Efficiency of sulphur in garlic extract and non‐sulphur homeopathy in the control of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus

The objective of the present work was to evaluate the efficacy of a non‐sulphur‐based homeopathic preparation and a sulphur‐containing natural product derived from Allium sativum (Linnaeus) against infestation by the cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (Canestrini) (Acari: Ixodidae). A total of 24 crossbred calves (7 : 8 Holstein : Zebu), aged 6–8 months and maintained in individual stables under tick‐free conditions, were divided into three groups. Group 1 (control group) received no treatment; Group 2 was treated with 0.01 g/day of the homeopathic preparation Fator C&MC^®, and Group 3 was treated with 20 g/day of Enxofre‐Allium sativum^®. After adaptation to the diet for 1 month, each calf was subjected to artificial infestation with 8000 R. (B.) microplus larvae (aged 7–14 days) twice per week over a 5‐month period. Numbers of engorged females were recorded every 14 days and samples of freely released engorged females were collected at 14‐day intervals commencing 3 months after the start of the experiment. The engorged females were weighed, incubated for 15 days under biochemical oxygen demand conditions at 27 ± 1 °C and relative humidity >85%, and the weights of the egg masses produced were recorded. Other biological parameters, including reproduction estimate, reduction in oviposition and efficiency of treatment, were determined. A significant reduction in the number of engorged females was detected on animals treated with Enxofre‐Allium sativum^® (Group 3) in comparison with the other two groups. The overall efficiency of the treatment with the sulphur‐containing product was 64%, whereas that of the homeopathic preparation was 26%. Under the experimental conditions established, Enxofre‐Allium sativum^® can reduce the intensity of the R. (B.) microplus infestation.     

Like cures like: A neuroimmunological model based on electromagnetic resonance

Objectives: Recent investigations have pointed to the production of characteristic electromagnetic (EM) waves in highly diluted sterile filtrates of different microorganisms and their associated DNA molecules. Analysis of these diluted solutions that are prepared using methods almost identical to the way that homeopathic medicines are prepared has pointed to the existence of nanostructures capable of emitting EM waves. Combining these results with findings that point to the interaction of EM waves with sensory nerves with subsequent activation of homeostatic efferent pathways, we propose a model to describe mechanisms underlying the effects of homeopathic remedies. The Model: Living cells and tissues are capable of generating EM waves in their physiological conditions. When a cell deviates from its physiological state, in addition to normal EM emissions, it starts to produce EM waves with altered characteristics. According to our model, the main cause of the therapeutic effects of homeopathic remedies is the occurrence of resonance between the non-physiological EM waves of the patient and extremely low-frequency EM waves produced by nanostructures present in the homeopathic remedy. Resonance occurs if the frequency and amplitude characteristics of the patient's non-physiological EM waves and those produced by nanostructures of the applied homeopathic remedy are similar. Once resonance occurs, stimulation of the patient's sensory neurons, which are sensitized due to inflammation of any origin, leads to triggering of different regulatory mechanisms, including the activation of descending antinociceptive and/or cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, which leads to the restoration of homeostasis.     

Against homeopathy--a utilitarian perspective

I examine the positive and negative features of homeopathy from an ethical perspective. I consider: (a) several potentially beneficial features of homeopathy, including non-invasiveness, cost-effectiveness, holism, placebo benefits and agent autonomy; and (b) several potentially negative features of homeopathy, including failure to seek effective healthcare, wastage of resources, promulgation of false beliefs and a weakening of commitment to scientific medicine. A utilitarian analysis of the utilities and disutilities leads to the conclusion that homeopathy is ethically unacceptable and ought to be actively rejected by healthcare professionals.     

HOMEOPATHY AND EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS – A RESPONSE TO SMITH'S UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT

Kevin Smith's utilitarian argument against homeopathy 1 is flawed because he did not review and refute the relevant basic science literature on ultra‐high dilutions. He also failed to appreciate that allopathic medicine is based on a deductive‐nomothetic method and that homeopathic medicine is based on an inductive‐idiographic method, and thus that the implications for clinical research are very different. His misunderstanding of provings and of the holism of homeopathic medicine also demonstrated his failure to understand the history, philosophy and method of homeopathy. Finally, I questioned the value of introducing ethical judgment into an ongoing scientific debate.     

HOMEOPATHY IS UNSCIENTIFIC AND UNETHICAL

In opposition to the premises of Against Homeopathy – a Utilitarian Perspective, all four respondents base their objections on the central claims that homeopathy is in fact scientifically plausible and is supported by empirical evidence. Despite ethical aspects forming the main thrust of Against Homeopathy, the respondents’ focus on scientific aspects represents sound strategy, since the ethical case against homeopathy would be weakened concomitant with the extent to which any plausibility for homeopathy could be demonstrated. The trouble here is that the respondents are attempting to perpetuate a sterile debate. The notion that homeopathic preparations could have any biological effects represents a fringe viewpoint, one not entertained by serious scientists nor supported by reason and evidence. In the present article, I shall endeavour to explain why the respondents do not have a valid case. I will deal firstly with their general approach to scientific plausibility and evidence, and then consider some of the specific claims they have made. Finally, I will answer the philosophical arguments some of the respondents have raised.     

FOR HOMEOPATHY: A PRACTISING PHYSICIAN'S PERSPECTIVE

This article is a rebuttal to Kevin Smith's ‘Against Homeopathy,’ which was posted on 14 February 2011. 1 It contends that his argument rests entirely on the assumption that homeopathic remedies are nothing but placebos. His argumentation is good, but his assumption is false. Evidence is presented to show that the Law of Similars is plausible and that ultradilute remedies do indeed have biological activity.     

IS HOMEOPATHY REALLY ‘MORALLY AND ETHICALLY UNACCEPTABLE’? A CRITIQUE OF PURE SCIENTISM

In this short response we show that Kevin Smith's moral and ethical rejections of homeopathy 1 are fallacious and rest on questionable epistemology. Further, we suggest Smith's presumption of a utilitarian stance is an example of scientism encroaching into medicine.     

ON THE PLAUSIBILITY OF HOMEOPATHIC ‘SIMILITUDE’

The homeopathic principle of similitude is not based on the principle of vaccination but on the more general principle of inversion of effects, a widespread medical phenomenon. Based on the systemic networks which play an important role in response to stress, this principle concerns the reorganization of regulation systems, through a coherent response to the medicine. This model is backed by a large number of published studies from our laboratory and others, by toxicological evidence such as the emerging fields of ‘hormesis’, of neuropharmacology, and of systems biology. The immune system is just one example of the possible application of this law of similitude, which constitutes the true ‘heart’ of the homeopathic idea, and again ethically justifies the attempt to apply it to experimental pharmacology.