With special thanks to : free pharma e-books
In this unique book, homeopath Chris Kurz offers a highly effective and unique approach to learning and importantly, retaining, all of the important concepts of homeopathy. Using vivid analogies & informal language, Kurz emphasizes the importance of true insight rather than memory.
Download Link:
http://rapidshare.com/files/78940408/Imagine_Homeopathy.zip
Gripp-Heel(R) is a homeopathic preparation frequently used in the treatment of respiratory viral infections such as various types of influenza and the common cold.
.Ingredients:
Plant pharmacological group:Aconitum napellus 4X (hoarseness; dry croupy cough), Bryonia alba 4X (dry mucous membranes; all symptoms worse with motion), Eupatorium perfoliatum 3X (hoarseness and cough; chest soreness)
Mineral pharmacological group:
Phosphorus 5X (painful larynx; breathing quickened)
Immunonodulator group:
Lachesis mutus 12X (left-sided sore throat)
The antiviral activity of Gripp-Heel was studied in vitro on human pathogenic enveloped and nonenveloped RNA and DNA viruses. Before the antiviral assays, in vitro cytotoxicity of Gripp-Heel was determined with cells used for the infection experiments (HeLa, HEp-2, MDCK, BGM) as well as with mitogen-stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear leukocytes. A concentration of 0.5 of the commercially available product slightly reduced cell viability and proliferative capacity, and experiments on antiviral activity were determined starting with a dilution of 0.2 of the commercially available product. The antiviral activity was determined against a broad panel of enveloped and nonenveloped DNA and RNA viruses with plaque reduction assay, cytopathogenic assays, virus titrations, analysis of the viral proteins in virus-specific enzyme immunoassays, and haemagglutination tests. Control substances were acyclovir (10 mug/mL), ribavirin (6 mug/mL), and amantadine hydrochloride (5 mug/mL), depending on the virus type. Gripp-Heel demonstrated dose-dependent in vitro activity (significant reductions of infectivity by 20% to 40%) against Human herpesvirus 1, Human adenovirus C serotype 5, Influenza A virus, Human respiratory syncytial virus, Human parainfluenza virus 3, Human rhinovirus B serotype 14, and Human coxsackievirus serotype A9. The mechanisms of this antiviral activity are still unclear, but type I interferon induction might be a possible explanation. Further research on this homeopathic preparation seems warranted.
Gripp-Heel(R) is a homeopathic preparation frequently used in the treatment of respiratory viral infections such as various types of influenza and the common cold. The antiviral activity of Gripp-Heel was studied in vitro on human pathogenic enveloped and nonenveloped RNA and DNA viruses. Before the antiviral assays, in vitro cytotoxicity of Gripp-Heel was determined with cells used for the infection experiments (HeLa, HEp-2, MDCK, BGM) as well as with mitogen-stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear leukocytes. A concentration of 0.5 of the commercially available product slightly reduced cell viability and proliferative capacity, and experiments on antiviral activity were determined starting with a dilution of 0.2 of the commercially available product. The antiviral activity was determined against a broad panel of enveloped and nonenveloped DNA and RNA viruses with plaque reduction assay, cytopathogenic assays, virus titrations, analysis of the viral proteins in virus-specific enzyme immunoassays, and haemagglutination tests. Control substances were acyclovir (10 mug/mL), ribavirin (6 mug/mL), and amantadine hydrochloride (5 mug/mL), depending on the virus type. Gripp-Heel demonstrated dose-dependent in vitro activity (significant reductions of infectivity by 20% to 40%) against Human herpesvirus 1, Human adenovirus C serotype 5, Influenza A virus, Human respiratory syncytial virus, Human parainfluenza virus 3, Human rhinovirus B serotype 14, and Human coxsackievirus serotype A9. The mechanisms of this antiviral activity are still unclear, but type I interferon induction might be a possible explanation. Further research on this homeopathic preparation seems warranted.
Can Homeopathy Bring Additional Benefits to Thalassemic
Patients on Hydroxyurea Therapy? Encouraging Results of
a Preliminary StudyAntara Banerjee1, Sudipa Basu Chakrabarty2, Susanta Roy Karmakar1,
Amit Chakrabarty2, Surjyo Jyoti Biswas1, Saiful Haque1, Debarsi Das1, Saili Paul1,
Biswapati Mandal3, Boujedaini Naoual4, Philippe Belon4 and
Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh11Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani-741 235,
2Institute of Genetic Engineering, 30 Thakurhat Road, Badu, Kolkata-700 128, 3Directorate of Research, Bidhan
Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Kalyani, West Bengal, India and 4Boiron Laboratory, 20 Rue de la Liberation,
Sainte-Foy-Les-Lyon, FranceSource : Oxford journal , The CAM Report
The researchers say yes, particularly in the developing world where blood transfusions suffer from inadequate screening and fall short of the stringent safety standards followed in the developed countries.
First, the details.
And, the results.
The bottom line?
The authors concluded, “Homeopathic remedies being inexpensive and without any known side-effects seem to have great potentials in bringing additional benefits to thalassemic patients.”
( with special thanks to guardian )
Ben Goldacre excoriates the practice of homeopathy (A kind of magic?, November 16). For the record, I have never studied or held a position for, or against, the clinical effectiveness of homeopathy. However, I am a materials chemist who has written one of the most cited papers in materials science, on aqueous solutions.
Having recently studied the extraordinary biological properties of ultradilute aquasols (water with one part per million of solid particles) and written a long review on the structure of water, I accidentally also discovered a new social disease, "homeophobia" - that is, a phobic reaction (mainly by scientists) to the word "homeopathy", the virulence of which is exemplified by Goldacre.
A major bugaboo for "homeophobes" is the concept that a solution where the solute is extremely diluted (beyond Avogadro's number) absolutely cannot, they believe, be any different from the original solvent. Hence homeopathy must be a fraud. This has been the anti-homeopathy crowd's trump card for more than 100 years.
But let us turn to scientists who specialise in water's properties. Prof Martin Chaplin of London's South Bank University, a leading expert on the (molecular) structure of water, says: "Too often the final argument used against the memory of water concept is simply 'I don't believe it' ... Such unscientific rhetoric is heard from the otherwise sensible scientists, with a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of the full body of evidence, and reflects badly on them."
As it happens, there is agreement among all those who have studied liquid water that it is, in fact, the critics, who are totally wrong. Proof? Diamond is the planet's hardest material; graphite one of the softest. They are absolutely identical in composition, and they can be interconverted in a millisecond with zero change of composition.
Prof Eugene Stanley of Boston University, the leading expert on the physics of water, has catalogued 64 highly anomalous property changes in pure water. According to the first law of materials science, that means that there must be the same large number of different structures in liquid water - what he called "polymorphism" of water. This year Prof Chaplin, in the journal Homeopathy, discussed in detail how water could retain a "memory".
But the main thrust of Goldacre's argument is the role of the "placebo effect". Yes, this works. And, yes, it is without doubt present in every homeopathic intervention; but it is far more powerfully present in orthodox medical pills because they are advertised so widely in billion-dollar campaigns.
Goldacre is accurate in pointing out the high rates of positive v negative outcomes in many of the homeopathy studies. But there are enormous discrepancies in any set of randomised controlled trials on the same orthodox pills.
Does Goldacre seriously suggest that a homeopathy paper with a positive outcome would be treated fairly in any mainstream journal?
