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?
KB: That is a good question. It’s important to explain the mechanism of action of the ultra-high diluted remedies within the boundary of existing scientific knowledge, and to do research on all aspects to get the whole picture. If we can establish homeopathy as a branch of science, then man will get a unique system of medicine, holistic in approach, with inexpensive, non- toxic and easy-to-administer remedies which are used in micro-doses, and without any known side effects. Most orthodox remedies, as in allopathy, are very toxic and produce ill effects, although they can possibly do good by killing some organisms, pathogens. If we establish homeopathy as a science so people trust it as one, then mankind will benefit.
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
Tel: þ91-33-25828750 ext. 315
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.
12. Khuda-Bukhsh AR and Banik S. Assessment of cytogenetical damages in X-irradiated mice and their alterations by oral administrations of a potentized homeopathic drug, Ginseng-200 Berlin J Res Hom 1991; 1: 254-263
13. Khuda-Bukhsh AR and Maity S. Alteration of cytogenetical effects by oral administration of a homeopathic drug, Ruta graveolens in mice exposed to sub lethal X-irradiation Berlin J Res Hom 1990; 1: 264-274.
14. 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.
15. Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: An overview Mol Cell Biochem 2003; 253: 339-345.
16. Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Laboratory research in homeopathy: pro. Integr Cancer Ther 2006; 5:320–332.
17. Khuda-Bukhsh AR. The efficacy of potentized homeopathic drug in combating arsenic poisoning a suggestive scientific probe In Manna GK and Roy SC. (Eds.) Perspectives of Cytology and Genetics 2001; 10: AICCG Publishers 231-239.
18. Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: An overview. Mol Cell Biochem 2003;253:339–345. 32.
19. Khuda-Bukhsh AR, Pathak S, Guha B, Karmakar SR, Das JK, Banerjee P, Biswas SJ, Mukherjee P, Bhattacharjee N, Choudhury SC, Banerjee A, Bhadra S, Mallick P, Chakrabarti J, Mandal B. Can homeopathic arsenic remedy combat arsenic poisoning in humans exposed to groundwater arsenic contamination?: a preliminary report on first human trial. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2005 Dec;2(4):537-548. Epub 2005 Oct 19.
20. Kundu SN, Mitra K, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potentized homeopathic drug (Arsenicum-Album-30) in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: IV. Pathological changes, protein profiles, and content of DNA and RNA Comp Ther Med 2000; 8: 157-165.
21. Kundu SN, Mitra K, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of potentized homeopathic drug (Arsenicum Album-30) in reducing genotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: III Enzymatic changes and recovery of tissue damage in liver Comp Ther Med 2000; 8: 76-81.
22. Mallick P, Chakrabarti J, Guha B, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Ameliorating effect of microdoses of a potentized homeopathic drug, Arsenicum Album, on arsenic-induced toxicity in mice BMC Complemen Altern Med 2003; 3: 7-16.
23. Mitra K, Kundu SN, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potentized homeopathic drug (Arsenicum album-30) in reducing toxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: I. On rate of accumulation of arsenic in certain organs Comp Ther Med 1998; 6: 178-184.
24. Mitra K, Kundu SN, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Efficacy of a potentized homeopathic drug (Arsenicum album-30) in reducing toxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice: II. On alteration of body weight, tissue weight and total protein Comp Ther Med 1999; 7: 24-34.
25. Pathak S, Bhattacharjee N, Das JK, Chaki Chowdhury S, Roy Karmakar S, Banerjee P et al. Supportive evidences for anticancerous potential of an alternative medicine in hepatocarcinogenesis of mice. Res Com Med. June issue, 2007; 14:132
26. Pathak S, Das JK, Biswas SJ, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Protective potentials of a potentized homeopathic drug, Lycopodium-30, in ameliorating azo dye induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. Mol Cell Biochem 2006;258:121–131.
Manfred Mueller, MA, DHM, RSHom (NA), CCH, is a homeopathic consultant in private practice since 1986. Since 1995, Manfred has conducted integrative medicine consults at the UNC Memorial Hospital and has been on the Consultant Teaching Faculty of the Program on Integrative Medicine. His practice has been an official clinical rotation site for medical students from across the United States. He is president of the North American Society of Homeopaths. Manfred may be reached at Manfred@thehomeopathiccollege.org.
Reprinted with Permission from The American Homeopath, vol 13, 2007.