Bromelain – Find health with the healing qualities of proteolytic enzymes

(NaturalNews) Pineapples have long had a tradition for their healing qualities among the natives of Central and South America. Bromelain is a powerful proteolytic enzyme from the juice and stems of pineapples. It is very helpful for aiding the digestive processes. It has also shown very powerful anti-inflammatory properties that have caught the attention of nutritional researchers. Bromelain can refer to either of 2 enzymes: Stem Bromelain and Fruit Bromelain. These are referred to as sulfhydryl proteases since a cysteine side-chain of free sulfhydryl group is present in the structure. The stem form is the most common commercial source due to the wide availability after the fruit is harvested. (1-2) Bromelain has been used as a therapeutic supplement since 1957. Research was first conducted in Hawaii but has now spread around the world. Germany is the most involved in research on this unique nutrient. Bromelain is currently the thirteenth most used herbal supplement in Germany. (1-2) Bromelain has shown through a number of research studies to be effective at modulating inflammation and lessening the severity of a number of inflammatory based diseases. These include multiple sclerosis, pleurisy, arteriosclerosis, osteoarthritis, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis and allergic asthma. (3-16) Bromelain is also great at relieving sinus congestion. Bromelain has been shown to ease congestion, reduce nasal mucous and heal areas of swelling by mediating the inflammation caused by infection or hay fever. The German Commission E approved bromelain for the treatment of sinus and nasal swelling following ear, nose, and throat surgery or trauma. Bromelain has been shown to remove certain CD128 receptors for interleukin-8 (IL-8). IL-8 is an immune cell that stimulates neutrophil activation. Increased neutrophil activation is associated with increased inflammation. By modulating the receptors for IL-8, bromelain helps control this immune reaction. Other studies have shown bromelain to effectively reduce other known inflammatory prostaglandins, cytokines, and chemokines. (17, 18) Bromelain has shown itself to be comparable to strong anti-inflammatory drugs such as dexamethasone and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs). While these medications can be addictive and have very dangerous side effects, bromelain is non-addictive and side effects happen less often than what occurs with these medications. Most common side effects associated with bromelain include nausea, diarrhea and indigestion. Other side effects include tachycardia, fatigue and heavy menstruation. People with allergies to pineapple should avoid bromelain. Allergic reactions may also occur in people who are intolerant to celery, fennel, carrot, papain, and latex. People with peptic ulcers should not use bromelain either. Bromelain and supplements utilizing this enzyme are particularly useful for athletes and people involved in intense exercise. Although studies show mixed results, bromelain may reduce swelling, bruising, healing time, and pain following surgery and physical injuries. It is often used to reduce inflammation associated with tendinitis, sprains and strains, and with other minor muscle injuries such as delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). (19,20) DOMS is the typical muscle soreness associated with an intense bout of exercise. Athletes and lay people frequently encounter DOMS as they alternate training frequency, intensity and time periods. A 2004 study showed that bromelain in combination with other proteolytic enzymes significantly reduced DOMS in downhill runners. (21) http://altmedicine.about.com/cs/herbsvitaminsa1/a/Bromelain.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516972/?tool=pubmed http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/bromelain-000289.htm [Editor`s Note: NaturalNews is strongly against the use of all forms of animal testing. We fully support implementation of humane medical experimentation that promotes the health and wellbeing of all living creatures.] 1.Maurer HR. Bromelain: biochemistry, pharmacology and medical use. Cell and Molec Life Sci. 2001;58:1234-1245. [PubMed] 2.Taussig SJ, Batkin S. Bromelain, the enzyme complex of pineapple (Ananas comosus) and its clinical application. An update. J Ethnopharmacol. 1988;22:191-203. [PubMed] 3.Brien S, Lewith G, Walker A (2004). “Bromelain as a Treatment for Osteoarthritis: a Review of Clinical Studies”. Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine: eCAM. 1 (3): 251-257. doi:10.1093/ecam/neh035. PMC 538506. PMID 15841258. 4.Hale LP, Chichlowski M, Trinh CT, Greer PK (2010). “Dietary supplementation with fresh pineapple juice decreases inflammation and colonic neoplasia in IL-10-deficient mice with colitis”. Inflamm Bowel Dis 16 (12): 2012-21. PMID 20848493. 5.Majima M, Kawashima N, Hiroshi I, Katori M. Effects of an orally active non-peptide bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist, FR173657, on plasma exudation in rat carrageenin-induced pleurisy. Brit J Pharmacol. 1997;121:723-730. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 6.Ogino M, Majima M, Kawamura M, Hatanaka K, Saito M, Harada Y, Katori M. Increased migration of neutrophils to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in rat carrageenin-induced pleurisy: roles of complement, bradykinin, and inducible cyclooxygenase-2. Inflamm Res. 1996;45:335-346. [PubMed] 7.Gaciong Z, Paczek L, Bojakowski K, Socha K, Wisniewski M, Heidland A. Beneficial effect of proteases on allograft arteriosclerosis in a rat aortic model. Nephrol Dialysis, Transplant. 1996;11:987-989. 8.Wittenborg A, Bock PR, Hanisch J, Saller R, Schneider B. Comparative epidemiological study in patients with rheumatic diseases illustrated in a example of a treatment with non-steroidal anti- inflammatory drugs versus an oral enzyme combination preparation. Arzneimittel-Forschung. 2000;50:728-738. [PubMed] 9.Brown AC. Lupus erythematosus and nutrition: a review of the literature. J Renal Nutrit. 2000;10:170-183. 10. Akhtar NM, Naseer R, Farooqi AZ, Aziz W, Nazir M. Oral enzyme combination versus diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee – a double-blind prospective randomized study. Clin Rheumatol. 2004;23:410-415. 11.Secor ER, Jr, Carson WF, IV, Cloutier MM, Guernsey LA, Schramm CM, Wu CA, Thrall RS. Bromelain exerts anti-inflammatory effects in an ovalbumin-induced murine model of allergic airway disease. Clin Immunol. 2005;237:68-75. 12.Rovenska E, Svik K, Stancikova M, Rovensky J. Enzyme and combination therapy with cyclosporin A in the rat developing adjuvant arthritis. Inter J Tiss React. 1999;21:105-111. 13.Thornhill SM, Kelly AM. Natural treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. Alternative Med Rev. 2000;5:448-454. 14.Hale LP, Greer PK, Trinh CT, Gottfried MR. Treatment with oral bromelain decreases colonic inflammation in the IL-10-deficient murine model of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Immunol. 2005;116:135-142. [PubMed] 15.Kane S, Goldberg MJ. Use of bromelain for mild ulcerative colitis. Ann Int Med. 2000;132:680. [PubMed] 16.Rovenska E, Svik K, Stancikova M, Rovensky J. Inhibitory effect of enzyme therapy and combination therapy with cyclosporin A on collagen-induced arthritis. Clin ExpRheumatol. 2001;19:303-309. 17.Onken JE, Greer PK, Calingaert B, Hale LP. Bromelain treatment decreases secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines by colon biopsies in vitro. Clin Immunol. 2008 Mar;126(3):345-52. Epub 2007 Dec 21. 18.Fitzhugh DJ, Shan S, Dewhirst MW et al. (2008). Bromelain treatment decreases neutrophil migration to sites of inflammation. Clin Immunol. 128:66-74. 19.Masson M. Bromelain in blunt injuries of the locomotor system. A study of observed applications in general practice. Fortschritte der Medizin. 1995;113:303-306. [PubMed] 20.Buford TW, Cooke MB, Redd LL, Hudson GM, Shelmadine BD, Willoughby DS. Protease supplementation improves muscle function after eccentric exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Oct;41(10):1908-14. 21.Miller PC, Bailey SP, Barnes ME, Derr SJ, Hall EE The effects of protease supplementation on skeletal muscle function and DOMS following downhill running. J Sports Sci. 2004 Apr;22(4):365-72. About the author Dr. David Jockers owns and operates Exodus Health Center in Kennesaw, Ga. He is a Maximized Living doctor. His expertise is in weight loss, customized nutrition and exercise, and structural corrective chiropractic care. For more information go to www.exodushc.com To find a Maximized Living doctor near you go to www.maximizedliving.com

The age-old struggle against vaccination: A rebuttal by Jennifer Craig, PhD; Suzanne Humphries, MD; and Sherri Tenpenny, DO

(NaturalNews) In the January 13, 2011 the New England Journal of Medicine ( NEJM ), slipped away from its historically solid scientific moorings with the printing of “The Age-Old Struggle against the anti-vaccinationists,” by Poland and Jacobson. This reply is limited to just a few points; with so much misinformation in their article, it is not possible to address it all in one rebuttal. The idea that one disease, (cowpox) could prevent infection by another disease, (smallpox) was a rumor amongst dairymaids. Veterinarians and country physicians of the time knew the rumor was not true and it could easily have been disproved by simply asking patients with smallpox if they had had cowpox. But Jenner, although informed otherwise, was unwilling to believe the idea was false. He went ahead to test the theory on a single subject by spreading pus from cowpox sores into cuts he made in the arms of an eight-year old boy. The boy not only became ill, he developed ulcers on his arms that took months to heal. A few weeks later, he spread smallpox pus into more cuts. The boy did not get smallpox and thus the idea of smallpox vaccination was born. Poland and Jacobson’s first salvo, “In the 19th century, despite clear evidence of benefit, routine inoculation with cowpox to protect people against smallpox was hindered by a burgeoning anti-vaccination movement,” is simply not true. Apart from the obvious question of why most people did not accept this new treatment until citizens were forced into vaccination by the 1853 Compulsory Vaccination Act, the authors present nothing to back up their claim of “clear evidence” or any references to support their allegations. The most likely reason for this omission is there was no clear evidence of benefit – nor is there any clear benefit today. An 1888 report by Dr. William Farr, Compiler of Statistics of the Registrar General of London and the physician who is responsible for setting up the vital statistics we use today, stated the following: “Smallpox attained its maximum mortality after vaccination was introduced. The mean annual mortality per 10,000 population from 1850 to 1869 was at the rate of 2.04, whereas after compulsory vaccination in 1871, the death rate was 10.24. In 1872 the death rate was 8.33 and this was after the most laudable efforts to extend vaccination by legislative enactments.” Vital statistics and public records reveal a different story than the dogma of “clear evidence of benefit” propagated by the vaccinators. Mortality figures kept by Dr. Walter Hadwen in England from 1872 to 1921, including the vaccination rate per 100 births, show that as the vaccination rate went down, so did the death rate from smallpox. But Hadwen, like all who oppose vaccination, is accused by Poland and Jacobsen here and in their previous paper, of having “low cognitive complexity in thinking patterns and reasoning flaws.” With those deficits, we wonder how Walter Hadwen, J.P., M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., L.S.A., accumulated all those credentials. Vaccine pushers assume they can negate their opponents simply by calling them names and treating them as if they are stupid. In addition to Hadwen, two other nineteenth century physicians who opposed vaccination would no doubt have been labeled by Poland and Jacobson as having “low cognitive complexity.” Dr. Charles Creighton, author of Jenner and Vaccination: a Strange Chapter of Medical History , and E.M. Crookshank, author of History and Pathology of Vaccination , and Professor of Comparative Pathology in King’s College, London, were anything but cognitively impaired. They provided data that prove, even in an era rife with smallpox, vaccination did not protect people from infection. The first smallpox vaccine consisted of pus squeezed from pustules deliberately made on the belly of a calf. The discharge, which contained hair, bacteria and other contaminants, was mixed with glycerin before being injected into patients. While this may seem repulsive, today’s vaccines are not much better. In addition to toxic ingredients, vaccines include stray viruses that can mutate, combine with human viruses and incorporate into human DNA. The new combinations have been identified in vaccines and have been injected into infants, children and adults. Cancerous cells, called immortal cells, are used to incubate the viruses grown for vaccines. The FDA has published concerns regarding carcinogenicity of designer cell substrates and stray viruses found in the shots. Regarding the article’s allegation that the anti-vaccine movement is responsible for the resurgence of disease, it has been well documented that recent outbreaks of mumps, measles and pertussis occurred in populations who were highly vaccinated. In some instances, the vaccination rate was up to 87 percent. There are numerous reports of an attenuated virus mutating to become virulent again. Recently, vaccine-strain rotavirus infected an unvaccinated sibling, causing active disease. Thus, public protection today does not come from vaccination any more than it did in 1870. Poland and Jacobson may not know that the famous playwright, George Bernard Shaw, was also interested in infectious diseases. In a letter dated July 19, 1931 to Dr. Charles Pabst, Shaw wrote: “I was vaccinated in infancy and had ‘good marks’ of it. In the great epidemic of 1881 (I was born in 1856) I caught smallpox. During the last considerable epidemic at the turn of the century, I was a member of the Health Committee of London Borough Council, and I learned how support for vaccination is kept up statistically by diagnosing all the vaccinated cases as pustular eczema, varioloid, or what-not, except smallpox. I discovered a suppressed report of the Metropolitan Asylums Board on a set of re-vaccinations which had produced extraordinarily disastrous results. Meanwhile, I had studied the literature and statistics of the subject. I even induced a celebrated bacteriologist to read Jenner. I have no doubt that vaccination is an unscientific abomination and should be made a criminal practice.” Durbach wrote that the opposition to vaccination and the resultant disparaging by conventional pro-vaccinators has been long standing. With the passage of the first compulsory vaccination law in the U.K. in 1853, the first anti-vaccination societies became a national movement by the 1860s. By the 1870s, the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League (ACVL) had 103 branches and up to 200,000 members and sympathizers in Britain alone. Many became actively involved when their child was injured or killed by a smallpox vaccine. The present-day anti-vaccination movement is no different. Today, thousands of parents and an increasing number of doctors, scientists and health care workers who have observed firsthand the degradation of health in patients and family members by the blind faith doctors have in government mandates are speaking and refusing vaccination. Today, many physicians who are “anti-vaccinationists” started out vaccinating. As they observed with an open mind the reactions in their patients and their own children, their enthusiasm for vaccines was tempered. They observed those who were less vaccinated thrived and enjoyed far more vitality than those who were fully vaccinated. They vaccinated less and less, despite being pushed, year after year, with ACIP recommendations and the usual fear-mongering around infectious diseases. The NEJM has long enjoyed the reputation as a respected, peer-reviewed medical journal. However, peer review today disallows a balanced discussion on heated topics, forcing intelligent debate about vaccines onto the internet. Anti-vaccination arguments are subject to censorship by medical journals and often suppressed by the mainstream media. Officials rationalize this as appropriate to “protect public health.” However, sustained suppression of opinions contrary to official party lines has historically led to revolt. Millions of people are waking up to the disinformation about vaccines, unwaveringly maintained by the medical profession and the government. Those who have a studied opinion and have observed first-hand, the truth about the devastating consequences of vaccination will refuse to be censored. Sources for this article include: Poland, GA and Jacobson, Robert M. The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists . N Engl J Med 2011; 364:97-99, January 13, 2011 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1010594 Jenner, E. Further observations on the Variola Vaccina, of Cowpox. http://books.google.ca/ McBean, E. “The Poisoned Needle.” Health Research , Pomeroy. WA, 1993 Hadwen, W. “The Fraud of Vaccination”, Truth ; January 1923 Jacobson RM, Targonski PV, Poland GA. A taxonomy of reasoning flaws in the anti-vaccine movement. Vaccine 2007;25:3146-3152 Creighton, C. Jenner and Vaccination: a Strange Chapter of Medical History . 1889 Crookshank, E.,” History and Pathology of Vaccination, 1889. Reprinted Nabu Press, Feb 2010 http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&link McReardon, Benjamin. “What’s Coming Through that Needle?” http://www.scribd.com/doc/42722540/Vaccine-Contamination-Mcrearden FDA. “Designer” Cells as Substrates for the Manufacture of Viral Vaccines.” http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3750b1_01.htm Hirsh, BS et al. “Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population.” J Pediatr. 1991 Aug;119(2):187-93 Chen RT.et al. “An explosive point-source measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. Modes of transmission and risk factors for disease.” Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:173-82. Harnden A, Grant C, et al. “Whooping cough in school age children with persistent cough: prospective cohort study in primary care.” BMJ 2006; 333:174 (Published 7 July 2006) Daniel C. Payne, PhD, et al. “Sibling Transmission of Vaccine-Derived Rotavirus (RotaTeq) Associated With Rotavirus Gastroenteritis.” Published online January 25, 2010. PEDIATRICS (doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1901) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/125/2/e438 McBean, E. “The Poisoned Needle.” Health Research , Pomeroy. WA, 1993 Durbach, Nadja. “Bodily Matters: The Anti-Vaccination Movement in England, 1853 to 1907″. Duke University Press . 2005.

Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science of Homeopathy

(NaturalNews) Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, has surprised the scientific community with his strong support for homeopathic medicine. In a remarkable interview published in Science magazine of December 24, 2010, (1) Professor Luc Montagnier, has expressed support for the often maligned and misunderstood medical specialty of homeopathic medicine. Although homeopathy has persisted for 200+ years throughout the world and has been the leading alternative treatment method used by physicians in Europe, (2) most conventional physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used. Most clinical research conducted on homeopathic medicines that has been published in peer-review journals have shown positive clinical results,(3, 4) especially in the treatment of respiratory allergies (5, 6), influenza, (7) fibromyalgia, (8, 9) rheumatoid arthritis, (10) childhood diarrhea, (11) post-surgical abdominal surgery recovery, (12) attention deficit disorder, (13) and reduction in the side effects of conventional cancer treatments. (14) In addition to clinical trials, several hundred basic science studies have confirmed the biological activity of homeopathic medicines. One type of basic science trials, called in vitro studies, found 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) and nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive. (15, 16) In addition to the wide variety of basic science evidence and clinical research, further evidence for homeopathy resides in the fact that they gained widespread popularity in the U.S. and Europe during the 19th century due to the impressive results people experienced in the treatment of epidemics that raged during that time, including cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, scarlet fever, and influenza. Montagnier, who is also founder and president of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, asserted, “I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.” Here, Montagnier is making reference to his experimental research that confirms one of the controversial features of homeopathic medicine that uses doses of substances that undergo sequential dilution with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution. Although it is common for modern-day scientists to assume that none of the original molecules remain in solution, Montagnier’s research (and other of many of his colleagues) has verified that electromagnetic signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic biological effects. Montagnier has just taken a new position at Jiaotong University in Shanghai, China (this university is often referred to as “China’s MIT”), where he will work in a new institute bearing his name. This work focuses on a new scientific movement at the crossroads of physics, biology, and medicine: the phenomenon of electromagnetic waves produced by DNA in water. He and his team will study both the theoretical basis and the possible applications in medicine. Montagnier’s new research is investigating the electromagnetic waves that he says emanate from the highly diluted DNA of various pathogens. Montagnier asserts, “What we have found is that DNA produces structural changes in water, which persist at very high dilutions, and which lead to resonant electromagnetic signals that we can measure. Not all DNA produces signals that we can detect with our device. The high-intensity signals come from bacterial and viral DNA.” Montagnier affirms that these new observations will lead to novel treatments for many common chronic diseases, including but not limited to autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and multiple sclerosis. Montagnier first wrote about his findings in 2009, (17) and then, in mid-2010, he spoke at a prestigious meeting of fellow Nobelists where he expressed interest in homeopathy and the implications of this system of medicine. (18) French retirement laws do not allow Montagnier, who is 78 years of age, to work at a public institute, thereby limiting access to research funding. Montagnier acknowledges that getting research funds from Big Pharma and certain other conventional research funding agencies is unlikely due to the atmosphere of antagonism to homeopathy and natural treatment options. Support from Another Nobel Prize winner Montagnier’s new research evokes memories one of the most sensational stories in French science, often referred to as the ‘Benveniste affair.’ A highly respected immunologist Dr. Jacques Benveniste., who died in 2004, conducted a study which was replicated in three other university laboratories and that was published in Nature (19). Benveniste and other researchers used extremely diluted doses of substances that created an effect on a type of white blood cell called basophils. Although Benveniste’s work was supposedly debunked, (20) Montagnier considers Benveniste a “modern Galileo” who was far ahead of his day and time and who was attacked for investigating a medical and scientific subject that orthodoxy had mistakenly overlooked and even demonized. In addition to Benveniste and Montagnier is the weighty opinion of Brian Josephson, Ph.D., who, like Montagnier, is a Nobel Prize-winning scientist. Responding to an article on homeopathy in New Scientist , Josephson wrote: Regarding your comments on claims made for homeopathy: criticisms centered around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water’s structure. Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account. A related topic is the phenomenon, claimed by Jacques Benveniste’s colleague Yolene Thomas and by others to be well established experimentally, known as “memory of water.” If valid, this would be of greater significance than homeopathy itself, and it attests to the limited vision of the modern scientific community that, far from hastening to test such claims, the only response has been to dismiss them out of hand. (21) Following his comments Josephson, who is an emeritus professor of Cambridge University in England, was asked by New Scientist editors how he became an advocate of unconventional ideas. He responded: I went to a conference where the French immunologist Jacques Benveniste was talking for the first time about his discovery that water has a ‘memory’ of compounds that were once dissolved in it — which might explain how homeopathy works. His findings provoked irrationally strong reactions from scientists, and I was struck by how badly he was treated. (22) Josephson went on to describe how many scientists today suffer from “pathological disbelief;” that is, they maintain an unscientific attitude that is embodied by the statement “even if it were true I wouldn’t believe it.” Even more recently, Josephson wryly responded to the chronic ignorance of homeopathy by its skeptics saying, “The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments.” In the new interview in Science , Montagnier also expressed real concern about the unscientific atmosphere that presently exists on certain unconventional subjects such as homeopathy, “I am told that some people have reproduced Benveniste’s results, but they are afraid to publish it because of the intellectual terror from people who don’t understand it.” Montagnier concluded the interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience, he replied adamantly: “No, because it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study.” The Misinformation That Skeptics Spread It is remarkable enough that many skeptics of homeopathy actually say that there is “no research” that has shows that homeopathic medicines work. Such statements are clearly false, and yet, such assertions are common on the Internet and even in some peer-review articles. Just a little bit of searching can uncover many high quality studies that have been published in highly respected medical and scientific journals, including the Lancet , BMJ , Pediatrics , Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal , Chest and many others. Although some of these same journals have also published research with negative results to homeopathy, there is simply much more research that shows a positive rather than negative effect. Misstatements and misinformation on homeopathy are predictable because this system of medicine provides a viable and significant threat to economic interests in medicine, let alone to the very philosophy and worldview of biomedicine. It is therefore not surprising that the British Medical Association had the sheer audacity to refer to homeopathy as “witchcraft.” It is quite predictable that when one goes on a witch hunt, one inevitable finds “witches,” especially when there are certain benefits to demonizing a potential competitor (homeopathy plays a much larger and more competitive role in Europe than it does in the USA). Skeptics of homeopathy also have long asserted that homeopathic medicines have “nothing” in them because they are diluted too much. However, new research conducted at the respected Indian Institutes of Technology has confirmed the presence of “nanoparticles” of the starting materials even at extremely high dilutions. Researchers have demonstrated by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions. (24) In the light of this research, it can now be asserted that anyone who says or suggests that there is “nothing” in homeopathic medicines is either simply uninformed or is not being honest. Because the researchers received confirmation of the existence of nanoparticles at two different homeopathic high potencies (30C and 200C) and because they tested four different medicines (Zincum met./zinc; Aurum met. /gold; Stannum met./tin; and Cuprum met./copper), the researchers concluded that this study provides “concrete evidence.” Although skeptics of homeopathy may assume that homeopathic doses are still too small to have any biological action, such assumptions have also been proven wrong. The multi-disciplinary field of small dose effects is called “hormesis,” and approximately 1,000 studies from a wide variety of scientific specialties have confirmed significant and sometimes substantial biological effects from extremely small doses of certain substances on certain biological systems. A special issue of the peer-review journal, Human and Experimental Toxicology (July 2010), devoted itself to the interface between hormesis and homeopathy. (25) The articles in this issue verify the power of homeopathic doses of various substances. In closing, it should be noted that skepticism of any subject is important to the evolution of science and medicine. However, as noted above by Nobelist Brian Josephson, many scientists have a “pathological disbelief” in certain subjects that ultimately create an unhealthy and unscientific attitude blocks real truth and real science. Skepticism is at its best when its advocates do not try to cut off research or close down conversation of a subject but instead explore possible new (or old) ways to understand and verify strange but compelling phenomena. We all have this challenge as we explore and evaluate the biological and clinical effects of homeopathic medicines. REFERENCES: (1) Enserink M, Newsmaker Interview: Luc Montagnier, French Nobelist Escapes “Intellectual Terror” to Pursue Radical Ideas in China. Science 24 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6012 p. 1732. DOI: 10.1126/science.330.6012.1732 (2) Ullman D. Homeopathic Medicine: Europe’s #1 Alternative for Doctors. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/homeopathic-medicine-euro_b_402490.html (3) Linde L, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al., “Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials,” Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. (4) Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015. (5) Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. (6) Ullman, D, Frass, M. A Review of Homeopathic Research in the Treatment of Respiratory Allergies. Alternative Medicine Review. 2010:15,1:48-58. http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/15/1/48.pdf (7) Vickers AJ. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Reviews. 2009. (8) Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. (9) Fisher P, Greenwood A, Huskisson EC, et al., “Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis (Primary Fibromyalgia),” BMJ, 299(August 5, 1989):365-6. (10) Jonas, WB, Linde, Klaus, and Ramirez, Gilbert, “Homeopathy and Rheumatic Disease,” Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, February 2000,1:117-123. (11) Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. (12) Barnes, J, Resch, KL, Ernst, E, “Homeopathy for Post-Operative Ileus: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 1997, 25: 628-633. (13) M, Thurneysen A. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005 Dec;164(12):758-67. Epub 2005 Jul 27. (14) Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P. Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. (15) Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28. (16) Endler PC, Thieves K, Reich C, Matthiessen P, Bonamin L, Scherr C, Baumgartner S. Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically prepared dilutions beyond 10-23: a bibliometric study. Homeopathy, 2010; 99: 25-36. (17) Luc Montagnier, Jamal Aissa, Stephane Ferris, Jean-Luc Montagnier, Claude Lavallee, Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81-90. http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf (18) Nobel laureate gives homeopathy a boost. The Australian. July 5, 2010. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/nobel-laureate-gives-homeopathy-a-boost/story-e6frg8y6-1225887772305 (19) Davenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, et al. (June 1988). “Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE”. Nature 333 (6176): 816-8. (20) Maddox J (June 1988). “Can a Greek tragedy be avoided?”. Nature 333 (6176): 795-7. (21) Josephson, B. D., Letter, New Scientist, November 1, 1997. (22) George A. Lone Voices special: Take nobody’s word for it. New Scientist. December 9, 2006. (23) Personal communication. Brian Josephson to Dana Ullman. January 5, 2011. (24) Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, and Govind S. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. Volume 99, Issue 4, October 2010, 231-242. (25) Human and Experimental Toxicology, July 2010: http://het.sagepub.com/content/vol29/issue7/ To access free copies of these articles, see: http://www.siomi.it/siomifile/siomi_pdf/BELLE_newsletter.pdf

Anxiety can be treated with herbs and nutrients, says new research

(NaturalNews) Who hasn’t felt anxious before a test, or after some personal upset or accident? But sometimes anxiety can become chronic. And ongoing feelings of apprehension, fear or nervousness can rob people of their quality of life and even negatively impact their health. According to the American Psychological Association, panic disorder is an especially serious type of anxiety that is experienced by one out of every 75 people in the U.S. — they can feel like they are having a heart attack, breathing difficulties, blacking out or even dying. Mainstream medicine treats anxiety disorders with psychotherapy and, often, drugs including side-effect laden serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac and addictive benzodiazepines (including Xanax). But a new study involving a comprehensive review of research into the use of nutritional supplements for the treatment of anxiety disorders has come up with good news for anyone wanting to relieve anxiety through natural means. According to the review of 24 studies involving a total of more than 2000 participants, which was just published in BioMed Central’s Nutrition Journal , specific nutritional and herbal supplements can effectively treat anxiety, without the risk of serious side effects. The research analysis was conducted by Shaheen Lakhan and Karen Vieira, scientists with the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, a non-profit charity organization for the advancement of neurological and mental health patient welfare, education, and research, based in Los Angeles. “Our review and summary of the literature on herbal remedies and dietary supplements for anxiety should aid mental health practitioners in advising their patients and provide insight for future research in this field,” Lakhan said in a statement to the media. The studies Lakhan and Vieira investigated for their review included 21 randomized controlled trials — the kind of research that is considered the “gold standard” in science. Of these, 15 showed positive anti-anxiety effects from either a nutritional or herbal remedy. The most consistently effective natural anxiety treatments appeared to be the herbs passionflower and kava and the amino acids L-lysine and L-arginine. St. John’s Wort, which is traditionally used for depression, not anxiety, was not found to be an effective anxiety treatment. “For all three of the herbal supplements we reviewed, more research needs to be done to establish the most effective dosage and to determine whether this varies between different types of anxiety or anxiety-related disorders,” Lakhan stated. “Herbal medicines hold an important place in the history of medicine as most of our current remedies, and the majority of those likely to be discovered in the future, will contain phytochemicals derived from plants.” For more information: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/42 http://www.naturalnews.com/anxiety.html

Animal microchips linked to causing cancer

(NaturalNews) Many veterinarians recommend them, and most animal shelters require them. Identification microchips injected into the necks of cats and dogs are touted as useful in recovering lost pets because the devices store owner and medical information. But are they safe? A new lawsuit against Merck and Co., Inc., maker of the HomeAgain pet microchip, says they are not, noting that they can cause cancer to develop in pets. Featured at www.ChipMeNot.org, a website launched to raise awareness about the harm caused to animals by microchips, the lawsuit alleges that Merck’s HomeAgain pet microchip induces cancerous tumors in pets. According to the suit, the defendant’s cat developed cancer after getting a chip implant, and according to reports, other animals have gotten cancer after getting chipped as well. “Based on the alarming number of microchip-induced cancers we’re discovering, I predict this lawsuit will be just the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a consumer advocate and expert on side effects associated with implantable microchips. “Merck and organizations that advocate pet chipping should take this lawsuit seriously and start warning pet owners of the risk of microchip-induced cancer.” According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, potential health risks associated with implantable microchips include “adverse tissue reaction”. Based on data from the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, this can include “swelling”, “infection”, “abscesses”, and “tumors”. Albrecht presented a paper on the subject called “Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006″ (http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/P074.pdf) at the June conference of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers that documents the increasing number of animals being harmed by microchips. Currently, there is no repository of data on adverse events associated with microchips in the U.S., but Albrecht organization, CASPIAN, is filling that void by compiling such information and making it available to the public. To learn more about the dangers of animal microchips, visit: www.ChipMeNot.org Sources for this story include: http://www.chipmenot.org/mercksued.htm

Gluten-free Diet Reduces Bone Problems In Children With Celiac Disease, Study Finds

Celiac disease (CD) is an inherited intestinal disorder characterized by life-long intolerance to the ingestion of gluten, a protein found in wheat, rye, and barley. Although CD can be diagnosed at any age, it commonly occurs during early childhood. Reduced bone mineral density is often found in individuals with CD. A new article examines the literature on the topic and reveals that a gluten-free diet can affect children’s recovery.