Nux vomica 30c homeopathic pillules

Arnica L. genus (Asteraceae) comprises perennial herbs native to the temperate and boreal parts of the northern hemisphere. Arnica montana is the main species. It shows different biological activities, such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, antifungal, and antitumor effects. The Arnica formulations are mainly used for pain management. This systematic review is aimed at summarizing the studies focusing on the use of Arnica products on pain and inflammatory signs due to traumatic injuries related to sport and surgical interventions as well as to arthritis and other inflammatory conditions. Both phytotherapeutic and homeopathic formulations are taken into account. This paper only includes manuscripts published in mainstream journals. A literature search from Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases has been carried out using a combination of the keywords "Arnica", "trauma", "sport", "injury", "injuries", and "pain". According to the search strategy and inclusion criteria for this study, 42 eligible papers, focusing on both Arnica alone and formulations containing a mixture of plant extracts, have been finally selected. This review critically discusses the in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies dealing with Arnica products, reporting both positive and negative outcomes, thus providing perspectives for future research on the plant pharmacological potential.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Homeopathy was first postulated by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796 and 220 years later homeopathy is the most popular and widespread alternative medicine. Partly, it is also part of the national healthcare and insurance systems but homeopathy is not without controversy within the medical and healthcare community. Its implausible basic assumptions, some of which contradict natural laws, do not lead us to expect that its remedies have any specific effect. In fact, there is no study or systematic review to date that reliably certifies homeopathy to have an effect beyond the placebo effect and other context effects. In this respect it must be disconcerting how widely homeopathy is applied and represented in therapeutic practice. It indeed claims a role within scientific (evidence-based) medicine but cannot substantiate this claim. It displays clear characteristics of pseudoscience [1]. This implies a lot of problems, such as misleading people and tackling medical ethics up to scientific publication practices. Furthermore, it turns out that quite a few people do not know exactly what homeopathy is, which may lead them to make wrong decisions for their personal health. This article summarizes the information about homeopathy and its problematic implications and serves as a general introduction to this topic and its unacceptable role in today's medicine.The medical irrelevance of the sham method of homeopathy has been proven with more than sufficient probability [2]. As a major testimonial, the statement "Homeopathic products and practices" of the European (EASAC 2017) can be regarded. The primary aim of this brief report is therefore not to take another look at homeopathy from a medical scientific perspective, but rather focus attention on the implications of the still continuous and largely uncritically accepted existence of this method in medical practice, in the medical scientific sphere and in the judgement of the general public.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Objectives: In Part 1 of the review of physicochemical research performed on homeopathic preparations the authors identified relevant publications of sufficient reporting quality for further in-depth analysis. In this article, the authors analyze these publications to identify any empirical evidence for specific physicochemical properties of homeopathic preparations and to identify most promising experimental techniques for future studies. Methods: After an update of the literature search up to 2018, the authors analyzed all publications in terms of individual experiments. They extracted information regarding methodological criteria such as blinding, randomization, statistics, controls, sample preparation, and replications, as well as regarding experimental design and measurement methods applied. Scores were developed to identify experimental techniques with most reliable outcomes. Results: The publications analyzed described 203 experiments. Less than 25% used blinding and/or randomization, and about one third used adequate controls to identify specific effects of homeopathic preparations. The most promising techniques used so far are nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxation, optical spectroscopy, and electrical impedance measurements. In these three areas, several sets of replicated high-quality experiments provide evidence for specific physicochemical properties of homeopathic preparations. Conclusions: The authors uncovered a number of promising experimental techniques that warrant replication to assess the reported physicochemical properties of homeopathic preparations compared with controls. They further discuss a range of experimental aspects that highlight the many factors that need to be taken into consideration when performing basic research into homeopathic potentization. For future experiments, the authors generally recommend using succussed (vigorously shaken) controls, or comparing different homeopathic preparations with each other to reliably identify any specific physicochemical properties.

Abstract licence: CC BY

BackgroundNo systematic review has previously been carried out on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of veterinary homeopathy in which the control group was an intervention other than placebo (OTP). For eligible peer-reviewed RCTs, the objectives of this study were to assess the risk of bias (RoB) and to quantify the effect size of homeopathic intervention compared with an active comparator or with no treatment.MethodsOur systematic review approach complied fully with the PRISMA 2009 Checklist. Cochrane methods were applied to assess RoB and to derive effect size using standard meta-analysis methods. Based on a thorough and systematic literature search, the following key attributes of the published research were distinguished: individualised homeopathy (n = 1 RCT)/non-individualised homeopathy (n = 19); treatment (n = 14)/prophylaxis (n = 6); active controls (n = 18)/untreated controls (n = 2). The trials were highly diverse, representing 12 different medical conditions in 6 different species.ResultsNo trial had sufficiently low RoB to be judged as reliable evidence: 16 of the 20 RCTs had high RoB; the remaining four had uncertain RoB in several domains of assessment. For three trials with uncertain RoB and without overt vested interest, it was inconclusive whether homeopathy combined with conventional intervention was more or was less effective than conventional intervention alone for modulation of immune response in calves, or in the prophylaxis of cattle tick or of diarrhoea in piglets.ConclusionDue to the poor reliability of their data, OTP-controlled trials do not currently provide useful insight into the effectiveness of homeopathy in animals.

Abstract licence: CC BY

A prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial was performed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the homeopathic product ZinCyp-3-02 in children with sleep disorders for ≥ one month compared to glycine. Children ≤ six years old received either ZinCyp-3-02 (N = 89) or comparator glycine (N = 90). After treatment for 28 days, total sleep-disorder-associated complaints severity scores decreased in both groups from median 7.0 (out of maximum 11.0) points to 2.0 (ZinCyp-3-02) and 4.0 (glycine) points, respectively, with overall higher odds of showing improvement for ZinCyp-3-02 (odds ratio: 4.45 (95% CI: 2.77-7.14), p < 0.0001, POM overall treatment related effect). Absence of individual complaints (time to sleep onset, difficulties maintaining sleep, sleep duration, troubled sleep (somniloquism), physical inactivity after awakening, restlessness for unknown reason, and sleep disorders frequency) at study end were significantly higher with ZinCyp-3-02 (all p values < 0.05). More children with ZinCyp-3-02 were totally free of complaints (p = 0.0258). Treatment effectiveness (p < 0.0001) and satisfaction assessments (p < 0.0001) were more favorable for ZinCyp-3-02. Few nonserious adverse drug reactions were reported (ZinCyp-3-02: N = 2, glycine: N = 1) and both treatments were well tolerated. Treatment with the homeopathic product ZinCyp-3-02 was found to be safe and superior to the comparator glycine in the treatment of sleep disorders in children.

Abstract licence: CC BY