A Critical Overview of Current Evidence of Homeopathic Treatment of Malignant Tumours in Humans

Introduction

Increased cell growth forming a clone of cells resulting in a malignant, invasive rather fast growing tumour with the capability of migration and metastasis is called cancer. Cancer is not one but many diseases. It is equally found in males and females and highly dependent on the environment and rises dramatically with age. (Walmod 2006).

Cancer accounts for more deaths than heart diseases for persons under 85 years old. One in four deaths is due to cancer in the USA. In the UK, 150 000 people died of cancer in 2005 (Cancer research UK 2008) and The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated cancer to account for 13% of all deaths worldwide in 2005 (WHO 2005).

CAM therapies are popular among cancer patients. A survey showed a range among European countries between 14.8% to 73.1% with homeopathy being in the top (Molassiotis 2005). Homeopathy, like other complementary therapies, has especially been known to complement medical treatment as a support for treating the side effects of conventional treatment, for pain control and emotional issues (Hoffmann 2007, OCCAM 2004). A survey showed that cancer patients mainly have interest in psychological help from Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) (Stevenson 1995). Other findings suggest that side effects from conventional therapy play an important role when CAM is chosen (Haustein 2004). Hirneise (2006) and Montfort (2000) mention side effects from chemotherapy as a reason for patient’s choice of CAM therapy.

Homeopathic treatment used as primary treatment has been criticised for delaying conventional treatment resulting in increased recurrence and death (Chang, Glissmeyer and Tonnes 2006). There is, however, a need to address the actual tumour with for example homeopathic treatment, (comma) where operation is not possible e.g. liver, lung or brain tumours (WDDT 2006).

Historically there is a long tradition of treating cancer homeopathically (Master 2005, Scholten 2006). From the older literature (Jones, Burnett, Clarke and others), success rates above 50% are mentioned. In spite of the encouraging results from the past , homeopaths today may be reluctant to treat serious pathology like cancer (Spinedi 1998). A revival of the old tradition is seen both in Germany and India (Reichenberg – Ullman and Ullman 2004).

In this article, the author seeks to explore if there is evidence of current homeopathic treatment influencing tumour size in human beings.

Literature Search

Journal/Database

A literature search was carried out in the databases shown in the table below. Search words “Homeopathy AND cancer” (Boo’lean search) were used. Refined search with “Homeopathy AND cancer AND tumour” was then used.

The “Relevant” category only includes articles discussing homeopathy in relation to tumour size, so articles related to the treatment of side effects of conventional treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy and operation) were excluded. Articles with the main focus on emotional issues arising from a cancer diagnosis were not used.

Published Books

A search in the homeopathic literature (Narayana Verlag) showed books with case stories related to the topic from 5 authors (Master, Payrhuber, Ramakrishnan, Spinedi, Wurster).

Results

Literature was found in the following groups:

• Systematic review
• Chart review
• Case stories

Systematic Review

One systematic review (Milazzo, Russel and Ernst 2006) summarized and critically evaluated the efficiency of homeopathic remedies used as a sole or additional therapy in cancer care. Six trials were included in the study and assessed by Jadad score. Secondary outcome measures included tumour response. The analysis found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic cancer treatment.

Chart Review

The results from a chart review concluded homeopathic treatment as a cause of increased recurrence and death of cancer patients (Chang, Glissmeyer and Tonnes 2006).

Case Stories

One hundred and seventy-eight case histories from the following authors were included in the study:

Case studies are known to examine real situations and not to distort naturally occurring behaviour and thus offer good external validity (Lukoff 1998 cited in Thompson 2004). Furthermore, it is argued that clinical cases are the most realistic way to explore a treatment.

Tonelle and Callahan suggest that obtaining knowledge of a healing art should be coherent with the arts underlying understanding and theory of illness. Case stories are traditionally used as knowledge transfer in homeopathy, but often present information in an unsystematic way. The case reports are known to be anecdotal, and improved research quality is suggested by Thompson (2004) by introducing formal case study (FCS) thus improving the reliability and validity.

Thompson mentions the following limitations of a typical homeopathic case report:

• missing rival explanations of change in health status.
• no objective evidence in the form of questionnaire, laboratory findings, etc.
• dependent on notes of the practitioner.
• retrospective allowing for selection of best results and not indicative of the whole practice.
• insufficient details on duration of treatment, follow-up times.
• unchanged symptoms not included in follow-up reports.

Information from 178 Case Studies:

All patients prior to homeopathic treatment had been diagnosed with cancer and there was no doubt of the severity of their conditions. The survival rate was much above standard, resulting in cure of several cases.

Laboratory findings from later stages were included in most cases. The follow-up time varied from a few months (in only a few cases) to 8 years and was generally very long.

In Masters study, the disease process was halted in 5 patients out of the 22 cases and the remaining 17 died from cancer, but with a longer survival rate than expected from the circumstances.

Wursters cases are chosen from the categories difficult to treat or exhausted by conventional treatment. Four cases had metastasis and were given no chance of survival from the conventional perspective. Not all of Wurster’s cases met the criteria of 5 years survival rate, but they were exceptional because no signs of cancer were present in what were considered  ”hopeless” cases.

Ramakrishnan includes a statistical chart divided into case stories before and after 1993, demonstrating how a change in method of administrating the homeopathic remedy had affected the outcome. The statistic after 1993 uses “successful” for some cases without meeting the 5 year non-recurrence rate. Success rates are calculated from viable cases, which here mean cases without metastasis. Success rate varies from 30-80, depending on method of administration of the homeopathic remedy and the type of cancer (See appendix III).

Montfort and Wurster mention surgical operation to be a trigger for recurrence in some cases. This is in line with information put forward by Ann Chir (1998). It is however a theory not fully substantiated by the findings in this study and should be further investigated.

The case studies can be divided into three categories:

1. Increased death rate and recurrence of tumours.

2. Stable condition, no further progress of the cancer e.g. tumour encapsulated.

3. Healing of the cancer condition.

Ramakrishnan, Wurster (2006) mentions that good results with the method were seen in the beginning of treatment but with relapse later on.

There are different views on what is curable by homeopathy (Ramakrishnan, Wurster) with the later showing good results in very severe cases with metastases.

Pages: 1 2

Charlotte Yde

Charlotte Yde