Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005
Ruta 6 Post.....Obviously Nobody Read The Entire Study
|
|
Thread rating:  |
C.Health - 09 Sep 2005 00:55 GMT http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2003/volume23/number4/975.pdf
I was amused at the ignorant responses from people that really didn't read the entire study. The in vitro part of the study was performed at the Departments of Cancer Biology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Yet someone remarked about urine therapy in India. We will never truly advance in medicine if people have preconceived views that disallow any unadulterated judgment. The Ruta 6 used was 10(-12) concentration, which is a diluted potency, yet someone claimed it wasn't homeopathic. The in vivo study only used patients with intracranial brain cancer, yet someone claimed the study stated that it could cure all types of cancer. Most people on the newsgroups are either pharma supporters of die hard alternative supporters. There is a middle ground, as mentioned in a previous post dealing with another medical subject. Don't be afraid to think outside of your paradigm. It's not that hard to do, if you open your mind, and treat each subject individually. Not everything is black or white, and medicine, alternative or allopathic, is not an exact science.
outsor@citynet.net - 09 Sep 2005 00:49 GMT I read it all originally and read it again. I stand by what I said. The work with the cells was using a concentration of a tincture of the chemical extract and is not homopathetic. The human study was flawed by no controls. The root chemical was not said to be diluted as an "nx" would suggest, the otherchemical used with it was said to be 3x, but the article and the original post had it only as a secondary player. In the article it was said that the root chemical was used in texas on various human cancers without reference to dilution.
I'm the middle ground, I don't care waht large drug companies do in their commercial activities and have no room for the fringe of homopathetic gibberish. I only care for the reality of what standard science reveals, neither is what the above imply. If this stuff works, the big drug companies will just put it in their stable of products.
C.Health - 09 Sep 2005 04:15 GMT > I read it all originally and read it again. I stand by what I said. The > work with the cells was using a concentration of a tincture of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > neither is what the above imply. If this stuff works, the big drug > companies will just put it in their stable of products. Thank you for your response. I didn't mean to single out anyone in particular. It's just that some of the responses were so programmed.
The original Ruta Q tincture is what is called a mother tincture which can be defined as a homeopathic medicament ('Q' denotes mother tincture). It was then prepared by progressively diluting the mother tincture to reduce the quantity of drug administered, to not only render the treatment safe from all poisonous side effects, but also enhance the therapeutic activity or make it stronger or more potent. The following explains this procedure:
http://www.arnica.com/homeo/cook3.html PREPARATION OF MOTHER TINCTURES ìMother Tincturesî can be defined as the homeopathic medicament in its most concentrated form. They are produced as clear liquids or in solid triturated form. The liquids range from colorless to straw colored to dark brown or a red color. All mother tinctures are denoted by the Greek letter ? , or the abbreviation MT. Mother tinctures of plant, vegetable or animal substances are prepared by the maceration of the fresh material in different strengths of alcohol at ambient temperature. After aging for periods ranging from one hour to one month, the suspension is filtered by gravity or compression. Final alcohol strengths may be 33 1/3%, 50% or 80 to 90% (volume/volume), depending on the water content of the starting material. Succulent, fresh plants yield between 350 ml per 700 ml of unfiltered succus (or juice) per kilogram of plant material. The succus is mixed with one half of its volume of 95 % pure alcohol, producing mother tinctures of approximately 33 1/3 % (volume/volume) alcohol content. Fresh plant material yielding less than 350 ml per kilogram of succus is repeatedly macerated with alcohol/water mixtures, producing mother tinctures of approximately 80 to 87 % (volume/volume) alcohol content. Mother tinctures for organotherapy preparations are prepared from macerates of buds or young shoots which alcoholized glycerin. If properly stored, mother tinctures have an indefinite therapeutic activity, although it is sometimes necessary to remove precipitated solid matter by filtration from time to time.
PREPARATION OF POTENCIES
Hahnemann Methods
By systematic experimentation, Samuel Hahnemann determined that, by progressively diluting the mother tinctures to reduce the quantity of drug administered, he could not only render the treatment safe from all poisonous side effects, but also enhance the therapeutic activity or make it stronger or more potent. He named these dilution potencies and laid down a strict procedure. Hahnemann developed his method over many years and it was published in detail in the 4th edition of the Organon. He wrote: ìWhenever a dilution of any kind is to be made, the name and number of the remedy are recorded on the labels of the appropriate number of flasks needed. These are then arranged one after the other. ìAfter introducing 99 drops of alcohol, one drop of the medicine undergoing dilution is poured from the first flask into the next. Always be sure that the drop taken from one flask is instilled in the next flask in line. The flask is then stoppered and shaken twice.î Potentization is carried out successively in two distinct steps - dilution and succussion. Thus, the process involves the sequential or serial dilution of the mother tincture with a mixture of alcohol and water. Each dilution is followed by succussion, which involves vigorous shaking with impact. There are a series of dilution: decimal series, based on serial dilution of 1:10; centesmial series, based on serial dilution of 1:100, and the millesimal series, based on serial dilution of 1:1,000. Hence the decimal series of potencies is denoted 1x,2x,3x,4x,...... Nx (denoted 1,2,3,4, in the United Kingdom), and the millesimal series is denoted with the suffix m. Succussion Succussion is the term coined by Hahnemann (Probably it was derived from the German schuffeln and the Italian scossone, meaning to shake violently) for the essential process of violent shaking with impact which follows each step of the sequential dilution, thus completing the potentization procedure. Hahnemann achieved this by holding the vial firmly in his hand and using his forearm to strike a leather bound book. The procedure was repeated at least ten times. Nowadays, mechanical means are usually employed, using instruments of many different designs, all of which aim to simulate the manual procedure. As many as 100 succussions are employed. One type of mechanical device causes a glass vial, attached to the end of a motor driven rocking arm, to impinge on a rubber pad on each downward stroke. Not only does succussion ensure an intimate mixing of the liquid and diluent, but it is also believed it energizes the potency. This potential energy is subsequently released as kinetic energy in the healing process. Trituration This process is employed to ìsolubilizeî insoluble minerals and chemical elements in their solid form, that is, to render the crystals or powder to a degree of fineness and subdivision which will permit their solubilization in alcohol / water. One part (or 1 gm) of substance is finely ground, using a mortar and pestle, with a small part of 99 parts of pure lactose (milk sugar). The trituration is continued for at least one hour, while adding aliquot parts of the remainder of the lactose at 10 to 20 minute intervals. The resultant finely divided powder represents the first centesimal triturated potency. The entire process is repeated, using one part of the first centesimal trituration and a further 99 parts of pure lactose to produce the second centesimal triturated potency, and so on. For each insoluble mineral or element, a certain potency level is reached, whereby it is sufficiently ìdilutedî to be within its solubility limit in the alcohol / water. At this stage, higher potencies can be prepared in the liquid form in the usual manner. It follows, therefore, that very low potencies of insoluble substances cannot exist in liquid form. Unscrupulous ìmanufacturersî of homeopathic medicines have been known to offer customers, for example, liquid Graphites 3X!
They also state in the study (on page 976) that "Ruta Q, the mother tincture extracted from R. graveolens according to homeopathic pharmacopia, was diluted.....".
montygram - 09 Sep 2005 05:16 GMT If you want to be scientific, let's drop the "middle ground" claim. One puts forth a hypothesis and proposes experiments to determine the merit of the hypothesis. In many cases, funding is not given, which is a problem most of the public does not consider. There are over a thousand studies that support the oxidative stress hypothesis, directly or indirectly, but where is the evidence for homeopathy?
I'll make you an offer. We will load up 25 mice or other inexpensive lab animals with several grams of canola oil and fish oil, and the other 25 animals get fresh coconut oil. You can choose the canola and fish oil. I'll choose the coconut oil. You can give the animals any homeopathic remedy you want for as long as you want. My animals, on the other hand, should be dropping dead of "essential fatty acid deficiency" in no time.
Now, if my animals live as long or longer, you pay for all the expenses, including lawyers' fees to draw up a contract. If your canola/fish oil animals treated with homeopathic remedies if necessary (as you see fit), then I will pay for everything.
I am waiting... again.
C.Health - 09 Sep 2005 06:00 GMT > If you want to be scientific, let's drop the "middle ground" claim. > One puts forth a hypothesis and proposes experiments to determine the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I am waiting... again. Who in this thread is supporting canola oil? Who is putting down coconut oil?
montygram - 09 Sep 2005 06:45 GMT You misunderstand. My point is that I don't see how "homeopathy" could "cure" the damage done by the free radical activity these oils generate. If the oxidative stress hypothesis of "chronic disease" is correct, one should just avoid it in the first place, and "homeopathy" would not be necessary, even if it did work. But the idea of the experiment would be to show that it can't do anything to reverse massive free radical damage. And if it can't do that, why bother even thinking about it?
outsor@citynet.net - 09 Sep 2005 14:41 GMT Snip of mucho homopathetic gibberish and blatant scientisim.
Homopathetic dogma is the fringe, not the middle you so wished to elicit. None of the lengthy discription you gave about preparing "drugs" can be shown to be founded in demonstrated science. I don't care what they do or how, I care only that it can be shown in standard scientific research that it works. T o date it can't. That is the bottom line on homopathetic gibberish. Shall we refocus the discussion on this reality once again?
Dan - 09 Sep 2005 08:37 GMT Thanks for your balanced informed views. Seems the anti-alt spammers leave you alone. I'm sure it's mostly because you will blow them out of the water with your logic.
Martin - 09 Sep 2005 10:10 GMT >Thanks for your balanced informed views. Seems the anti-alt spammers >leave you alone. I'm sure it's mostly because you will blow them out >of the water with your logic. Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty and you soon find out the pig actually enjoys it.
outsor@citynet.net - 09 Sep 2005 14:31 GMT "Thanks for your balanced informed views. Seems the anti-alt spammers leave you alone. I'm sure it's mostly because you will blow them out of the water with your logic."
Is this irony or sarcasm?
Mark Probert - 09 Sep 2005 16:04 GMT > Thanks for your balanced informed views. Seems the anti-alt spammers > leave you alone. I'm sure it's mostly because you will blow them out > of the water with your logic. If those who are Fact Based Medicine advocates are "blown out of the water" then our arugments, according to homeopathy gibberish, are made so strong that we win automatically.
Chuckle.
Peter Bowditch - 10 Sep 2005 00:49 GMT >Thanks for your balanced informed views. Seems the anti-alt spammers >leave you alone. I'm sure it's mostly because you will blow them out >of the water with your logic. Thank you for once again demonstrating your complete inability to use Usenet properly. Nobody has a clue who or what you are referring to. Are you talking to yourself?
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
MMu - 09 Sep 2005 11:36 GMT > http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2003/volume23/number4/975.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in India. We will never truly advance in medicine if people have > preconceived views that disallow any unadulterated judgment. 1) "10^-12 concentration" of Ruta 6 mothertincture. Why don't they use proper scientific nomenclature? Ruta 6's structure is known, why not simply write the concentrations in x moles or x g/L? The experiments can not be repeated without the actual concentration being published.
2) "... 3x10^-3 concentration of Ca_3(PO_4)_2 ..." what happened to the use of units?
3) Ruta 6 was diluted with alcohol that was evaporated down to 100uL and then 10mL Medium was added. The authors state that it was then left at 37°C to evaporate the rest of the alcohol. Nobody knows for how long they left it in there before putting it on to cells and how much alcohol was still in there before they "proved" that the cells died from Ruta 6. (alcohol is celltoxic and routinely used to kill cells off in a laboratory environment).
It would have been easy to use a control where just plain alcohol was used in the same way like the Ruta 6 extract above. (evaporate it down to 100uL, add 10 mL Medium, leave for same ammount of time like Ruta 6). This was, however not done.
4) "Low dose" was 2 mL of the Ruta6 + Calciumphosphate solution in 10mL. "High dose" was 3mL of the Ruta6 + Calciumphosphate solution in 10mL. they differ by 10% in concentration- random fluctuations in cell-culture account for about as much just by the system itself.
5) There are 15 patients in the group, 9 women, 6 men in the age range of "10 to 65 years"?! Is that supposed to be a representative group? This is the nightmare of anyone having even the slightest idea of study design.
6) "The patients gradually improved, as indicated by serial computed tomography scans and clinical examinations." .. which are not shown. Why are not at least two representative images shown, one before, one after? And who says that these things would not have happend exactly alike without any treatment whatsoever?
7) There are no statistics anyhwere in that paper. How often have the cell experiments been repeated? I don't see any mean, sd, sem or anything indicating it was more than one single experiment.
GMCarter - 09 Sep 2005 13:29 GMT >http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2003/volume23/number4/975.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >each subject individually. Not everything is black or white, and medicine, >alternative or allopathic, is not an exact science. Thanks for that. But you can be sure such a nuanced view will never fly in the land of whacked out polemics.
But who knows? Maybe the seed is planted and the idea will take root??
George M. Carter
Just Cocky - 09 Sep 2005 14:25 GMT >I was amused Fools get amused very easily.
Peter Moran - 09 Sep 2005 21:22 GMT > http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2003/volume23/number4/975.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > each subject individually. Not everything is black or white, and medicine, > alternative or allopathic, is not an exact science. Yes, science is all about probabilities. If you are unable to see the improbabilities in everything this study claims, then you lack both the background knowledge and reasoning powers necessary to evaluate it.
I only mentioned India, because outlandish clinical claims are common from that source, and that is where the claim to have nearly 100% cure rate of cancer and benign tumours with a truly unlikely remedy arises.
The laboratory results can be explained by contaminants and artefact that bedevil studies of homeopathy in the laboratory. Benveniste and others have published statistically positive results but then spent years trying to repeat them without success. We are not even given the information in the paper that would enable us to decide how much rigour was applied to these studies. As I said it seems only one sample was used in one test. You have obviously not read or understood the article if you do not see these flaws.
You are also a gullible fool if you are prepared to commit belief to this without very substantial replication of the findings by other practitioners and scientists. It is the predictability of outcomes that convinces the well-informed, not claims, and all we have so far here is claims, regardless of where they are published.
It is also true as someone else has pointed out that this is NOT traditional homeopathy. In that different patients with cancer would be treated with different agents. Also only one agent would usually be used, not the two. Mind you, homeopaths will often claim *any* positive results as supporting their "science" and only point out clashes with their own principles when results are negative.
Some homeopaths, such as the one serving the Queen of England, are now admitting that their treatment works as placebo, but that is another story.
Peter Moran
|
|
|