Interview of Professor Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh

By Manfred Mueller, MA, DHM, RSHom(NA), CCH

A few years ago, I was asked to be a consultant on the Research Review Committee and the Editorial Committee for an  NIH  educational  grant  on  teaching  complementary  and  alternative  medicine  at  the  Program  on  Integrative Medicine at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. While working with this group, consisting mostly of medical faculty and staff, I noticed that academic texts on complementary and alternative medicine are written almost exclusively by academicians within conventional medicine — by  authors lacking practical or personal experience with the field they write about. Furthermore,  in the research  articles  I  reviewed  for  the  project,  I  repeatedly  came  across  profound  misrepresentations  of  the  basic homeopathic tenets by established scientists who are writing about homeopathy.

I was pleasantly surprised to read, in 2003, an article on homeopathy by Prof. Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh in the Journal of Molecular  Chemistry  entitled,  “Towards  understanding  molecular  mechanisms  of homeopathy.”  I was impressed  that he actually explained the laboratory technique of potentization in this article, unlike some of his western colleagues who seemed to work  hard  to obscure  the difference  between  simple  dilutions  and potentization.  Here  was  a scientist  who  had thoroughly understood the theoretical principles of homeopathy. He was not only clear about the key questions, but also had the ability to communicate his understanding with clarity and the necessary detail.

After reviewing a 2005 article on homeopathic cancer research, again, I was impressed with his reasoning and his ingenious study design that showed efficacy of homeopathic  cancer treatment in artificially induced cancer in mice. I read several more articles by his team, and in June 2006, I decided to contact him to let him know how much I appreciated his contributions and to discuss with him an idea for a study that would clarify some theoretical questions on homeopathic treatment.

Prof. Khuda-Bukhsh  had published  several  studies  showing  that classical  homeopathic  remedies  have shown  protective effects in mice with such induced tumors. I wanted him to investigate the effect of the potentized dye on these tumors to learn more about the tautopathic hypothesis, and also if this dye could be an effective treatment for cancer. We have in our materia medica  two  effective  cancer  remedies  made  from  similar  textile  dyes — Methylene  blue  and  Congo  red.  Wouldn’t  it  be interesting to show with modern investigative techniques if the clinical observations of homeopaths prove correct!

He  responded  immediately  and  once  we  discussed  the  study  design,  he  revealed  to  me  that  he  was  having  difficulty obtaining good homeopathic remedies for his research. I contacted Michael Quinn of Hahnemann Laboratories and asked if he could make p-dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB) in several potencies. p-DAB is a yellow dye that is still widely used in the textile industry in developing countries. It is highly carcinogenic and, together with Phenobarbital as a promoter, induces liver tumors in mice in about 6 weeks. It took months to have the medicines ready, after which I donated them to Khuda-Bukhsh’s project.

Khuda-Bukhsh  is somewhat of a phenomenon.  He has published nearly thirty scientific articles in peer-reviewed  medical journals related to, or directly investigating homeopathic treatment, including cancer treatment, and yet many homeopathic practitioners  have  never  heard  of  him.  His  investigations  have  shown  strong  evidence  that  homeopathic  treatment  has  a biological effect, a fact that is still not widely accepted among scientists. He has shown for example that potentized medicines can cause demonstrable  protective  and restorative  reactions  in laboratory  animals  that have been poisoned  with arsenic and cadmium, and even in animals that had artificially induced liver cancers.

I  asked  the  Professor  if  I  could  conduct  an  interview  with  him  for  the  The  American  Homeopath,   to  which  he enthusiastically  agreed. I conducted the interview over the phone on June 14th, 2007. I found him to be an extremely humble and gracious man who is quick to give others credit for their accomplishments and downplay his own.

I have included a bibliography of his research at the end of the interview.

MM: I appreciate being able to talk to you today. I have reviewed your research and I’m absolutely in awe of your work.

KB: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity of talking to you, sir.

MM: How did you become  interested  in homeopathy,  and how did you get started in this kind of research?  It’s widely neglected and a highly specialized area.

KB: An accident brought me into this field. In 1980, I took a team of my students on an educational excursion. We were about to set out for a collection trip when suddenly one of my students fell from a staircase and broke one of her teeth. One of my students asked me, “Sir, we have a vial of homeopathic medicine called Arnica montana. Should I give her the medicine?” So I thought, why don’t we try, because we do not have any medical practitioner nearby. Then what happened is something I still remember.  She gave some globules at an interval of ten minutes’ time, and the patient dramatically  recovered  from the trauma and was ready to go with us. I was surprised and wondered how I could test the efficacy of such tiny globules. I thought I should conduct some kind of experiment on a mammalian model so I could extrapolate the results in humans.

I started reading some homeopathic books and discussed the matter with a local practitioner, a friend of mine. I learned that Arnica montana is a tested remedy against shock and injuries. Then I had a lot of sleepless nights designing my first set of experiments.

The initial problem was how to inflict shock and injury without killing the tiny creatures. I zeroed in on the idea of giving it internal shock and injury by exposing mice to x-ray radiation at a moderate dose that would not kill them but be strong enough to have visible, quantifiable effects on their genome. This experimental design had several advantages. The dose of x-ray could be controlled and monitored,  and we could see the effect on the mouse genome periodically  after x-ray radiation had certain fixed intervals, keeping suitable controls. Thus we could see the modulations by Arnica montana, if any.

We adopted  different  scientifically  accepted  cytogenetical  protocols,  because  that was my discipline.  For example,  we could study the type and quantities of various chromosome damages, number of broken chromosome parts, changes in division rate on bone marrow cells, etc. We also studied the morphological  changes inflicted by x-rays on sperm head morphology  in both  control  and  drafted  mice.  We  got  encouraging  positive  results  in  the  very  first  set  of  experiments.  Replicating  the experiments, we again got similar kinds of positive results.

Subsequently,  we designed experiments  in which mice would take Arnica montana prior to, after, and both prior to and after x-ray radiation to find out which kind of drug administration was more efficacious. This was the beginning, and since the area was new, I sensed a biologist could play an important role in developing multidisciplinary  fields. The more I worked, the more I fell in love with it, and I’m still on a long journey.

MM: That’s fascinating. As you state in one of your excellent papers, “Homeopathic  research requires an interdisciplinary approach: biology, physics and medicine.” Could you briefly explain why this is so, and how you are qualified to work in these broad areas of research?

KB: I have said this because an important part of research is to help understand the mechanism  of action of ultra-diluted homeopathic  drugs, one of the most debated subjects, and a reason why homeopathy  is not considered as scientific by many. The homeopathic  remedies at or above 12C potency do not contain even a single molecule of the original raw substance. So how can this be effective medicine? If you successfully show that you have been able to remove the disease symptom by homeopathic medicine, a non-believer will simply tell you that the disease symptom would have perished anyway without the help of the remedy at all. Even if someone concedes that the remedy works, one will be asked to explain how it works, how the medicinal property of the original mother tincture can be transferred to and retained by the aqueous alcohol vehicle.

The research necessary  to understand  this aspect falls within the domain of the physicist, as does the form in which the signal or information or molecular imprint is stored. How the signal can evoke similar response and be transformed into active signals for various metabolic activities by interacting with receptor molecules of the cell can best be studied by a biologist. The various psychological changes that modulate the disease symptom back to recovery process, the various psychosomatic factors and physiological  processes  involved,  the mind-body  interactions  can best be explained  by the medical  researcher.  I do not think I am qualified to study the physical and medical aspects with the same degree of authenticity and accuracy, but being a faculty member of a university I have colleagues in physics and medicine. My co-researchers have biochemistry and biophysics backgrounds. Time will tell whether we have been able to make a mark in research.

MM: Homeopathy  is a very popular  form  of medicine  almost  around  the world,  and many  homeopaths  go about  their business never wondering about the scientific aspects. They see clinical effect and that’s good enough for them. Why do you think homeopathic research is important, and what do you risk as a scientist by embarking on homeopathic research as opposed to some more conventional subject matters?

This requires a tremendous effort from many scientists, and there are bottlenecks. Funding for research is inadequate and for most researchers is inaccessible. Publishing well thought-out and well designed works in mainstream peer-reviewed reputed journals is also difficult. However, there is some visible improvement in attitude in this regard and a few mainstream journals of good standing are not averse to the idea of publishing good research findings. Sometimes motivating a researcher to pursue an unknown,  unproven  path without any gallantry  of getting positive results makes the thing very difficult. I should not fail to mention the doubtful glances I receive from some of my mainstream researcher friends. They express their doubts about the truthfulness when positive results are obtained, but not really when negative results are reported.

MM: You and I have been in touch prior to this interview. I helped you obtain some potencies of p-DAB here in the United States, because I understand  this is difficult for you to get. Also, you have had difficulty obtaining a published article in the journal Research in Complementary  Medicine on research done by your own team. It is surprising  for me that you wouldn’t have direct access to these journals, as a scientist running a laboratory. Can you tell us about this situation you’re working under and some of the day-to-day difficulties and challenges you’ve encountered in your work?

KB: Yes, it’s true to a great extent you know, in this part of the world and perhaps in many other countries. Homeopathic research is not considered as real research, maybe. But you can take our case. We started our research in 1980 and could not procure any funds until 2001. We somehow managed to carry out our work during this long period by utilizing some chemicals and glassware purchased for other projects on mammalian or mainstream research. Sir Richard Thompson of Rayne Institute, England was very kind to provide us with a small fund to work on arsenic toxicity in mice and on homeopathic  remedies. In 2004,  Dr.  Philippe  Belon,  director  for  Boiron  Laboratories,   Lyon,  France  visited  our  laboratory  and  recommended   a collaborative project on arsenic toxicity, which was generously granted by Dr. Christian Boiron. Soon thereafter, we also got a fund from our own Indian government,  Ministry  of Health and Family Welfare, an organization  named AYUSH,  to test the efficacy of homeopathic  drugs in artificially induced mice cancer model. We are very glad to tell you that Boiron Laboratory has extended the project, and now we are in a much better position and hope to carry out more sophisticated research in future years.

MM: You’ve conducted a series of studies in the use of homeopathic drugs in treating malignant tumors in animals. What is the significance of your findings for human cancer treatment with homeopathic drugs?

KB: Mouse is a very good mammalian model. It has about 98% genetic similarity with humans, and can be easily cultured, reared and maintained in the laboratory with minimal cost. In the scientific world, controlled experiments are done in mice and data extrapolated for understanding  in human application. This is a common practice and perfectly acceptable. Therefore, if a homeopathic drug demonstrates anti-cancer potential in mice, it can be presumed it will in human as well. Replication of study by independent researchers on other mammalian models for verification and confirmation are necessary before actual human application.

MM: I have seen undeniable positive clinical effects from homeopathic treatment of cancer patients who are opting out of conventional care. Can these observations be corroborated by science?

KB: It can be, but there are certain complications in carrying out research with human materials or subjects. Skeptics would demand control subjects who don’t receive any medicine, just to show that the positive effects of the homeopathic  drug was because of the drug administration  only. In cases like cancer or serious terminal diseases, is it possible to maintain controls? Can we deprive the patient of real medicine  and give them placebos  just to satisfy our purpose  of seeing that homeopathic medicines work? I think this kind of scientific demand is unethical. Controlled human studies can be done with lesser diseases like rhinitis or migraine. It is possible to show scientifically  that homeopathic  medicines work in humans, and we have done some research on human beings, on thalassemia. You yourself have also treated many patients with various types of cancer, so your pathological, physiological test data could also reveal that they have been cured to a large extent or they are having a better quality of life. That is also scientific.

MM: In homeopathic cancer treatment, we have observed clinical benefits from constitutional treatment, which is a kind of systemic  treatment,  and  we often  find  increased  effects  from  alternating  with  a more  specific  medicine  that  addresses  the approach?

KB: We have not worked with such a perspective  ourselves. But in our human trial on arsenic-exposed  people, we have noticed that a few subjects provided with the constitutional remedy along with Arsenicum 30 responded better. We believe the constitution  or  miasm  actually  speaks  of  the  genetical  makeup  of  the  person,  a  particular  genetic  constitution.  Because homeopathy  also  considers  the  state  of  mind  and  other  psychosomatic  factors  along  with  the  disease  symptoms  in  drug selection, I think constitutional remedies can have greater influence on the genetic system while the specific drug that you select as the similar could give some added advantage.

MM: Many homeopaths have seen tumors respond very well to low potencies in clinical practice, and homeopaths such as R. T. Cooper have advanced a technique using so-called arborivital mother tinctures of fresh plants, finding them very effective directly on tumors, meaning tumors would often recede during or as a result of treatment. Others have found effects from very high potencies.  From  a scientific  point of view,  are there any data or findings  suggesting  different  levels  of efficacy  from various levels of potentization in cancer treatment?

KB: Now you raise questions in which homeopaths differ. Some say mother tinctures act better and some say potentized remedies are better. In the various studies we have conducted,  particularly  on the cancer mice model, we have seen that the mother tincture as well as the potentized  remedies act quite efficiently  against the cancer, while the mother tincture showed better efficacy in case of some symptoms or parameters of study. The potentized medicines, the 30th potency particularly, give a wide coverage of parameters and are found to be suitably modified or positively modulated with the 30th potency as well as the 200th potency. In certain cases, we were surprised to see the 200th potency working better at longer fixation intervals. We cannot generalize this, because sometimes we found that at longer intervals of fixation the mother tincture gave better results in reducing tumors, particularly in mice.

We have not totally studied the mother tinctures Chelidonium, Hydrastis, Carduus, and others, nor have we published many data as yet, but extensive studies have been done on both mother tinctures and 30th or 200th potencies. Our general belief is that both mother tinctures and potentized forms can act at specific circumstances, and we have some kind of differential functions of modulations in respect of some specific parameters of study. Suppose that you are studying tumor incidence. Maybe the mother tincture is giving better results. When you are studying the, say, liver function test, maybe the 30th potency is giving better response than the mother tincture. Then you are studying for the longer intervals, at four months or three months, maybe you find the 200th potency giving better results. So, you’ll find the potentized drugs are very efficacious. So is the mother tincture. The arborivital  mother tinctures have a lot of elements, which we are now studying, a lot of alkaloids.  We find with HPLC separation of successive potencies some very interesting results indeed. We have to check and recheck and we maybe will be able to publish some good data in the near future.

MM: In West Bengal, where you live, there has been a problem with arsenic contamination in the drinking water, a problem which you and your team have studied. How are your findings relevant to homeopaths, especially here in the United States?

KB: If I’m not mistaken there are also a few pockets in the US where people are at risk of arsenic exposure. We have shown the efficacy of several drugs antidoting the ill effects of heavy metal poisoning — Arsenicum  sulph against arsenic poisoning, Cadm sulph against cadmium  poisoning,  Merc sulph against mercury poisoning.  It’s possible that individual  toxicity can be dealt with by potentized forms of the remedy originating from the same chemical. Further, our research work on thalassemia is very encouraging  in that there was additional benefit derived by patients who had been on the chelator hydroxy urea. I think these are some of the studies which have relevance to people around the globe, including the US.

MM: A potency  made from a substance  that produces  an illness  can remove  that illness,  even induced  cancer.  You’ve worked a lot with induced cancer in mice. As you have pointed out in one of your articles, Roberfroid, et al., tested this in the laboratory and found that the 9C potency of Phenobarbital could remove tumors induced by that drug. Would you suggest that this effect is so universal that it could be utilized systematically  as a homeopathic treatment when it is clear that the effects of drugs or toxins have induced an illness?

KB: More research is necessary to come to a conclusive idea about this, but it is one area which is very promising. I feel yes, it is quite possible.

MM: And that’s true with all homeopathic research, to make any final conclusions may be premature, from a scientific point of view. Much homeopathic research and certainly most scientists appear to be hung up on the issue of the ultra-diluted drugs, for example Edzart Ernst, who is a prolific writer on alternative medicine, has repeatedly emphasized the implausibility of homeopathy   because  we  sometimes  use  drugs  that  are  diluted  beyond  Avogadro’s   number.  Homeopaths   have  always this distinction to a skeptic or someone who doubts homeopathy or the high dilutions?

KB: This is again another issue in which homeopaths themselves differ to some extent. To Dr. Ernst only mother tinctures may  be efficacious,  and  when  you  dilute  the  medicine  or remedy  beyond  Avogadro’s  limit,  there  is the  implausibility  of homeopathy.  But  I  don’t  believe  in  that.  It’s  an  over-simplification  of  homeopathy  altogether.  Yes,  a  potentized  drug  is something very distinct from a drug that is merely diluted. It is not a question of belief. We are examining this question in the light of science, and we hope to give some data for the non-believers to ponder over in the near future.

MM: There’s some recent research  by Rostum  Roy which examines  the physical properties  of these potencies.  Are you familiar with that?

KB:  Yes,  he and  Dr. Anagin  Staples  are  doing  some  research,  and  there  are  quite  a few  researchers,  like  Louis  Ray, Wiegand, Wissig, who are doing good work on the physical aspects. Although I feel we are venturing afield, we are trying to make a little contribution as well.

MM: That also has to do with the whole question of whether research in homeopathy should only focus on this issue, since homeopathy,  as you say in one of your papers,  is really  more than just potentized  medicine.  It also applies  to the Law of Similars.  And the term “homeopathic”  is often applied  for simply  potentized  drugs — people  refer to homeopathic  drugs as potentized drugs, or potentized drugs as homeopathic  drugs. When we see this in scientific articles, we have to ask if there is confusion  among the scientists, because the real issue that they’re studying is not the homeopathic  hypothesis,  but the ultra- dilution hypothesis. Would you say in the animal research with rodents that when you give a homeopathic remedy Chelidonium or Carcinosinum, you’re testing homeopathic treatment or just the ultra-dilution or potentization hypothesis?

KB:  In  a  way,  both.  In  animal  experiments,  you  cannot  take  into  consideration  the  psychological  factors  or  other symptomatic factors which is possible in human research. We are testing the ultra-dilution or potentization hypothesis in a true sense  in  the  animals  but  we  are  also  testing  homeopathy  in  a  sense  that  in  the  cancer  case,  we  are  feeding  the  animals carcinogens  which have direct effects on liver so that the liver is in a disorderly state. Some remedies like Chelidonium,  and other remedies  like Carduus  marianus  and Hydrastis  have great effect on the liver. Since we are giving a remedy  directed towards protecting the liver, we are testing the homeopathic principle. We also want to test the ultra-dilution effect, because the nonbelievers  say it is the psychosomatic  or placebo  effect that is the curative  force in human  beings.  Humans’  faith in the system of medicine gets them cured. The animals don’t have any type of faith in the medicine, but if they are cured, that is a system of testing that the medicine is working. This is one way of contradicting skeptics who suggest homeopathic medicines are nothing but placebos. The animal experiments are very important in proving both, I think.

MM: That brings us to the action of homeopathic  medicines.  How do they act in the biological  system?  How do these potencies  actually  trigger a response  on the molecular  and cellular level? You published  an excellent  article on this subject matter in 2003 and you also have engaged in a point-counterpoint  debate in the December 2006 issue of the journal Integrative Cancer Therapies. What is the current state of the art with regard to the biological effect of homeopathic potencies?

KB: The first problem is to understand the molecular architecture of water. Many physicists around the world are trying to ascertain the physical chemical properties of potentized homeopathic drugs by deploying various modern techniques — UV spectrophotometry,  nuclear magnetic resonance,  HPLC analysis, radiospectroanalysis,  etc. The technologies  are there to help these very qualified scientists. Skilled biologists have proved the efficacy of both crude and potentized forms of remedies in well designed clinical and laboratory research. Currently, research is at the molecular and ultra-structural levels, so that the medicine’s effects after it is administered  on the tongue can be tracked inside the body. Biological researchers are now using state-of-the-art techniques like immunoblots to study different subcellular ultra-structural changes. Scanning and transmission electromicroscopy,   gelatin   zymography,   microarray — these   are  all  important   techniques   that  can  give  the  scientist   a breakthrough in understanding the molecular mechanism of action of the homeopathic drug.

Unless  we understand  the molecular  mechanism  of the drug, skeptics  or nonbelievers  will not accept homeopathy  as a science at all, and that area of research is booming with activity. We are trying humbly to add some contribution in this field and to deploy the technological advances, now that we are having some fund flow, taking up some challenging research at the molecular and ultra-structural levels, so that more critical detail of the mechanism of the pathways of action of the drug can be followed. We are now doing some research on various prokaryotes, protozoans and other organisms to understand more broadly at the molecular level how the drugs act when primitive organisms demonstrate distinctive responsive mechanisms to the homeopathic remedies.

MM: There has been a surge of activity in homeopathic cancer studies in the US, notably a team of researchers associated with the Samueli Institute and in collaboration with the Bethesda, Maryland and Houston, Texas medical centers. Some of this research was published in Integrative Cancer Therapies. What can you say about those studies? Some of them have found only marginal efficacy from homeopathic drugs in the treatment of tumors. What is different about their approach and findings?

KB: Dr. Wayne Jonas is a respected personality  in homeopathic  research, and I admire his research and approach. He is trying to give some credibility to homeopathic research by being cautious in his approach so he can make an impact on the mainstream  researchers. The results they are getting should be convincing enough for the mainstream  researchers. They must publish their results, but we are also publishing what we are getting, and we are honest and sincere about our results. There may be some difference in experimental protocols, conditions, or biological materials which could lead to differences in results. We long to see our work replicated  by others. If we are biased in our research protocols or observations,  correction  can only be possible  when  other  researchers  with  expertise  in these  techniques  repeat  our experiments.  That  is when  our work  can be evaluated and confirmed or refuted. All research should be directed to revealing the truth, and we are for revealing the truth and the truth only. We respect others’ research, and we respect our own. If we are getting something, then we are getting it, then that’s it.

MM:  In  a  recent  editorial   in  the  current — June   2007 — issue   of  the  German   peer-reviewed   journal  Research   in Complementary  Medicine (Forschende  Komplementärmedizin),  John Ives of the Samueli Institute for Information Biology, in Alexandria, VA, and James Giordano, with the Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC, launch considerable criticism against the methodology of one of your studies (Pathak, et al.) also published in that same issue. The authors of the editorial  invoke the notion of trust as extended  in scientific  work and name the lack of double-blinding  on the part of your staff who administered the remedies in your research. They address the fact that you have found almost across the board positive efficacy. What do you say to this criticism?

KB: I thank them for printing an editorial on that article, which they must have considered important. John is a good friend, and is entitled  to his views.  He visited  our laboratories,  not in context  of this research.  Someone  has to feed the mice the carcinogen.  How can they be blind if they are feeding those mice carcinogens?  It cannot be double-blind.  My two coauthors feed the mice. They were not allowed to observe the parameters  of study, not informed about which slide they were dealing with. Is it a slide from placebo-fed or from the drug-fed? They had no information in that regard. For all practical purposes, this was a blinded experiment, but one has to criticize some points and I take it sportingly. Not all they have stated are against our findings. They have also pointed out that this could open up other avenues and start dialogue among researchers, and lead to replication. In my paper, I requested many researchers to carry out these studies and see if they get these results. We can repeat the experiments. But if we repeat and find the same results, questions still prevail. That is why we left it to other people to test, verify, and either confirm or refute. For any good discovery, there should be a storm of criticism, followed by either acceptance or followed by the act of truth. We feel enthused, excited and encouraged to carry on with our research and to prove again and again that there is truth in whatever we have written in that paper.

MM: The Samueli  Institute  group  published  a study  that was funded  by DARPA,  an agency  of the US Department  of Defense,  that — reviving  the so-called  “Benveniste  affair” — employed  a novel  approach  to eliminate  research  bias. I cite a social component that included psycho-social and conflict resolution experts. What do you think of such an approach, and does homeopathic research require special assistance from experts such as professional skeptics, psychiatrists, or even magicians, as in the case of the Benveniste controversy?

KB: Well, everybody is entitled to one’s views. Why don’t you raise such questions when you are performing experiments with other systems of medicine? Do you believe others when they’re doing such experiments that they’re 100 percent sure of their findings? Why treat homeopathic  research as a distinctly different branch of research? Research has no boundaries. You cannot single out homeopathic research to be full of unfounded ideas. Consider what Galileo said. The entire world disbelieved him and he was proved correct after hundreds of years. People thought Faraday was just dancing the muscles of a frog, but people really danced to the tune of electricity afterwards. We should view things in their proper perspective. I do not have any objections to including some psychiatrists,  magicians, skeptics, but may I know what scientific role they are going to play? It may be a good idea for some people, but I don’t know how practicable this could be to all homeopathic researchers around the world. How many magicians will there be to help me? How many psychiatrists who have a firsthand knowledge of HPLC, of Southern blotting, Western blotting techniques? They don’t have any knowledge in this regard. All they can do is challenge any and every bit of research. This is something of a novel idea, I would say. Let some people try this method and see whether it gives credibility to this controversial research.

MM: I am immensely grateful for the work you do, and I wonder, how can the world homeopathic community support you in your work?

KB: There are seldom established  homeopaths  like yourself who like to learn from the researchers  of homeopathy.  First, there should be a conscious effort on the part of homeopaths  who earn their living through homeopathy  to raise and provide funds  for  researchers  with  proven  abilities.  They  should  be  given  opportunities  to  exchange  views  with  the  homeopathic fraternity in international seminars, not to speak about their own research only but also to learn about homeopathy. In time there could be an interface between the homeopathic  practitioners  and scientists.  Homeopathic  practitioners  should keep scientific data of their clinical researches and publish in peer-reviewed journals for the benefit of scientists.

MM: Thank you very much for this conversation.

A.R. Khuda-Bukhsh, PhD., is a professor at the Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani-741235, India. He has conducted groundbreaking investigations on homeopathic medicine since

1980 and has published dozens of scientific articles on homeopathic topics and other areas of research. For a comprehensive bibliography of his articles see below. His contact information is

Professor Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh, Department of Zoology

University of Kalyani

Kalyani-741235, India

Tel: þ91-33-25828750 ext. 315

Fax: 91-33-25828282

E–mail: prof_arkb@yahoo.co.in  or khudabukhsh_48@rediffmail.com

ARTICLES BY PROFESSOR A.R. KHUDA–BUKHSH

1.    Banerjee P, Biswas SJ, Belon P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. A potentized homeopathic drug, arsenicum album 200, can ameliorate genotoxicity induced by repeated injections of arsenic trioxide in mice. J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med. 2007 Sep; 54(7): 370-376.

2.    Belon  P,  Banerjee  A,  Karmakar  SR,  Biswas  SJ,  Choudhury  SC,  Banerjee  P,  Das  JK,  Pathak  S,  Guha  B,  Paul  S, Bhattacharjee   N,  Khuda-Bukhsh   AR.  Homeopathic   remedy  for  arsenic  toxicity?:   Evidence-based   findings   from  a randomized placebo-controlled  double blind human trial. Sci Total Environ. 2007 Oct 1; 384(1-3): 141-150. Epub 2007 Jul 12.

3.    Banerjee P, Biswas J, Belon P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. A potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum Album 200, can ameliorate genotoxicity induced by repeated injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice. J Vet Med 2007 A 54, 370-376

4.    Belon P, Banerjee P, Choudhury SC, Banerjee A, Biswas SJ, Karmakar SR, Pathak S, Guha B, Chatterjee S, Bhattacharjee N, Das JK, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Can administration of potentized homeopathic remedy, Arsenicum album, alter antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer in people living in high-risk arsenic contaminated  areas? I. A correlation with certain hematological parameters. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Mar; 3(1): 99-107. Epub 2006 Jan 23.

5.    Bhattacharjee N, Pathak S, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Amelioration of carcinogen-induced  toxicity in mice by administration of a potentized homeopathic drug, Natrum Sulphuricum 200. eCAM 2007; page 1 of 1.

6.    Biswas   SJ,  Khuda-Bukhsh  AR.  Effect of a homeopathic drug, Chelidonium, in amelioration of  p-Dab   induced hepatocarcinogenesis  in mice. BMC Complement Alternat Med 2002;2:1 16.

7.    Biswas SJ, Pathak S, Khuda-Bukhsh  AR. Assessment  of the genotoxic  and cytotoxic  potential of an anti-epileptic  drug, phenobarbital, in mice:  a time course study. Mutat Res. 2004 Sep 12;563(1):1-11.

8.    Biswas SJ, Khuda-Bukhsh  AR. Evaluation of protective potentials of a potentized homeopathic drug, Chelidonium majus, during azo dye induced hepatocarcinogenesis  in mice. Indian J Exp Biol 2004;42:698–714

9.    Biswas SJ, Pathak S, Bhattacharjee N, Das JK, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potentized homeopathic drug, Carcinosin-200,   fed   alone   and   in   combination   with   another   drug,   Chelidonium-200,    in   amelioration   of   p-Dab   induced hepatocarcinogenesis  in mice. J Altern Complement Med 2005;11:839–854.

10.  Datta  S,  Mallick  P,  Khuda-Bukhsh  AR.  Efficacy  of  a  potentized  homeopathic  drug  (Arsenic  Album-30)  in  reducing genotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: Comparative studies of pre-, post- and combined pre-and post-oral administration and comparative efficacy of two microdoses Comp Ther Med 1999; 7: 62-75.

11.  Datta  S,  Mallick  P,  Khuda-Bukhsh  AR.  Efficacy  of  a  potentized  homeopathic  drug  (Arsenic  Album-30)  in  reducing genotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: II. Comparative efficacy of an antibiotic, actinomycin D alone and in combination with either of two microdoses Comp Ther Med 1999; 7: 156-116.