Could This 'Forbidden Medicine' Eliminate the Need for Drugs?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ms_ss=facebook

Could This 'Forbidden Medicine' Eliminate the Need for Drugs?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
December 22 2009 | 175,341 views


Amy L. Lansky, PhD


www.impossiblecure.com
Perhaps the most derided of alternative medicines is my own favorite -
homeopathy. Over the past few years, detractors have focused their efforts
in the United Kingdom and have succeeded in crippling homeopathic hospitals
and clinics funded by the National Health Service, as well as the practices
of many homeopaths.

A few well-placed editorials in prominent newspapers have done the trick,
despite the fact that Prince Charles and the rest of the royal family are
ardent supporters of homeopathy.
It now seems that some of these folks are taking their show on the road.
Two key UK players, Michael Baum and Edzard Ernst have published a
commentary in the November 2009 issue of the American Journal of Medicine
[1] in which they state, "a belief in homeopathy exceeds the tolerance of an
open mind. We should start from the premise that homeopathy cannot work and
that positive evidence reflects publication bias or design flaws until
proved otherwise."
Not surprisingly, their commentary also reflects a complete ignorance of
homeopathy and the range of studies that support its effectiveness. For
example, their article incorrectly uses the term "potentation" instead of
"potentization" for the method used to create homeopathic remedies (more on
this later). The authors also insist on citing a single negative
meta-analysis study that has already been shown to be methodologically
flawed [2], while ignoring many positive studies in respected publications,
including two other meta-analyses that showed positive results [3*8].
So why do the skeptics love to hate homeopathy? Perhaps because it is one
of the most threatening alternative modalities - financially,
philosophically, and therapeutically. Actually, homeopathy has been a threat
to allopathy ever since the 1800s, when German physician Samuel Hahnemann
developed the homeopathic system.


Founder of Homeopathy


Hahnemann, a respected doctor and chemist who helped to pioneer the
importance of hygiene as well as homeopathy, was forced to move frequently
during his life because the local German apothecaries objected to the fact
that he created his own medicines rather than use theirs.

A fierce battle was also waged against homeopathy in the United States
during the 1800s, where homeopathy had achieved a strong presence by 1840.
In fact, in 1847, the American Medical Association (AMA) was formed
specifically to fight the battle against homeopathy.

Most homeopaths of the 1800s were former allopaths who had abandoned their
brethren because they found Hahnemann's system to be more successful in
battling cholera, typhus, yellow fever, diptheria, influenza, and other
epidemics of the 1800s. In retaliation, the preamble to the AMA's charter
forbade its members to associate with homeopaths or to use their medicines,
and many doctors were expelled for failing to comply.


But does homeopathy really pose such a threat to conventional medicine
today? To see how the little David of homeopathy could take down the Goliath
of big pharma, we need to take a closer look at what homeopathy is all
about.


Like Cures Like - - Law of Similars


Homeopathic practice is based on a single law of therapeutics called the
Law of Similars. This law states that a substance that can cause the
symptoms of a disease can also cure it. In fact, that's exactly what word
"homeopathy" means: similar ("homeo") suffering ("pathy"). For example, one
reason that the remedy Coffea Cruda (made from coffee) can be curative for
insomnia is that coffee can cause sleeplessness. Interestingly, allopaths
sometimes utilize the Law of Similars, but are unaware of it when they do
and are perplexed by the phenomenon.

Ask any conventional doctor why Ritalin (a substance that would normally
cause hyperactivity) can treat hyperactivity in children, and they'll
scratch their heads in confusion. Ask a homeopath, and it's a no-brainer:
the Law of Similars.

The reason why homeopaths run into trouble with the skeptics, though,
revolves around how homeopathic remedies are prepared. Obviously, many of
the substances that can cause the symptoms of disease are toxic. This
inherent toxicity poses a challenge if you want to administer these
substances safely.

In an effort to deal with this problem, Hahnemann tried various methods of
diluting his medicines so that they would become less harmful to his
patients. This proved unsuccessful until he also incorporated vigorous
shaking or succussion into the process. The result was a method that he
called potentization, in which a substance is serially diluted and succussed
over and over.

Much to Hahnemann's own surprise, these ultradilutions - so dilute that
they cannot possibly contain a single molecule of the original substance -
were still potent therapeutically. In fact, they were even more potent than
low levels of dilution.

Of course, this was and still is too much for the skeptics to bear. It
turns much of accepted science on its head!


What the skeptics keep ignoring, however, are an increasing number of
scientific studies that indicate that some kind of signature of the original
substance is embedded in a potentized ultradilution. In a 2007 paper by
Professor Rustom Roy, the founding director of the Materials Research
Laboratory at Penn State and one of the world's leading experts on the
structure of water, it was demonstrated that lab instruments could pick up
energetic signatures in ultradilutions that were not only specific to
individual homeopathic remedies, but to specific potencies of these remedies
[9, 10].
Indeed, science has backed up the phenomenon of potentization for over 20
years. In 1988, Nobel Prize nominee and medical researcher Jacques
Benveniste turned the course of his life upside down when he discovered that
ultradilutions could retain substance-specific properties. In particular, he
found that a certain antibody could be serially diluted and succussed beyond
the point where a single molecule could remain, but still cause the same
effects [11].


Naturally, the skeptics quickly attacked Benveniste. But he continued his
work and further demonstrated that the electromagnetic signature of an
ultradilution could be recorded electronically, transmitted via Email,
replayed into water, and still achieve the same substance-specific effects
in the laboratory [12]. Eventually, Benveniste's results were replicated
[13]. Most recently, a 2009 paper by Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier
underscored the power of ultradilutions too [14].
Drug Companies are Running Scared


Now think about it. This is what big pharma is scared of.

What if an expensive drug could be potentized to create billions of
effective doses at essentially no cost? It would destroy big pharma
entirely. Medicines that cost essentially nothing? Nontoxic ultradiluted
medicines that cause fewer side effects? How could the coffers of big pharma
be sustained? Forget about the Law of Similars. It's potentization - the
process of creating effective ultradilutions - that big pharma is scared of!
No wonder Baum and Ernst got the word "potentization" wrong. This one word
is the small stone that could take Goliath down.

Of course, homeopaths add fuel to the fire. The fundamental philosophy of
homeopathy implies that the primary tools of allopathy are harmful. In
particular, homeopaths believe that suppressing symptoms with anti-pathic
drugs - drugs that oppose the symptoms of a disease rather than mimic them -
cannot cure and can even do harm. If a symptom is suppressed - for example,
if a seasonal allergy is suppressed by an antihistamine - it is only
temporarily palliated.

A patient still has allergic tendencies and his or her symptoms will
eventually return. That's why suppressive drugs must be taken again and
again. And of course, big pharma loves that! It's good for business.


Deceptive Cures


Unfortunately, if a substance succeeds in completely suppressing a
symptom, there may be an illusion of "cure," but the real result is more
sinister. Another key tenet of homeopathy is that the true result of
suppression is a deepening of the underlying disease state - because the
energy of the disease is now forced to manifest in a more serious way.

That's why repeated application of cortisone cream to eczema can lead to
asthma. That's why the suppression of arthritis pain can lead to heart
disease. That's why teenagers who take acne drugs sometimes develop suicidal
depression.

Doctors call this phenomenon a "side effect" or a "natural disease
progression." But that's because they don't understand the effects of
suppression or the signs of true cure.

Over the past two hundred years, homeopaths have discovered that
homeopathic medicines - drugs that mimic a person's symptoms rather than
oppose them - can lead to genuine cure of chronic disease, not mere
palliation or suppression. Rather than creating a deeper disease, a
homeopathic medicine that is similar to a patient's disease can not only
cure it, but reveal previously suppressed layers of disease that can be
treated too.

That's why good homeopathic treatment can often cure asthma - and also
reveal and treat previously suppressed eczema. That's why it has the
potential to cure arthritis and chronic bladder infections, not simply
palliate them with endless medications. Indeed, homeopathy can effectively
treat acute diseases like influenza and bacterial infections too. With its
ability to successfully treat both chronic and acute disease with low-cost
medicines, homeopathy really could be a threat to big pharma, given half a
chance.


Ideal for Poor Countries or Rich Ones with Declining Economies


Poor countries with less access to expensive drugs have already discovered
this. That's why homeopathy is the second most widespread form of medicine
in the world. In India, homeopathy is a full-fledged medical system with its
own medical schools and hospitals. Homeopaths in India successfully treat
the full range of diseases, including AIDS, cancer, and malaria.

In Cuba, a poor country with a health care system that often does better
than our own, homeopathy is being used more and more. In 2008, 2.5 million
Cubans were given a homeopathic remedy to prevent Leptospirosis, an
infectious disease also known as swamp fever.
This disease has plagued the country for several years in the aftermath of
flooding, but the year in which homeopathy was used, in contrast to previous
years, there were no fatalities and very few cases of the disease [15].

But here's the rub. Homeopathy is harder to practice than allopathy. There
are no cookie-cutter cures, especially for chronic disease. (Luckily,
however, effective treatment of epidemic diseases like the flu is easier;
see Resources.) Each patient's health pattern is unique, so each patient
must be treated as an individual.

A homeopath must find a single remedy (among thousands of possible
homeopathic remedies) whose associated symptoms match those of the patient -
not just their main complaint, but their entire symptom picture that
includes emotional, mental, behavioral, as well as the physical symptoms of
the entire body. It's a daunting task. A practitioner who practices
classical homeopathy (the kind of homeopathy I advocate) typically needs at
least two hours for an initial case interview and may spend just as long
deciding upon a remedy.

And sometimes it takes a homeopath several tries to find just the right
remedy - the one that homeopaths call the simillimum. This process also
requires patients to engage in their own treatment, because symptoms are
gathered not by machines or by using tests, but through direct communication
between patient and homeopath.

Of course, this is not something big pharma, conventional doctors, or
insurance companies would be happy about. No expensive medicines or tests or
equipment needed? No five-minute appointments reimbursed at $300 a shot? A
medical system that requires long appointments, time for case analysis, and
patients who must participate in the healing process? Not very lucrative.


How I Broke Out of the Mold and Reliance on Failed Medical Therapies


Of course, I used to be a lover of conventional medicine like most people.
Back in the early 1990s, my husband Steve Rubin and I were both computer
researchers in Silicon Valley and followed our doctors' instructions
obediently, loading our kids up with every recommended vaccine on schedule.
Our allopathic trance began to break in 1994 when our 3-year-old son Max
began to show signs of autism.


I first read about homeopathy in the January 1995 issue of Mothering
Magazine, which contained an article about the successful homeopathic
treatment of ADD and other children's behavioral problems [16]. Steve and I
decided to give it a try and found a practitioner in our area. Within a week
we began to see small and subtle improvement in Max - improvement that
became a slow and steady trend. After two years of treatment, he was testing
normally and was released from eligibility for special education benefits.


His speech and language therapist told the county representative that she
had never seen an autistic child recover like Max had, and she fully
credited homeopathy for his recovery. By the time he was eight, nearly all
signs of Max's autism were gone. Today he is 18, a freshman at a leading
university, completely autism free, and without restrictions of any kind.


Needless to say, this experience was both mind-boggling and
life-transforming. I began to study homeopathy myself and ultimately wrote
what became the best-selling patient education book in the USA - Impossible
Cu The Promise of Homeopathy [17] - a comprehensive introduction to
homeopathic history, philosophy, science, and experience, sprinkled with
dozens first-person cure stories for a variety of ailments, along with a
chapter about Max's cure.
In the end, I left my work in computer science and devoted myself to
letting others know about the healing powers of homeopathy. I got involved
in the successful campaign for health freedom legislation in California too
[18]. Steve also got involved and developed the National Vaccine Information
Center's online interface to the VAERS database [19] (the CDC's public
record of vaccine injuries). I guess Max's healing led us both to become
alternative medicine activists, and we haven't looked back.
Conclusion


So why not take a look at homeopathy for yourself? Make it your New Year's
resolution to find a good classical practitioner and to learn more about
this amazing medical modality. The skeptics manage to create a lot of smoke
in an effort to hide homeopathy from public view. But where there's smoke,
there's fire. Find out about how this powerful healing system - a system
that packs a lot of firepower into an infinitesimal punch - can help you and
your family.


Resources


(1) Impossible Cu The Promise of Homeopathy - www.impossiblecure.com.

This website includes: book ordering information; autism help page; free
archive of Amy's show on AutismOne Radio - There's Hope with Homeopathy;
Cure Stories Database; helpful links.

(2) National Center for Homeopathy - www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org.

Leading open-membership organization for homeopathy in the USA that
organizes the yearly national conference. Membership buys a quarterly
magazine, Homeopathy Today, monthly eNewsetter, online chats with leading
experts, extensive online resources and social network. Website includes
many free resources, including practitioner and resource referrals lists and
flu treatment information.


References


[1] Baum, Michael and Edzard Ernst, " Should We Maintain an Open Mind
about Homeopathy?" The American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 122, No. 11, pp.
973-974 (November 2009).
[2] Shang, A. et al. " Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo
Effects? Comparative Study of Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy and
Allopathy," The Lancet, 366, pp. 726-732 (2005).

An extensive refutation of the results of this study, including
statistical analyses and evidence of foul-play, can be found here


[3] Linde, K. et al. " Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo
Effects? A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," The Lancet, 250, pp.
834-843 (1997).


[4] Kleijnen, J. et al. "Clinical Trials of Homeopathy," British Medical
Journal, 302, pp. 316-323 (1991).
[5] Jacobs, J. et al. " Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with
Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua," Pediatrics,
Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 719-725 (1994).
[6] Bell, I.R. et al. " Improved Clinical Status in Fibromyalgia Patients
Treated with Individualized Homeopathic Remedies Versus Placebo,"
Rheumatology, 2004b; 43 (5):577-82.
[7] Taylor, M.A. et al. "Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy Versus
Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series,"
British Medical Journal, 321, pp. 471-476 (2000).
[8] For more trials, see www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org (under
Articles, click Research).
[9] Rao, et al. "The Defining Role of Structure (Including Epitaxy) in the
Plausibility of Homeopathy," Homeopathy, 96, pp. 175-182 (2007).
[10] Rao, et. Al. " Characterization of the Structure of Ultra Dilute Sols
with Remarkable Biological Properties," Materials Letters, Vol. 62, Issues
10-11, pp. 1487-1490 (2008).
[11] Davenas, et al. " Human Basophil Degranulation Triggered by Very
Dilute Antiserum Againt IgE," Nature, Vol. 333, No. 6176, pp. 816-818
(1988).
[12] Aissa, J. et al. " Transatlantic Transfer of Digitized Antigen Signal
by Telephone Link," Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 99:S175
(1997).
[13] Brown, V. and M. Ennis. " Flow-Cytometric Analysis of Basophil
Activation: Inhibition by Histamine at Conventional and Homeopathic
Concentrations," Inflammation Research, 50, Supplement (2), S47-S48 (2001).
[14] Montagnier, Luc, et al. " Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by
Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences," Insterdiscip
Sci Comput Life Sci, 1:81-90 (2009).
[15]
http://homeopathyresource.wordpress....ted-from-cuba/
[16] Reichenberg-Ullman, J. " A Homeopathic Approach to Behavioral
Problems," Mothering, Number 74, pp. 97-101 (1995).
[17] Lansky, Amy. Impossible Cu The Promise of Homeopathy. R.L. Ranch
Press (2003).
[18] www.californiahealthfreedom.com.


[19]www.medalerts.org.


About the Author


Amy L. Lansky, PhD was a Silicon Valley computer scientist when her life
was transformed by the miraculous homeopathic cure of her son's autism. In
April 2003 she published Impossible Cu The Promise of Homeopathy, one of
the best-selling books on homeopathy in the USA (www.impossiblecure.com).

Amy is an executive board member of the National Center for Homeopathy (
www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org). She speaks and writes internationally
about homeopathy and hosts a monthly radio show on Autism One Radio
(www.autismone.org).

john wrote:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ms_ss=facebook

Could This 'Forbidden Medicine' Eliminate the Need for Drugs?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
December 22 2009 | 175,341 views


Amy L. Lansky, PhD


www.impossiblecure.com
Perhaps the most derided of alternative medicines is my own favorite -
homeopathy. Over the past few years, detractors have focused their efforts
in the United Kingdom and have succeeded in crippling homeopathic hospitals
and clinics funded by the National Health Service, as well as the practices
of many homeopaths.

A few well-placed editorials in prominent newspapers have done the trick,
despite the fact that Prince Charles and the rest of the royal family are
ardent supporters of homeopathy.
It now seems that some of these folks are taking their show on the road.
Two key UK players, Michael Baum and Edzard Ernst have published a
commentary in the November 2009 issue of the American Journal of Medicine
[1] in which they state, "a belief in homeopathy exceeds the tolerance of an
open mind. We should start from the premise that homeopathy cannot work and
that positive evidence reflects publication bias or design flaws until
proved otherwise."
Not surprisingly, their commentary also reflects a complete ignorance of
homeopathy and the range of studies that support its effectiveness. For
example, their article incorrectly uses the term "potentation" instead of
"potentization" for the method used to create homeopathic remedies (more on
this later). The authors also insist on citing a single negative
meta-analysis study that has already been shown to be methodologically
flawed [2], while ignoring many positive studies in respected publications,
including two other meta-analyses that showed positive results [3*8].
So why do the skeptics love to hate homeopathy? Perhaps because it is one
of the most threatening alternative modalities - financially,
philosophically, and therapeutically. Actually, homeopathy has been a threat
to allopathy ever since the 1800s, when German physician Samuel Hahnemann
developed the homeopathic system.


Founder of Homeopathy


Hahnemann, a respected doctor and chemist who helped to pioneer the
importance of hygiene as well as homeopathy, was forced to move frequently
during his life because the local German apothecaries objected to the fact
that he created his own medicines rather than use theirs.

A fierce battle was also waged against homeopathy in the United States
during the 1800s, where homeopathy had achieved a strong presence by 1840.
In fact, in 1847, the American Medical Association (AMA) was formed
specifically to fight the battle against homeopathy.

Most homeopaths of the 1800s were former allopaths who had abandoned their
brethren because they found Hahnemann's system to be more successful in
battling cholera, typhus, yellow fever, diptheria, influenza, and other
epidemics of the 1800s. In retaliation, the preamble to the AMA's charter
forbade its members to associate with homeopaths or to use their medicines,
and many doctors were expelled for failing to comply.


But does homeopathy really pose such a threat to conventional medicine
today? To see how the little David of homeopathy could take down the Goliath
of big pharma, we need to take a closer look at what homeopathy is all
about.


Like Cures Like - - Law of Similars


Homeopathic practice is based on a single law of therapeutics called the
Law of Similars. This law states that a substance that can cause the
symptoms of a disease can also cure it. In fact, that's exactly what word
"homeopathy" means: similar ("homeo") suffering ("pathy"). For example, one
reason that the remedy Coffea Cruda (made from coffee) can be curative for
insomnia is that coffee can cause sleeplessness. Interestingly, allopaths
sometimes utilize the Law of Similars, but are unaware of it when they do
and are perplexed by the phenomenon.

Ask any conventional doctor why Ritalin (a substance that would normally
cause hyperactivity) can treat hyperactivity in children, and they'll
scratch their heads in confusion. Ask a homeopath, and it's a no-brainer:
the Law of Similars.

It's not the law of similars. It's that there is not enough dopamine in
the brain. Ritalin causes dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine to be
released from the neurons. Read up on your brain science.

The reason why homeopaths run into trouble with the skeptics, though,
revolves around how homeopathic remedies are prepared. Obviously, many of
the substances that can cause the symptoms of disease are toxic. This
inherent toxicity poses a challenge if you want to administer these
substances safely.

No. That's not it.

In an effort to deal with this problem, Hahnemann tried various methods of
diluting his medicines so that they would become less harmful to his
patients. This proved unsuccessful until he also incorporated vigorous
shaking or succussion into the process. The result was a method that he
called potentization, in which a substance is serially diluted and succussed
over and over.

That's it. If you keep diluting the substance, then you end up with
maybe on molecule in the most dilute concentration. This is supposed to
be the strongest concentration.

Homeopaths will argue that there is some sort of molecular memory left
in the water. If this were the case, then I would die of toxicity when I
accidently swallow some water in a swimming pool. And I would fall
asleep from the caffiene in ocean water (the caffeine is excreted by the
kidneys and eventually ends up in the ocean).

Much to Hahnemann's own surprise, these ultradilutions - so dilute that
they cannot possibly contain a single molecule of the original substance -
were still potent therapeutically. In fact, they were even more potent than
low levels of dilution.

Of course, this was and still is too much for the skeptics to bear. It
turns much of accepted science on its head!

That would be true if homeopathy works. It doesn't. It total nonsense
with no basis in science. And no evidence it works from good clinical
trials.

What the skeptics keep ignoring, however, are an increasing number of
scientific studies that indicate that some kind of signature of the original
substance is embedded in a potentized ultradilution. In a 2007 paper by
Professor Rustom Roy, the founding director of the Materials Research
Laboratory at Penn State and one of the world's leading experts on the
structure of water, it was demonstrated that lab instruments could pick up
energetic signatures in ultradilutions that were not only specific to
individual homeopathic remedies, but to specific potencies of these remedies
[9, 10].
Indeed, science has backed up the phenomenon of potentization for over 20
years. In 1988, Nobel Prize nominee and medical researcher Jacques
Benveniste turned the course of his life upside down when he discovered that
ultradilutions could retain substance-specific properties. In particular, he
found that a certain antibody could be serially diluted and succussed beyond
the point where a single molecule could remain, but still cause the same
effects [11].


Naturally, the skeptics quickly attacked Benveniste. But he continued his
work and further demonstrated that the electromagnetic signature of an
ultradilution could be recorded electronically, transmitted via Email,
replayed into water, and still achieve the same substance-specific effects
in the laboratory [12]. Eventually, Benveniste's results were replicated
[13]. Most recently, a 2009 paper by Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier
underscored the power of ultradilutions too [14].

This paper had nothing to do with homeopathy, but with the physical
properties of DNA molecules.

Drug Companies are Running Scared


Now think about it. This is what big pharma is scared of.

What if an expensive drug could be potentized to create billions of
effective doses at essentially no cost?

They would sell it for lots of money. Big Pharma is not scared of this
at all. They would love for it to work. Simple and cheap to make. No FDA
worries (homepathy has been grandfathered in so that no FDA approval is
needed). Lots of income.

rest of copyrighted crap deleted

Jeff

"john" wrote:

Most recently, a 2009 paper by Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier
underscored the power of ultradilutions too [14].

[14] Montagnier, Luc, et al. " Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by
Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences," Insterdiscip
Sci Comput Life Sci, 1:81-90 (2009).

Yet this paper is not indexed in PubMed. In fact, the only paper by
Luc Montagnier indexed in PubMed in 2009 is his 2008 Nobel Lecture,
which does not contain the word "dilution" even once.

The referenced paper (which doesn't seem to have appeared in any
journal fit for indexing in PubMed) seems to have no applicability to
homeoquackery, except in the minds of people desperate to find
evidence to support their delusions.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch wrote:
"john" wrote:

Most recently, a 2009 paper by Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier
underscored the power of ultradilutions too [14].

[14] Montagnier, Luc, et al. " Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by
Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences," Insterdiscip
Sci Comput Life Sci, 1:81-90 (2009).

Yet this paper is not indexed in PubMed. In fact, the only paper by
Luc Montagnier indexed in PubMed in 2009 is his 2008 Nobel Lecture,
which does not contain the word "dilution" even once.

The referenced paper (which doesn't seem to have appeared in any
journal fit for indexing in PubMed) seems to have no applicability to
homeoquackery, except in the minds of people desperate to find
evidence to support their delusions.

I don't know or care if it is in pubmed. You're also correct that it has
nothing to do with homeopathy. It is about the physical properties of a
DNA molecule.

Jef

Indian gov using homeopathy http://www.whale.to/vaccine/homeopathy12.html

"john" wrote in message
...
Indian gov using homeopathy

They've had witch doctors for centuries.