great help with haemophilic synovitis. Millefolium proved its worth in the acute phase. Causticum, Calcarea carb, Heparsulph and Lachesis were the deep acting remedies that suited 16/28 patients.

The second research publication was in 2015 in the Journal of Traditional Medicine & Clinical Naturopathy which reads:

Management of Acute Bleeding in Severe Haemophilia using Homoeopathic Medicines: a Multicentric Case Series

The analysis of this paper was done from 2007 till 2014 involving 494 patients with ages between 9-51 years. Of 578 bleeding episodes, a staggering 91%of them responded successfully with homeopathic medicines, while 3.1% did not and factor substitutes had to be given. Patients who had inhibitors also responded 65% of the time. Pain was relieved in 83% of the cases.

The 636 bleeding episodes in the seven years of study included, epistaxis, bleeding from the gums, haematuria and miscellaneous bleeding. Hamamelis Q was found effective for open bleeding and was applied over the area for about 15-20 minutes. Arnica 30, Ledum pal 30 or Rhus tox 30 were the frequently used medicines apart from Merc sol, Calc carb, Sepia, Sulphur, Silicea, Veratrum alb, Tuberculinum, Medorrhinum, Lachesis, Lycopodium, Phosphorus, Pulsatilla etc. as and when the symptoms corresponded. These were given every half an hour and when there was no response in a fourhour period, factor precipitates were resorted to, to achieve haemostasis.

It was found that most of the cases responded with stoppage of bleeding within half an hour and pain was relieved within a two hour period.

Standard biochemical, haematological, grouping, cross matching and coagulation work up was done as per the clinical requirement and situation. Dr.Kanjaksha Ghosh(Director, National Institute of Haematology), Surgeon-Dr.Sudhir Kulkarni and Dr.Ranjana Kulkarni clinically evaluated the effects of homeopathic medicine single-blinded, and provided factor concentrates whenever possible. Apart from Dr.Tapas Kundu, Dr.Afroz Shaikh, Dr.Priyanka Singh andDr.Afiya Shaikh were the prescribing homeopathic physicians.

The third research study was published in Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine in 2017 and is available as reprint in sagepub.com. The title of the paper is:

An Exploratory Study of Autonomic Function Investigations in Haemophiliacs on Homeopathy Medications Using Impedance Plethysmography

A medical analyzer system helps in finding the heart rate variability (HRV) and blood flow variability (BFV). It has been found that the autonomic nervous system has an impact on homoeostasis. This is measured by the medical analyzer system produced by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. It has been proven that HRV and BFV arefound more often in haemophiliacs than in the normal population.

A total of 80 subjects were studied amongst which were 18 healthy controls and 62 were severe haemophiliacs where Factor VIII was less than one percent. Heart rate and peripheral blood flow were recorded over one hour in all the subjects.

Amongst the 62 haemophiliacs, 49 were on individualized homoeopathic medicines and 13 were not on individualized medicines. Amongst the 49 haemophiliacs, 34 were feeling better symptomatically while 12 were not better. Three patients were not recorded due to technical limitations.

It was found that there was a decrease in parasympathetic activity in haemophiliac patients taking homoeopathic medicines, which suggests that the BFV is impacted by reducing vagal input to the heart, allowing the sympathetic system to respond to stress and haemostasis.

The fourth research study was published in Complementary Medicine Research in May 2018, titled:

Homoeopathic Medicine Reduces Pain and Haemarthrosis in Moderate and Severe Haemophilia: A Multicentric study

This study was done over a period between 2007 and March 2014 with 1679 episodes of haemarthrosis in 343 patients with haemophilia. This study included the knee joints, shoulder joints, elbows, ankles and the wrists. This also included patients who had already developed inhibitors but still responded to homeopathic medication.

In 23 patients, 99 episodes could not be managed with homeopathic medicines and required factor concentrate infusion. But a staggering 1550 plus episodes of pain in the joints due to haemarthrosis responded to homeopathic medication. The progression of improvement was seen in six hours. It was studied as reduction in the joint swelling, reduction of joint girth and relief of pain.

If the improvement did not occur in 24 hours they were told to resort to factor concentrates. The following remedies were prescribed on symptom similarity in lower trituritions. Arsenic alb, Belladonna, Apismellifica, Calc carb, Calc flour, Bryonia, Rhus tox, Sepia, Sulphur, Silicea, Veratrum album, Tuberculinum, Medorrhinum, Thuja, Sticta, Stellaria media, Ledum pal, Lachesis, Lycopodium, Phosphorus and Pulsatilla. If the change did not happen in two hours of starting the medicines, they were re-assessed and changed, which accounted for 497 episodes of the total 2173 occasions.

This study was helpful as homeopathic remedies have been able to arrest bleeding apart from providing significant pain relief, and they reduced the long-term tendency of frequent joint bleeds in a significant number of patients.

As always, observation was done by seasoned allopathic doctors who were unaware of the nature of the homoeopathic medicines given.

The fifth research publication was published in European Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences in April 2018, titled:

Effective Management of Haemophilia patients with a combined therapy to reduce cost: A New Approach

This study measured the work done by the centres of Dr.Tapas Kundu and was accepted for publication. This showed that the periodic medical camps at different cities treating haemophilia patients with homoeopathic remedies have met with remarkable success in reducing the clotting times and gaps between hospital visits for transfusion concentrates, causing improvement in general health, a feeling of well-being and considerably bringing down the cost of overall management of haemophilia. All of this brings a ray of hope to the poor patients.


Bigpharma what is really going on 😖

<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12561803&quot; data-href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12561803&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>in chief of the NEJM said this in 2002

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful”

The people in charge of the system — the editors of the most important medical journals in the world, gradually learn over a few decades that their life’s work is being slowly and steadily corrupted. Physicians and universities have allowed themselves to be bribed.

The examples in medicine are everywhere. Research is almost always paid for by pharmaceutical companies. But studies done by industry are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679560&quot; data-href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679560&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>well known to have positive results far more frequently. Trials run by industry are 70% more likely than government funded trials to show a positive result. Think about that for a second. If EBM says that 2+2 = 5 is correct 70% of the time, would you trust this sort of ‘science’?

Selective Publication— Negative trials (those that show no benefit for the drugs) are likely to be suppressed. For example, <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779#t=abstract&quot; data-href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779#t=abstract&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>in the case of antidepressants, 36/37 studies that were favourable to drugs were published. But of the studies not favorable to drugs, a paltry 3/36 were published. Selective publication of positive (for the drug company) results means that a review of the literature would suggest that 94% of studies favor drugs where in truth, only 51% were actually positive. Suppose you know that your stockbroker publishes all his winning trades, but suppresses all his losing trades. Would you trust him with your money? But yet, we trust EBM with our lives, even though the same thing is happening.

Let’s look at the following graph of the number of trials completed versus those that were published. In 2008, the company Sanofi completed 92 studies but only a piddly 14 were published. Who gets to decide which gets published and which does not? Right. Sanofi. Which ones do you think will be published? The ones that favor its drugs, or the ones that prove their drugs do not work? Right. Keep in mind that this is the only rational course of action for Sanofi, or any other company to pursue. It’s idiotic to publish data that harms yourself. It’s financial suicide. So this sort of rational behavior will happen now, and it will not stop in the future. But knowing this, why do we still believe the evidence based medicine, when the evidence base is completely biased? An outside observer, only looking at all published data, will conclude that the drugs are far, far more effective than they are in reality. Yet, if you point this out in academic circles, people label you a quack, who does not ‘believe the evidence’.

Rigging of Outcomes— Or consider the example of registration of primary outcomes. Prior to year 2000, companies doing trials did not need to declare what end points they measured. So they measure many different endpoints and simply figured out which one looked best and then declared the trial a success. Kind of like tossing a coin, looking at which one come up more, and saying that they were backing the winning side. If you measured enough outcomes, something was bound to come up positive.

In 2000, the government moved to stop these shenanigans. They required companies to register what they were measuring ahead of time. Prior to 2000, 57% of trials showed a positive result. After 2000, a paltry 8% showed good results. More evidence of the evidence base being completely corrupted by commercial interest, and the academic physicians who were getting rich on it tacitly allowing corruption because they know that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you

‘Advertorials’— Or this example of a r<a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1001086&quot; data-href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1001086&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>eview paper in the NEJM that fracture rates caused by the lucrative bisphosphonate drugs were “very rare”. Not only did the drug companies pay lots of consulting fees to the doctors, three of the authors of this review were full time employees! To allow an advertorial to be published as the best scientific fact is scandalous. Doctors, trusting the NEJM to publish quality, unbiased advice have no idea that this review article is pure advertising. Yet, we still consider the NEJM to be the very pinnacle of evidence based medicine. Instead, as all the editors of the journals sadly recognize, it has become lucre-based publishing. Mo money = better results.

Money from Reprints— The <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/&quot; data-href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>reasons for this problem is obvious to all— it’s insanely profitable for journals to take money from Big Pharma. Journals want to be read. So they all try to get a high Impact Factor (IF). To do this, you need to get cited by other authors. And nothing boosts ratings like a blockbuster produced by Big Pharma. They have the contacts and the sales force to make any study a landmark. A less obvious benefit is the fees that are generated by Big Pharma purchasing articles for reprint. If a company publishes an article in the NEJM, they may order several hundred thousand copies of the article to be distributed to unsuspecting doctors everywhere. These fees are not trivial. The NEJM publisher Massachusetts Medical Society gets 23% of its income from reprints. The Lancet — 41%. The American Medical Association — a gut busting 53%. No wonder these journals are ready to sell their readers (ordinary physicians) down the river. It pays. Who needs journalistic ethics when there’s a Mercedes in the driveway? Mo money, baby. Mo money.

Bribery of Journal Editors— A <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4619&quot; data-href="http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4619&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>recent study by Liu et al in the BMJ shed more light on the problem of crooked journals. Crooked journal editors. Editors play a crucial role in determining the scientific dialogue by deciding which manuscripts are published. They determine who the peer reviewers are. Using the Open Payments database, they looked at how much money the editors of the most influential journals in the world were taking from industry sources. This includes ‘research’ payments, which are largely unregulated. As mention previously, much ‘research’ consists of going to meetings in exotic locale. It funny how many conferences are held in beautiful European cities like Barcelona, and how few are done in brutally cold Quebec City.

Of all journal editors that could be assessed, 50.6% were on the take. The average payment in 2014 was $27,564. Each. This does not include an average $37, 330 given for ‘research’ payments. Other particularly corrupt journals include:

This is slightly horrifying. Each editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology received, on average $475 072 personally and another $119 407 for ‘research’. With 35 editors, that’s about $15 million in bribes to doctors. No wonder the JACC loves drugs and devices. It pays the private school bills. Mo money = we’ll publish your crooked studies for you. Mo money, baby, mo money.

Publication Bias —The evidence base that EBM depends upon is completely biased. Some people think I’m really anti-Pharma, but this is not really true. Big Pharma companies have a duty to their shareholders to make money. They have no duty to patients. On the other hand, doctors have a duty to patients. Universities have a duty to remain unbiased.

It is the failure of doctors and universities to keep their greedy paws out of the corrupting influence of Big Pharma money that is the problem. If Big Pharma is allowed to spend lots of $$$ paying off doctors and universities and professors, then it should do so to maximize profits. That is their mission statement. Doctors love to blame Big Pharma companies because it takes peoples gaze off the real problem — lots of doctors taking $$$ from anybody who will pay. The pharma industry is not the problem. Bribery of university doctors is the problem — one that is easily fixed if the political will exists.

Consider <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ene.13336/pdf&quot; data-href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ene.13336/pdf&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>this study. Looking at studies in the field of neurodegenerative disease, researchers looked at all the studies that were started but never finished or never published. Approximately 28% of studies never made it to the finish line. That’s a problem. If all the studies that don’t look promising for drug candidates are not published, then it appears that the drugs are way way more effective than they really are. But the published ‘evidence base’ would falsely support the drug. Indeed, Pharma sponsored trials were 5 times more likely to be unpublished.

Imagine you have a coin flipping contest. Suppose a player call ‘Big Pharma” chooses heads, and also pays the coin flipper. Every time the coin flipper pulls up tails, the results don’t count. Every time it comes up heads, it counts. This happens 28% of the time. Now, instead of a 50/50 split of heads and tails, it’s more like a 66/34 split of heads/tails. So the ‘evidence based medicine’ lover claims that heads is far more likely to come up than tails, and castigates people who don’t believe the results as ‘anti-science’.

Evidence based medicine depends entirely upon having a reliable base of evidence (studies). If the evidence base is tampered with, and paid for, then EBM as a science is completely useless. Indeed, the very editors whose entire careers have been EBM have now discovered it to be worthless. Does the CEO of Phillip Morris (maker of Marlboro cigarettes) smoke? That tells you all you need to know about the health risks. Do the editors of the NEJM and the Lancet believe EBM anymore? Not at all. So neither should we. We can’t believe evidence based medicine until the evidence has been cleaned up from the corrupting influence of commercial interests.

Financial conflicts of interest (COI), also known as gifts to doctors, is a well accepted practice. A national survey in the <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa064508&quot; data-href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa064508&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 shows that 94% of physicians had ties to the pharmaceutical industry. This gravy train only rides in one direction. From Big Pharma to the wallets of doctors. Sure Big Pharma can simply pay doctors directly, and it does plenty of that. It’s no surprise that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20672554&quot; data-href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20672554&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>medical students with more exposure to pharmaceutical reps develop a more positive attitude towards them. Many medical schools have limited exposure of medical students in response, but declined to get off the gravy train themselves. There is a simple relationship between how prominent a physician is (more articles published — almost always academic doctors and professors) and how much money they take from Big Pharma. Mo prominent = mo money. Further, there is a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20299696&quot; data-href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20299696&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>‘clear and strong link’ between taking industry money and minimizing the risk of side effects of medications. What, you thought people teach at prestigious institutions like universities for the good of mankind? Maybe that’s why they went there, but that’s not why they stay. They came for the science. They stayed for the money.

So here’s a damning list of all the problems of EBM

  1. Selective Publication
  2. Rigged outcomes
  3. Advertorials
  4. Reprint Revenues
  5. Bribery of Journal Editors
  6. Publication Bias
  7. Financial Conflicts of Interests

When the evidence base of medicine is bought and paid for, people die. That is how doctors have created this opioid crisis that kills thousands of people. Pharmaceutical companies want to pay off doctors, just as drug lord want to pay off judges and police officers. Doctors, being human, should put safeguards against this temptation. Unfortunately, doctors and universities have been willing participants in this <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NathanGillOfficial/videos/2134121280141545/&quot; data-href="https://www.facebook.com/NathanGillOfficial/videos/2134121280141545/&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>game of killing for profit. We need to end it now. End the corruption of the universities. Stop the bribery of doctors.

<a href="https://www.dietdoctor.com/live-stream-big-food-big-pharma-killing-profit&quot; data-href="https://www.dietdoctor.com/live-stream-big-food-big-pharma-killing-profit&quot; class="markup–anchor markup–p-anchor" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; color: inherit; text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.541176); background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml; utf8, “); background-size: 1px 1px; background-position: 0px calc(1em + 1px); background-repeat: repeat no-repeat”>Dr. Aseem Malhotra will be speaking about this very issue to the European Parliament this Thursday.


Homeopathyworks


A happy homeopathic fan writes in………👍🏼⭐️


Teething and Homeopathic’s

https://pin.it/ns5vanhz2nltmx


%d bloggers like this: