Scientific proof that Homeopathy works

(NaturalNews) Most scientists would state categorically that homeopathy is a scientific impossibility. Who would disagree, as the explanation that is currently provided to support homeopathy makes very little sense. How is it possible that a solution that contains no chemical atoms causes a biological reaction? All of our basic understanding of science screams out that this is patently impossible.

But what if all that we have been taught at school, at university and at work is in fact only part of the truth. What if there was a missing part of our education that provides the missing link that makes subjects such as homeopathy scientifically obvious. What if there is much more to our body than simply chemicals.

It took me two years of research to uncover this hidden area of science. Once I did, the scientific explanation for many controversial areas of science, including homeopathy, became uncontroversial. What I am about to teach you about homeopathy is just one of the many areas of science that have been hidden from us which are finally exposed in my book, Blinded by Science http://www.blindedbyscience.co.uk

If we look at homeopathy from a completely different area of science other than chemistry then we can begin to understand how homeopathy really works. It is just like one of those intellectual games that people play, where the answer is so obvious once you know it, but impossible if you don’t

Take the following puzzle:

You are in front of three light switches only one of which turns on a light in the adjacent room. You only have two attempts to find out which of the three switches work. Without being able to see the effect of the switches it is impossible to know which of them work, it is a mathematical impossibility. However, by using a different area of science, the solution is incredibly simple. The answer lies with the heat generated from the light and not the light itself. If you turn on a switch and then turn it off again and go and feel if the light is hotter then in two attempts you will know exactly which of the light switches turns on the light.

Now if we turn back to homeopathy, we have to look at it from the same idea and say that the idea that chemicals are the issue is irrelevant to solving the problem.

It is not the chemicals in the solution that cause a biological change but the vibrations that emanated from the chemicals, which have an affect. The massive missing part of our education is simply the concept of “vibrations” and everything that they affect. In the puzzle above, the light caused the bulb to heat up through vibrations and so two ideas were working at the same time, light and heat. The same is true with every aspect of our body, it works on two levels, a chemical one and a vibrational one, they go hand in hand, one does not work without the other.

As every electron vibrates uniquely and everything is made up of electrons then it is incontrovertible to state that everything vibrates, absolutely everything. So if everything vibrates, it would seem fairly logical that one vibration must affect another. Just take sound as an example, a choir all singing together sounds very different from a school playground.

The same thing happens in our body, you get choirs in parts of our body where it is healthy vibrationally and noisy playgrounds where our body’s organs are malfunctioning causing vibrational disharmony and sickness.

This idea is hugely controversial as it contradicts everything that we have been taught. The tragedy however, is that science has proven it to be true in thousands of different studies, but has not promoted is as it implies that pharmaceutical drugs are not the only cure in town.

So if vibrations are the answer what about the big idea that is put forward by homeopaths that is it also to do with the concept that water has some sort of a memory to provide evidence that homeopathy works scientifically.

This is total nonsense and provides yet more ammunition to everyone who wants to dismiss a perfectly sensible area of science as pseudo-science. WATER DOES NOT HAVE A MEMORY. Of course it doesn’t. Water has amazing functions but memory is not one of them.

Water has the amazing property that enables it to change its vibrational pattern to the chemical or environment in which it is in. This is an incredibly important point and one that needs to be remembered, water is a chameleon, adapting itself to its environment vibrationally.

As an example, in one experiment, if you treated a cup of water with a specific vibrational frequency the water would change itself to that specific vibration and it would stay like that forever. It would only change if it came across a different vibration.

This vibrated water if ingested directly and instantly affects our body’s biological functions. Depending on the vibrational frequency of the water, different illnesses can be treated.

I have not included the specific scientific experiments here that prove all of the ideas I have outlined, but you can look them up for free on my website at http://www.blindedbyscience.co.uk in the bibliography section on the website.

The conclusion from my research is that if you add a chemical into a solution and then remove all traces of that chemical from the solution, the specific chemical vibrational remains which has the same biological affect as if the chemical were still in the water. The body recognises the new vibration and reacts accordingly.

This idea has radical implications for our health as it means that not only do we have to question the water that we drink but also our environment in which we live which is saturated with man made vibrations from all of the electronic machinery that we use in our every day lives. What damage are they in fact doing to our health?

So hopefully, in these few paragraphs I have shown that it is scientifically logical for homeopathic treatments to work, through the properties of vibrations. The problem that I have, however, is this: how do homeopathic treatments work when they are in solid pill form. For this I do not have the answers. I can only confirm that homeopathy is a very simple science in principle when it is in a solution and should be embraced by the scientific community.

About the author:
Matthew Silverstone is the author of Blinded by science, http://www.blindedbyscience.co.uk a book that will completely change your attitude to your health.

Blinded by Science offers a theory which when applied to factors like water, plants, the Sun and the Moon all seems to make perfect sense. As simple as it sounds, it is the theory that everything vibrates. The book explains that everything vibrates from the nucleus of an atom to the molecules of our blood, our brain, sound, plants, animals, all the way into outer space. Once this basic principle is understood, everything suddenly becomes clear. Once you apply this theory to the world around you, you will be astounded by what you learn. Find out more at http://www.blindedbyscience.co.uk

Original article source
http://www.naturalnews.com/033558_homeopathy_science.html

A gentle miracle post by David.

Spirit of the Tree

A gentle miracle post by David.

Homeopathy and Allopathic Medicine

Compare and contrast the homeopathic and the conventional models of health

Introduction
To begin to compare and contrast the homeopathic and conventional medicine models of health they adopt, it is necessary to define the two approaches within the context of working definitions. Firstly the definition of homeopathic and conventional medicine and secondly the definition of health utilised within both schools of thought.
By completing such an exercise, this essay will build upon the definitions and enable a critical comparison and contrast between the two health models.
Definition of Homeopathy
Homeopathy can be defined as an energetic system of medicine that is a ‘therapeutic medical science which holistically treats illness and inherent constitutional problems by applying the ‘like cures like’ principle, using minute quantities of remedies at varying potencies from animal, plant and mineral kingdoms.
Yasgur. Homeopathic Dictionary.
Definition of Conventional Medicine.
Conventional Medicine or Allopathy as it can be described is defined as, ‘The treatment of disease using medicines, whose effects are different from those of the disease being treated.’
Yasgur. Homeopathic Dictionary
As one can see there are fundamental differences between the two highlighted definitions, however the definition of health is somewhat less conflicting. The World Health Organisation for example defines health as, ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.’
The term ‘complete physical, mental and social well-being’, is, according to the World Health Organisation an integral part of defining health, however, as this essay will argue the execution of health models and medical practices as described can either compliment or indeed conflict with one or all of the components on the health of the person undergoing ‘treatment’ within the models in question.

Discussion
Key Differences
Taking the definitions into consideration, the main difference that becomes apparent is the like cures like principle in Homeopathy and the use of medicines that have the opposite effect on the symptoms being presented within conventional medical practices. This is a cause of conflict between the two models and ultimately, it could be argued, is a possible reason for the lack of understanding between the two. It appears within conventional medical thought that symptoms of disease require suppression through, pharmaceutical treatment, taking the form of opposite characteristics, once disappeared brings about a ‘cure’ of the complaint presented. However, by applying the health definition it could be argued that the physical, mental or social well-being of the individual is not complete but suppressed due to the opposite forces that have been administered. Homeopathic medical thought on the other hand expresses the belief as it mains ethos that by utilising the like cures like principle and remedies that match the symptoms of the disease, the symptoms are brought out in order to facilitate a cure and not suppress them. As a result the definition of health can be more accurately associated to the Homeopathic model due to the completion of physical, mental of social well-being as a result of the symptoms being cured in this way.
Interestingly, the ‘bringing out’ of symptoms that Homeopathic medicine can facilitate is considered, within conventional medicine as a ‘crisis’ of the symptoms and suppressed further, usually by further opposite, pharmaceutical treatments that can cause a number of side effects affecting other parts of the individual’s body. In essence, the treatment of one disease to restore someone to ‘health’ causes other elements that prevent that restoration occurring. Homeopathy, although may bring out further symptoms within the individual, this is usually a temporary effect and on most occasions a complete restoration of physical, mental and social well-being follows after a period of time. The Faculty of Homeopathy in 2005 conducted a research study to assess General Practitioners and classical Homeopaths treatment models for asthma and allergy. The study followed a number of GPs and Homeopaths in the treatment of people with asthma and allergy in order to compare the treatment pathways used by each profession. Some GPs interviewed during structured research groups stated ‘if a medicine has an effect, it also produces an adverse reaction’, another stated, ‘If people come in with no matter what symptom, then I always ask, are you taking any medicine? Because there are in fact no limits for the adverse reactions something can have.’ When asking Homeopaths the same questions regarding medicines, they all confirmed that there are no adverse reactions to homeopathic medicines but reactions can occur or an aggravation of symptoms, which according to the healing principles utilised within homeopathy is the healing process working, as long as the individual, experiencing the aggravation feels able to continue along that path of treatment or change to a more gentle level of treatment within the system.
The conventional medicine route also considers that all disease is caused by external organisms and although this can be proven with aspects such as viruses, bacteria and pathogens, the continued train of thought that everyone is susceptible and treated in the same way could be debated as being flawed. Medicines are mainly prescribed on symptomatic assessment of individuals presenting with similar diseases and the medication they receive is considered a blanket treatment pathway for them without full consideration to individual susceptibility. Homeopathy, differs somewhat from this train of thought as susceptibility is considered on a truly individualistic basis and although there are key characteristics of remedies that can be prescribed acutely for similar symptoms in many people, the true heart of homeopathic healing is the ‘matching’ of the remedy to the individual to support their personal journey back to health which could have a totally different remedy than someone else who originally had a similar presenting complaint. As a result a difference between the two methods could be described as mechanistic medicine in conventional methods and individualistic within the homeopathic field.
For many years, conventional medicine has relied on the compliance of the patient with treatment and ‘experts’ opinions. This has brought about a sense of disempowerment of the individual being treated to take ownership of their healing process and leave it in the hands of the medical profession. Homeopathically, the patient is pivotal to the healing process and is actively encouraged to take control of their treatment. In essence Homeopathy relies on an adult-adult relationship utilising transactional models, whereas conventional medicine utilises the adult-child relationship within its ethos.
The study cited on the previous page regarding GPs and Homeopaths treatment of allergy and asthma, also recognised that although medical treatment can prolong and enhance life, here a similarity between the two models can be seen, as an ethical base, however the similarity here ends as the study also recognised that conventional medicine can often make a person dependent on the medicine to remain well. Homeopathic medicine regimes support the individual to become free from the remedy in the long term in order to achieve the ‘completion’ as described in the health definition. As a result it is possible to conclude in this case that conventional medicine could be described as restricting with dependency on treatment whereas homeopathy could be described as freeing a person from treatment as its goal.
The type of treatment has an extreme difference between the two systems. Homeopathic medicine for example is mainly derived from natural materials whereas conventional medicines, although originally derived from natural substances has been further manufactured within the pharmaceutical sense that it could be described as pseudo-natural or even artificial in its presentation. This echoes the debate that the treatment is opposite to the cause within the conventional model by administering artificial substances into the natural environment the body can be described as.
Taking the human body further in this discussion, homeopathic medicine considers the body as an integrated system working on three distinct levels, the mental, the emotional and the physical and according to Vithoulkas these levels are continuously adjusting to maintain a dynamic equilibrium within the body as it is also this dynamic system that affects the organism at all times and in many ways, resulting in disease. Conventional medicine, it can be argued, although taking into consideration the physical, emotional and the mental state of the patient, each level is considered separate and treated accordingly, sometimes with different medication or treatment routes. This is further embedded in conventional medicine by the specialising of medical personnel in specific body systems and working solely with that body system to treat the symptoms experienced in that area of the body. Homeopaths, on the other hand, usually have experience of working with the whole body and treatment of individuals regardless of where their symptoms are experienced or what system of the body it originates from.
Another difference that causes a level of conflict is the ethos of energy versus organism. Homeopathically, the key to health lies within the vital force‘s (body’s natural internal energy) ability to maintain harmony when the body becomes susceptible to an organism that causes a level of imbalance. Conventional medicine, sees the key to health as supporting the body to fight an organism on the physical level by suppressing the symptoms that appear. This is a continued area of debate and one that is likely to continue for a very long time as the difference between energetic and physical medicine will require a substantial shift in the core foundations of each models belief systems.
Key Similarities
In my opinion the similarities between the two systems are fewer, however, it is important to note that the main similarity that will constantly remain between the two is the patient presenting to each practitioner. The patient’s ultimate goal is usually the wish to be well and symptom free from their presenting complaint.
The other important or main similarity is the impact, either energetically or physically the course of treatment recommended can have on the body and its systems, organs or relationships across the whole body. The need for each practitioner, be them a conventional medical professional or a homeopathic needs to understand the anatomical and physiological aspects of the human body in order to assess the patient’s symptomatic experience and have an understanding of how the body works when in harmony and balance. This is known as homeostasis and is a key similarity between both medical models and what the practitioners in both fields are supporting the patient to achieve. However, as the previous pages illustrate, how this is achieved differs and what homeostasis may look like to each practitioner may also be at opposite ends of the debate.
The concept of the health definition can also be described as a similarity between the two models as again, as with the previous paragraph, the ultimate goal of any practitioner working within the health field is to support the person to restore health to its potential. However, how this is achieved or recognised as being achieved will differ considerably from model to model.
Conclusion
The comparison between conventional medicine and homeopathy could continue many more pages, however, in my opinion this essay has highlighted the key areas that I consider to be integral in the debates between the two fields.
Revisiting the study carried out by the Faculty of Homeopathy referred to earlier both models have further work to do in order to bridge the gap between the two core belief systems. The researchers confirmed that during the research process the more experienced GPs implemented their treatment pathways of patients with asthma and allergy utilising a more ‘underlying cause’ with their patients, similarly to the homeopathic way of underlying imbalances. However, this showed only within the more experienced GPs who after many years of practice had the confidence to practice more independently from the core teaching they had received.
Until the concepts of both medical schools of thought begin the process of bridging the gaps described within this essay, the differences will continue to out way the similarities, and people will continue to receive varying forms of healing, differing results and ultimately different outcomes.
The World Health Organisation considers health as complete physical and mental social well-being and unfortunately, until the differences of opinion on what this means and how this looks within the models are resolved, the comparisons and contrasts between Homeopathy and conventional medicine will ultimately continue, thus potentially impacting on the attainment of ‘health’ as a society in its entirety.

David Feakes
August 2011

References
Launso et al (2005) – General Practitioners and classical Homeopaths treatment models for asthma and allergy. Faculty of Homeopathy.
Vithoulkas, George (1993). The Science of Homeopathy
Yasgur, J (2007) Homeopathic Dictionary and Holistic Health Reference

A gentle miracle post by David.

Depression and Pessimism Go Hand in Hand

There are side effects for your mindset – side effects that limit your life or set you free to enjoy it as it was meant to be enjoyed. To be optimistic is to be happy and to wait for the good to come your way – even if it’s not currently present in your life.

You want to believe in a better future. Pessimistic people aren’t happy because they’re waiting for the negative and they don’t believe positive things will happen for them. They believe the future won’t be any better than their life is right at the moment. It’s no wonder that depression and pessimism go hand in hand.

People with a negative outlook on life are often said to rain on your parade. If someone says something positive, they’ll counter with something negative. For example, “I won $10,000 in a lottery scratch off!”

A pessimistic person would immediately point out the taxes that will eat a chunk of that winning, discuss how people are going to come out of the woodwork for money, how winning money changes people and how that they’re at risk of being robbed. Just like that, the joy of winning the $10,000 was sucked dry.

Depression and pessimism go hand in hand because pessimistic people see (and project) an air of always being the victim in any situation. They use self pity as a way to gain attention and while bad things do happen, it happens to everyone without regard to who they are.

Bad things are an equal opportunity strike. But those who are optimistic pick up the bat again and keep swinging until they knock the ball out of the park. Pessimistic people turn up their coat collar and trudge home in the biting cold because the game is over if they strike out. The focus isn’t on the next game, not on the other team members, but on the one thing that happened that was difficult.

Attitude can make things much worse than they are. But it can also make things better by changing how you feel about it. Your thoughts can cripple you and prevent you from acting, from moving on, and from being able to find joy in any situation.

One of the main reasons for depression in pessimistic people is a sense of hopelessness. Nothing good ever happens. Nothing ever changes. Success, love, and money is for others, never for them.

Suppose Thomas Edison had focused only on his failures when inventing the lightbulb rather than on the progress he’d made and what he’d learned with each failure? You can’t help it if your lightbulb theory won’t work at first.

But you can change your thinking, keep going and persevere and it will turn around. Even if it doesn’t happen right away, by adjusting how you view things, you can be happy and you can lift the down mood you experience.

Depression and pessimism together can keep you mired in the muck of negativity, which then feeds the depression, which then feeds the pessimism – it’s a vicious circle. You don’t have to see the glass as half empty. Instead, you can see it as an opportunity waiting to be filled to the top.

Original source

http://www.healthylifestylesuccess.com/depression-and-pessimism-go-hand-in-hand.html

A gentle miracle post by David.

Hypericum and Depression

Background

In some countries extracts of the plant Hypericum perforatum L. (popularly called St. John’s wort) are widely used for treating patients with depressive symptoms.

Objectives

To investigate whether extracts of hypericum are more effective than placebo and as effective as standard antidepressants in the treatment of major depression; and whether they have fewer adverse effects than standard antidepressant drugs.

Search strategy

Trials were searched in computerised databases, by checking bibliographies of relevant articles, and by contacting manufacturers and researchers.

Selection criteria

Trials were included if they: (1) were randomised and double-blind; (2) included patients with major depression; (3) compared extracts of St. John’s wort with placebo or standard antidepressants; (4) included clinical outcomes assessing depressive symptoms.

Data collection and analysis

At least two independent reviewers extracted information from study reports. The main outcome measure for assessing effectiveness was the responder rate ratio (the relative risk of having a response to treatment). The main outcome measure for adverse effects was the number of patients dropping out due to adverse effects.

Main results

A total of 29 trials (5489 patients) including 18 comparisons with placebo and 17 comparisons with synthetic standard antidepressants met the inclusion criteria. Results of placebo-controlled trials showed marked heterogeneity. In nine larger trials the combined response rate ratio (RR) for hypericum extracts compared with placebo was 1.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.10 to 1.49) and from nine smaller trials was 1.87 (95% CI, 1.22 to 2.87). Results of trials comparing hypericum extracts and standard antidepressants were statistically homogeneous. Compared with tri- or tetracyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), respectively, RRs were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.15; 5 trials) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.11; 12 trials). Both in placebo-controlled trials and in comparisons with standard antidepressants, trials from German-speaking countries reported findings more favourable to hypericum. Patients given hypericum extracts dropped out of trials due to adverse effects less frequently than those given older antidepressants (odds ratio (OR) 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.46) or SSRIs (OR 0.53, 95% CI, 0.34-0.83).

Authors’ conclusions

The available evidence suggests that the hypericum extracts tested in the included trials a) are superior to placebo in patients with major depression; b) are similarly effective as standard antidepressants; c) and have fewer side effects than standard antidepressants. The association of country of origin and precision with effects sizes complicates the interpretation.

 

Plain language summary

St. John’s wort for treating depression.

Depression is characterised by depressed mood and/or loss of interest or pleasure in nearly all activities and a variety of other symptoms for periods longer than two weeks. Extracts of St. John’s wort (botanical name Hypericum perforatum L.) are prescribed widely for the treatment of depression.

We have reviewed 29 studies in 5489 patients with depression that compared treatment with extracts of St. John’s wort for 4 to 12 weeks with placebo treatment or standard antidepressants. The studies came from a variety of countries, tested several different St. John’s wort extracts, and mostly included patients suffering from mild to moderately severe symptoms. Overall, the St. John’s wort extracts tested in the trials were superior to placebo, similarly effective as standard antidepressants, and had fewer side effects than standard antidepressants. However, findings were more favourable to St. John’s wort extracts in studies form German-speaking countries where these products have a long tradition and are often prescribed by physicians, while in studies from other countries St. John’s wort extracts seemed less effective. This differences could be due to the inclusion of patients with slightly different types of depression, but it cannot be ruled out that some smaller studies from German-speaking countries were flawed and reported overoptimistic results.

Patients suffering from depressive symptoms who wish to use a St. John’s wort product should consult a health professional. Using a St. John’s wort extract might be justified, but important issues should be taken into account: St. John’s wort products available on the market vary to a great extent. The results of this review apply only to the preparations tested in the studies included, and possibly to extracts with similar characteristics. Side effects of St. John’s wort extracts are usually minor and uncommon. However, the effects of other drugs might be significantly compromised.

Article Source
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000448.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=2AAA0E656C401B292D9CB0554088D8EF.d03t04

A gentle miracle post by David.

Hypericum and Depression

Background

In some countries extracts of the plant Hypericum perforatum L. (popularly called St. John’s wort) are widely used for treating patients with depressive symptoms.

Objectives

To investigate whether extracts of hypericum are more effective than placebo and as effective as standard antidepressants in the treatment of major depression; and whether they have fewer adverse effects than standard antidepressant drugs.

Search strategy

Trials were searched in computerised databases, by checking bibliographies of relevant articles, and by contacting manufacturers and researchers.

Selection criteria

Trials were included if they: (1) were randomised and double-blind; (2) included patients with major depression; (3) compared extracts of St. John’s wort with placebo or standard antidepressants; (4) included clinical outcomes assessing depressive symptoms.

Data collection and analysis

At least two independent reviewers extracted information from study reports. The main outcome measure for assessing effectiveness was the responder rate ratio (the relative risk of having a response to treatment). The main outcome measure for adverse effects was the number of patients dropping out due to adverse effects.

Main results

A total of 29 trials (5489 patients) including 18 comparisons with placebo and 17 comparisons with synthetic standard antidepressants met the inclusion criteria. Results of placebo-controlled trials showed marked heterogeneity. In nine larger trials the combined response rate ratio (RR) for hypericum extracts compared with placebo was 1.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.10 to 1.49) and from nine smaller trials was 1.87 (95% CI, 1.22 to 2.87). Results of trials comparing hypericum extracts and standard antidepressants were statistically homogeneous. Compared with tri- or tetracyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), respectively, RRs were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.15; 5 trials) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.11; 12 trials). Both in placebo-controlled trials and in comparisons with standard antidepressants, trials from German-speaking countries reported findings more favourable to hypericum. Patients given hypericum extracts dropped out of trials due to adverse effects less frequently than those given older antidepressants (odds ratio (OR) 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.46) or SSRIs (OR 0.53, 95% CI, 0.34-0.83).

Authors’ conclusions

The available evidence suggests that the hypericum extracts tested in the included trials a) are superior to placebo in patients with major depression; b) are similarly effective as standard antidepressants; c) and have fewer side effects than standard antidepressants. The association of country of origin and precision with effects sizes complicates the interpretation.

 

Plain language summary

St. John’s wort for treating depression.

Depression is characterised by depressed mood and/or loss of interest or pleasure in nearly all activities and a variety of other symptoms for periods longer than two weeks. Extracts of St. John’s wort (botanical name Hypericum perforatum L.) are prescribed widely for the treatment of depression.

We have reviewed 29 studies in 5489 patients with depression that compared treatment with extracts of St. John’s wort for 4 to 12 weeks with placebo treatment or standard antidepressants. The studies came from a variety of countries, tested several different St. John’s wort extracts, and mostly included patients suffering from mild to moderately severe symptoms. Overall, the St. John’s wort extracts tested in the trials were superior to placebo, similarly effective as standard antidepressants, and had fewer side effects than standard antidepressants. However, findings were more favourable to St. John’s wort extracts in studies form German-speaking countries where these products have a long tradition and are often prescribed by physicians, while in studies from other countries St. John’s wort extracts seemed less effective. This differences could be due to the inclusion of patients with slightly different types of depression, but it cannot be ruled out that some smaller studies from German-speaking countries were flawed and reported overoptimistic results.

Patients suffering from depressive symptoms who wish to use a St. John’s wort product should consult a health professional. Using a St. John’s wort extract might be justified, but important issues should be taken into account: St. John’s wort products available on the market vary to a great extent. The results of this review apply only to the preparations tested in the studies included, and possibly to extracts with similar characteristics. Side effects of St. John’s wort extracts are usually minor and uncommon. However, the effects of other drugs might be significantly compromised.

A gentle miracle post by David.

Article regarding recall of medication due to contamination

J&J recalls 40000 bottles of schizophrenia drug Risperdal

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The Johnson & Johnson (J&J) Co.’s pharmaceutical division just cannot seem to get its act together. A recent recall involving 16,000 bottles of its schizophrenia drug Risperdal, and 24,000 bottles of a generic version of the same drug, mark yet another in the growing dozens the company has initiated over the past several years. And once again, the cause of the most recent recall involves the same strange odors caused by a palette chemical used to ship the drugs that also spurred earlier recalls.

According to a recent Reuters report, trace amounts of tribromoanisole, a chemical used to treat the wood palettes that store and ship the company’s drugs, apparently keep contaminating the drugs themselves, which is the same reason why the company had to initiate earlier recalls of Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, and others. Though the company claims, without much evidence of course, that the chemical is not harmful to health, officials admit it is at least a nuisance.

“While not considered to be toxic, TBA can generate an offensive odor and a very small number of patients have reported temporary gastrointestinal symptoms when taking other products with this odor,” said J&J in a recent press release.

Sold by the company’s Patriot Pharmaceuticals unit, Risperdal, known generically as risperidone, is the same harmful drug that prompted personnel from Michigan’s Child Protective Service (CPS) to target the now-infamous Maryanne Godboldo. As many NaturalNews readers now know, Godboldo had stopped giving her daughter Risperdal because its side effects were making the girl’s condition worse, which was her right to do, and was later raided by a SWAT team that illegally abducted her daughter (http://www.naturalnews.com/032089_a…).

Risperdal is known to cause abdominal pain, vomiting, aggression, anxiety, dizziness, and lack of coordination. Add to that the scent and taste of toxic chemicals, and it becomes obvious why J&J is opting to voluntarily recall the tainted drug, even if it supposedly poses no additional health risks.

For more information visit

http://www.naturalnews.com/032832_Risperdal_J&J.html

A gentle miracle post by David.

Pain Management and Reiki (An illustration of the positive use of energy medicine)

The practice of Reiki sounds almost too good to be true. By “laying on hands” on specific parts of your body or even just positioning hands slightly above your body, a qualified Reiki practitioner can help bring relief to your chronic pain and make you feel better than you have in years. It is an ancient Japanese technique and a form of alternative medicine also sometimes referred to as a “biofield” therapy.

In alternative medicine, Reiki is a treatment in which healing energy is channeled from the practitioner to the patient to enhance energy and reduce stress, pain, and fatigue. Practitioners say that it works by opening up a channel between healer and patient to transfer energy — a Reiki healer restores the body both physically and mentally.

During a Reiki session, muscles are relaxed, and energy flow is unblocked. This helps reduce physical tension and pain. Anxiety and stress also are reduced, helping to unblock and release emotional pain. Although you may not be completely pain-free, you feel relaxed, refreshed, and better able to cope with your condition.

Reiki and Chronic Pain: What the Research Shows

Though Reiki may sound very “new-agey,” the effectiveness of this ancient treatment has been shown in some studies. “A [recent] issue of the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine reviewed 66 clinical trials on biofield therapies,” says Julie Kusiak, MA, a Reiki practitioner in the integrative medicine department at Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Mich. The authors of the review concluded that there was strong evidence that biofield therapies help reduce the intensity of pain in general and moderate evidence that these therapies help reduce the intensity of pain for people who are hospitalized or who have cancer, Kusiak says.

In addition, Kusiak says, a separate review article of 24 studies also showed that touch therapies were successful in reducing pain. This review article noted that the studies involving Reiki therapy seemed to have the most success.

When Reiki is examined for its impact on more specific types of pain, the results seem to hold up equally well. “Recent studies on Reiki therapy reflect a broad spectrum of its benefit for pain relief,” says Kusiak. “During colonoscopy, Reiki treatment resulted in decreased anxiety and pain. With abdominal hysterectomies, the women who had Reiki therapy both before and after their procedures experienced lower anxiety and pain. Cancer patients being treated with Reiki reported lower fatigue, less pain, less anxiety, and better quality of life. And in a community of older adults, those who received Reiki therapy were documented to have reduced pain, anxiety, and depression.”

Another plus about Reiki, adds Kusiak, is that it seems to be effective with very few side effects. “No serious side effects or risks have been identified in the medical literature on Reiki, and it is considered to be a very low-risk intervention,” she says. “Since Reiki is facilitated either with a very light touch or with no touch — slightly off the body — it provides a therapeutic option for those who are in pain or unable to be touched.”

Finding a Reiki Practitioner for Chronic Pain

If you’re interested in finding a qualified practitioner of this alternative medicine, you can start by looking at Web sites such as The International Center for Reiki Training and Reiki Masters. However, Kusiak points out that standardization of the practice of Reiki is lacking in the United States, so your best bet might be to get a good reference and do some research on potential practitioners that you might be interested in.

“National standards are lacking for Reiki and other biofield therapies, so a key factor to consider would be the practitioner’s level of experience and training,” she says. “Ask them if they have an understanding of and experience treating your particular health concern. With serious medical concerns, you may need a practitioner who is affiliated with an integrative medicine program. Finally, as with any therapy, one needs to feel comfortable with the practitioner.”

Article Source:-

http://www.everydayhealth.com/pain-management/can-reiki-help-your-chronic-pain.aspx?xid=aol_eh-pain_29-_20110725&aolcat=HLT&icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-w%7Cdl7%7Csec3_lnk3%7C220035

A gentle miracle post by David.