Health Canada says it takes safety 'very seriously' in face of concerns about homeopathic remedy

Ottawa has approved 8,500 homeopathic products, including remedy made from rabid dog saliva

Bethany Lindsay · CBC News · Posted: Apr 18, 2018 4:00 AM PT | Last Updated: April 18

http://snip.ly/fmamj

More than 8,500 homeopathic treatments are approved by Health Canada. (Josh Reynolds/Associated Press)

The long list of so-called homeopathic nosodes approved by Health Canada include remedies made from the bacteria that causes chlamydia, the cerebral fluid of meningitis patients and cancer cells — to name just a few.

After B.C.'s senior physician questioned the federal approval of one of these remedies, a substance developed from the saliva of a rabid dog, Health Canada will only say that it takes the safety of health products "very seriously."

• B.C. health official voices 'grave concerns' after child given homeopathic remedy using rabid-dog saliva

A Health Canada spokesperson said no one was available Tuesday for an interview about the remedy used by a Victoria naturopath to treat a small boy's behaviour problems, but offered a written statement instead.

"Homeopathic products ... are regulated as natural health products (NHPs) under the Natural Health Products Regulations," the statement reads.

"Health Canada takes the safety of health products on the Canadian market very seriously. Should a product not meet the requirements set out in the associated product monograph and guidance, Health Canada will take action." 

The homeopathic remedy, which is marketed as lyssinum, lyssin or hydrophobinum, is one of more than 8,500 homeopathic products regulated by the federal government.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/health-canada-says-it-takes-safety-very-seriously-in-face-of-concerns-about-homeopathic-remedy-1.4623775

Evidence in support of gene regulatory hypothesis: Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy effect as more than placebo

Abstract

Background: Use of ultra-high diluted remedies in homeopathy and their claimed efficacy in curing diseases has been challenged time and again by non-believers despite many evidence-based positive results published in favor of their efficacy in curing/ameliorating disease symptoms. Aims: To test the ability of ultra-high diluted homeopathic remedies beyond Avogadro's limit, if any, in manifesting gene modulating effects in controlled in vitro experimental model. Methods: Since cancer cells manifest aberrant epigenetic gene expressions, we conducted global microarray gene expression profiling of HeLa cells (an established epigenetic model of HPV18 positive cell line) treated with two different potentized homeopathic remedies, namely, Condurango 30c and Hydrastis canadensis 30C (used in the treatment of cancer), as compared to that of placebo (succussed alcohol 30c). Results: Data revealed distinctly different expression patterns of over 100 genes as a consequence of treatment with both homeopathc remedies compared to placebo. Conclusion: Results indicate that action of the potentized drugs was "more than placebo" and these ultra-highly diluted drugs acted primarily through modulation of gene expression.

Evidence in support of gene regulatory hypothesis: Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy effect as more than placebo (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279711806_Evidence_in_support_of_gene_regulatory_hypothesis_Gene_expression_profiling_manifests_homeopathy_effect_as_more_than_placebo [accessed Nov 15 2017].

Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy

effect as more than placebo

Santu Kumar Saha

1

, Sourav Roy

2

and Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh

1

1

Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Univ. of Kalyani, West Bengal, India.

2

Depart. Entomology and Inst. Integrative Genome Biology, Univ. of California, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: Use of ultra-high diluted remedies in homeopathy and their claimed efficacy in

curing diseases has been challenged time and again by non-believers despite many evidence-

based positive results published in favor of their efficacy in curing/ameliorating disease

symptoms. Aims: To test the ability of ultra-high diluted homeopathic remedies beyond

Avogadro?s limit, if any, in manifesting gene modulating effects in controlled in vitro

experimental model. Methods: Since cancer cells manifest aberrant epigenetic gene expressions,

we conducted global microarray gene expression profiling of HeLa cells (an established epigenetic

model of HPV18 positive cell line) treated with two different potentized homeopathic remedies,

namely, Condurango 30c and Hydrastis canadensis 30C (used in the treatment of cancer), as

compared to that of placebo (succussed alcohol 30c). Results: Data revealed distinctly different

expression patterns of over 100 genes as a consequence of treatment with both homeopathc

remedies compared to placebo. Conclusion: Results indicate that action of the potentized drugs

was ?more than placebo? and these ultra-highly diluted drugs acted primarily through

modulation of gene expression.

Key words: Gene regulatory hypothesis, DNA microarray profile, potentized remedies.

Introduction

Homeopathy is one of the most widely practiced controversial modes of treatment as it uses extremely diluted

remedies in micro-doses to alleviate patients? complaints. Despite being used for centuries with great effect,

non-believers of homeopathy mainly ask two questions: (a) as drugs diluted beyond Avogadro?s limit (6.023 x

10

23

) are not expected to contain even one single molecule of the original drug substance, how can the

homeopathic medicines then be physical-chemically different from ?vehicle? ethanol, and claimed to be

effective in curing many diseases? (b) What might the mechanism of action of these ultra-highly diluted

remedies be?

In this report, we present gene expression profiling results that give strong support to a hypothesis proposed

by Khuda-Bukhsh [1, 2], to wit, that potentized homeopathic drugs act through regulation of gene expression.

Thangapazham et al. [3], in turn, apparently failed to find changes in gene expression induced by

homeopathic drugs used in in vitro experiments with human breast cancer cells MDA-MB-231, human

prostate cancer cells DU-145 and LNCaP, and rat prostate cancer cells MAT-LyLu treated with some

potentized homeopathic remedies like Conium maculatum, Sabal serrulata, Thuja occidentalis, Asterias

rubens, and Phytolacca decandra in dilutions 30c, 200c and 1,000c, and Carcinosinum (1,000 c) although they

Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167

163

had found in an earlier in vivo study reduction in the number and size of cancer nodules supported by

histological analysis in prostate cancer MAT-LyLu cell?injected Copenhagen rats given homeopathic

treatment containing Thuj, Con, Sabal serrulata, and in MAT-LyLu cell with Carc [4]. However, the authors

did not conduct gene expression studies of any signal proteins in these rats in vivo, where modulation of

certain gene expression would be expected.

The controversy surrounding research in homeopathy moves along two different directions. On the one hand,

the mechanism of action of the potentized homeopathic remedies diluted beyond Avogadro's limit remains an

open research problem, which has received widespread attention from the research community, and many

competing hypotheses have been proposed. On the other hand, some studies that indicate homeopathy is no

better than placebo, which thus makes any claim about the mechanism of action of homeopathic drugs null

and void. There have been many results highly critical of homeopathy. For example, The Lancet of August 27,

2005 featured an article that was highly dismissive of homeopathy [5] along with a press release:

?homeopathy is no better than placebo?. The meta-analysis was accompanied by a short, anonymous editorial

entitled ?The end of homoeopathy?. This resulted in the eruption of a ravaging controversy: whether

homeopathy is really better than placebo or not, culminating in a debate in the British Parliament

[6].

Homeopathy was decried and its use as a beneficial and scientifically proven mode of treatment was voted

against. However, most clinical research conducted with homeopathic medicines has shown positive results

[7]. Biological activities of ultra-high diluted potentized homeopathic remedies have also been confirmed by

basic research studies with respect to a multitude of scientifically accepted protocols, both in animals and

plants in vivo and in vitro

[8]. Nevertheless, the argument persisted, as ultra-highly diluted homeopathic

medicines are supposed to possess "nothing" in terms of the original drug molecules, and as such their effect

on biological systems was unacceptable until recently. During the last few years, presence of ?nanoparticles?

of the starting materials, even at extremely high dilutions, has been reported [9, 10]. Moreover, Montagnier

[11] countered through experiments that ?high dilutions of something are not ?nothing?, they are water

structures which mimic the original molecules".

We decided to use one of the most modern tools, global microarray profiling of genes, to verify whether the

effects of ultra-highly diluted homeopathic drugs on the expression profile of genes were distinctly different

compared to ?placebo?. DNA microarrays are widely used to measure the expression levels of large numbers of

genes simultaneously, with the aid of selective probes under highly stringent conditions. Gene expression

profiling experiments are specially effective for monitoring the expression levels of thousands of genes to

study the effects of certain treatments, for example, to identify genes whose expression changes in response to

pathogens or drugs, by comparing the gene expression in the infected and drug-treated cells or tissues [12].

Materials and methods

The aim of the present study was, therefore, to find out whether the global gene expression profiles in cancer

cell line, HeLa (an established epigenetic model of HPV18 positive cell line) differed significantly, in

quantitative as well as qualitative terms, after treatment with 2 homeopathic remedies used against cancer

[13-15], namely, Condurango 30c and Hydrastis canadensis 30c (both diluted 10

-60

times, much above

Avogadro?s limit) compared to ethanol 30c, (placebo, prepared from the same stock of 70% alcohol giving 10

jerks at each step in the same manner as the verum was potentized). Affymetrix Gene Chip Human

Primeview gene expression arrays were used for this purpose.

Cervical cancer cell line HeLa was obtained at National Centre for Cell Science, Pune. The cells were

routinely maintained in Dulbecco?s Modified Eagle?s Medium supplemented with 10% FBS and 1% antibiotic

at 37 ?C in a humidified incubator containing 5% CO

2

. The cells were plated one day before treatment. 4%

(v/v) of drugs and ?placebo? (succussed ethanol 30c, 10 jerks at each step of dilution) were added to the cell

Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167

164

cultures and kept for 48 hr. Cells without any treatment in the normal medium were considered as negative

control.

Separate groups of cells were subjected to treatment with Cond 30c, Hydr 30c, and succussed alcohol placebo.

The cells were sent to iLife Discoveries, Gurgaon, India for providing us global microarray data conducted on

Affymetrix platform, using 25-mer probes. The total number of probes detected for the experiment was

49,395; hybridization was performed at 45

o

C for 16 hrs at 60 rpm.

Slides were scanned with 3000 7G microarray scanner and raw data sets were extracted from the Cel (raw

intensity) files. Microarray data analysis, differential gene expression analysis, fold change analysis and

cluster analysis were performed using GeneSpring GX12.5 software.

Results and discussion

Microarray data analyses showed that out of a total of 40,678 genes, for which probe sets remained after data

processing, normalization and quality control, 6,024 were differentially expressed at a p-value cutoff of 0.05,

in a one-way ANOVA. The expression levels of the genes in the cells were treated with Hydr 30c (Set I) and

Cond 30c (Set II) were compared to the levels in the untreated (control) as well as succussed ethanol 30c

(placebo) treated cells (Set III). Using a cutoff of 1.5 folds it was observed that in Set I, 3 genes each were up-

and down-regulated when compared to the control as well as Set III samples. Similarly, there were 2 genes in

Set II that were up-regulated by at least 1.5 folds when compared to the two sets mentioned above, whereas

122 genes were down-regulated by ?1.5 folds. Two and 10 genes were up- and down-regulated by ? 1.5 folds,

respectively, in both sets (Set I and Set II) when compared to the control as well as Set III. In addition, there

were another 23 genes in Set I and 12 genes in Set II that were differentially expressed by ? 1.5 folds, when

compared to Set III. Upon comparing the expression levels of genes in Set I and Set II, it was observed that

for 36 genes, there were ? 1.5 fold differences in expression between the 2 treatments. These findings suggest

that the drugs did not only affect the gene expression, but also that the effect of one drug was different from

the other in a number of genes.

The findings of the present study clearly demonstrate that the expression profiles of certain genes of the drug-

treated HeLa cells were significantly different from that of the placebo treated cells. This suggests that both

drugs and placebo differed in their ability to trigger gene responses, some of which were implicated in cancer.

Thus, although the drugs were ultra highly diluted, they still retained the ability to trigger gene responses in

a cascade of reactions, diving support to Khuda-Bukhsh?s hypothesis[1-2]. Epigenetic modifications are a

hallmark of cancer, and a large number of genes remain in modified state of expression in cancer cells. Both

Hydr [13, 15] and Cond

[14, 15] had been previously reported to induce apoptosis in cancer cells, while

?placebos? do not exhibit this property. Therefore, it is logical to infer that homeopathic remedies contain

some form of molecular imprints of the original drug substance [16], while the ?placebo?, in the absence of

such imprints, fails to elicit the required effect.

Incidentally, ultra-highly diluted preparations of glucose 30c, Arsenicum album 30c, and Arnica montana 30c

were shown to induce gene modulatory effects in bacteria, E. coli and yeast Saccraromyces cerevisiae, either

subjected to insult with sodium arsenite or UV-irradiation [17-19]. Those authors [17-19] explained that the

potentized homeopathic remedies carry specific "signals"/"information" that can be identified by certain cell

receptors. Those "signals" may act as a "trigger" for turning "on" or "off" some relevant genes, initiating a

cascade of gene actions, while the ?placebo? failed to elicit any such favorable responses. It has been

previously documented that administration of a potentized homeopathic drug altered the expressions of a

large number of signal proteins in mice induced to develop skin cancer

[20].

Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167

165

The results of the present study, therefore, contribute to support the gene regulatory hypothesis proposed by

Khuda-Bukhsh [1, 2]. Further studies are needed to ascertain the ability of Cond 30c, if any, to modulate

activities like DNA methylation/demethylation and histone acetylation/deacetylation, 2 hallmarks of

epigenetic modifications, to produce additional support to the gene regulatory hypothesis.

Author contributions

ARK-B conceptualized and designed the experiments, SS performed the experiments, SR analyzed and

interpreted the microarray data, ARK-B and SR wrote the manuscript.

References

[1] Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Potentized homeopathic drugs act through regulation of gene expression: a hypothesis

to explain their mechanism and pathways of action in vivo. Comp Ther Med 1997; 5: 43-46.

[2] Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an

overview. Mol Cell Biochem 2003;253: 339-45.

[3] Thangapazham RL, Gaddipati JP, Rajeshkumar NV, et al. Homeopathic medicines do not alter growth and

gene expression in prostate and breast cancer cells in vitro. Integr Cancer Ther 2006; 5:356-61.

[4] Jonas WB, Gaddipati JP, Rajeshkumar NV, et al. In vitro and in vivo assessment of homeopathic

treatment for prostate cancer. Paper presented at: Society of Integrative Oncology First International

Conference; November 18, 2004; New York, NY.

[5] Shang A, Huwiler-M?ntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects?

Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366:726-32.

[6] U.K. Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology: Evidence 2. 2010, available at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm.

[7] Clausen J, van Wijk R, Albrecht H. Review of the use of high potencies in basic research on

homeopathy.Homeopathy 2011; 100:288-92.

[8] The HomBRex database 2012.http://www.carstens-stiftung.de/hombrex/index.php.

[9] Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, et al. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A

nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 231-42.

[10] Bhattacharyya SS, Mandal SK, Biswas R, et al.In vitro studies demonstrate anticancer activity of an

alkaloid of the plant Gelsemium sempervirens.Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2008; 233:1591-601.

[11] Montagnier L. Newsmaker interview: Luc Montagnier. French Nobelist escapes 'intellectual terror' to

pursue radical ideas in China. Interview by Martin Enserink.Science 2010; 330:1732.

[12] Adomas A, Heller G, Olson A, et al. Comparative analysis of transcript abundance in Pinus sylvestris

after challenge with a saprotrophic, pathogenic or mutualistic fungus". Tree Physiol 2008;28: 885?897.

[13] Saha SK, Sikdar S, Mukherjee A, et al. Ethanolic extract of Goldenseal, Hydrastis canadensis has

demonstrable chemopreventive effects on HeLa cells in vitro: Drug-DNA interaction with calf thymus DNA as

target. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 2013; 36: 202-214.

Int J High Dilution Res 2013; 12(45):162-167

166

[14] Mitsuhashi H et al. Condurango glycoside compounds processes for their preparation, antitumor agents

comprising them and compositions. United States Patent 1984.

[15] Boericke W. Pocket manual of homeopathic material medica & repertory. reprint edn 2004. B. Jain

Publishers (P) Ltd, India. 2002: 514.

[16] Davenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, et al.Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum

against IgE.Nature1988; 333:816-8.

[17] Saha SK, Das S, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.Phenotypic evidence of ultra-highly diluted homeopathic remedies

acting at gene expression level: a novel probe on experimental phage infectivity in bacteria. Zhong Xi Yi Jie

He Xue Bao 2012; 10:462-70.

[18] Das S, Saha SK, De A, et al. Potential of the homeopathic remedy, Arnica Montana 30C, to reduce DNA

damage in Escherichia coli exposed to ultraviolet irradiation through up-regulation of nucleotide excision

repair genes.Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao 2012;10:337-46.

[19] Das D, De A, Dutta S, et al.Potentized homeopathic drug Arsenicum Album 30C positively modulates

protein biomarkers and gene expressions in Saccharomyces cerevisae exposed to arsenate.Zhong Xi Yi Jie He

Xue Bao 2011;9:752-60.

[20] Khuda-Bukhsh AR, Bhattacharyya SS, Paul S, et al. Modulation of Signal Proteins: A Plausible

Mechanism to Explain How a Potentized Drug SecaleCor 30C Diluted beyond Avogadro's Limit Combats Skin

Papilloma in Mice. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2011;2011:286320.

Evidence in support of gene regulatory hypothesis: Gene expression profiling manifests homeopathy effect as more than placebo (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279711806_Evidence_in_support_of_gene_regulatory_hypothesis_Gene_expression_profiling_manifests_homeopathy_effect_as_more_than_placebo [accessed Nov 15 2017].https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279711806_Evidence_in_support_of_gene_regulatory_hypothesis_Gene_expression_profiling_manifests_homeopathy_effect_as_more_than_placebo

MYTHs about Homeopathy - A Series of responses.

“There is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works”

This is probably the most frequently quoted, completely inaccurate statement about homeopathy. Homeopathy research is a relatively new field, so it’s true to say that there are not a huge number of studies, but some evidence is very different from no evidence.

By the end of 2013, 188 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy on 100 different medical conditions had been published in peer-reviewed journals¹:

• 44% were positive (82 trials) – finding that homeopathy was effective
• 5% were negative (10 trials) – finding that homeopathy was ineffective
• 47% were inconclusive (89 trials)

How does this compare with evidence for conventional medicine?

An analysis of 1016 systematic reviews of RCTs of conventional medicine had strikingly similar findings²:

• 44% were positive – the treatments were likely to be beneficial
• 7% were negative – the treatments were likely to be harmful
• 49% were inconclusive – the evidence did not support either benefit or harm.

Although the percentages of positive, negative and inconclusive results are  similar in homeopathy and conventional medicine, it is important to recognise a vast difference in the quantity of research carried out; chart A represents 188 individual trials on homeopathy, whereas chart B represents 1016 reviews on conventional medicine, each analysing multiple trials.

This highlights the need for more research in homeopathy, particularly large-scale high quality repetitions of the most promising positive studies.

The difference in quantity is also not surprising when one considers the tiny amounts of funding made available for research into ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ (CAM).  For example, in the UK only 0.0085% of the total medical research 
budget is spent on CAM, of which homeopathy is only one example³.

References

https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/there-is-no-scientific-evidence-homeopathy-works/