TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Advanced search  

News:



We are Allaxys
We moved our news front to http://www.allaxys.com

The Forum 1 on Transgallaxys.com is only a backup archive!

Twin Update 8.5.2023


Warning to Amazon Data Services Singapore
Warning to Amazon Data Services Japan
Do stop your sabotage or you will be shot!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: April 07, 2023, 04:48:48 PM 
Started by Nini_Tschack - Last post by Pangeatic
Klopf-klopf!

Bin jetzt auch da. Aber selten. Danke für den Upload.

Frohe Ostern

Pangeatic

 92 
 on: April 07, 2023, 04:45:05 PM 
Started by Thymian - Last post by Pangeatic
The at Königsworther Platz 1* world-famous hero
Stefan Homburg
receives
GREAT HONOURS
of being entered in
Madame Tussaud's Wax Sculptures Exhibition
follower Dr. Simon Goddek's
"Framed Vultures Show"
in the WWW.

    * somewhere in Hannover **
   ** somewhere in Germany ***
  *** lost in Europe ****
 **** lost on earth *****
***** lost in space



SCREENSHOT:

https://twitter.com/SHomburg/status/1644249763284500482



KLARTEXT:

https://twitter.com/SHomburg/status/1644249763284500482

[*quote*]
Dr. Simon Goddek @goddeketal
23h
#67 Thank you, @SHomburg, for providing a clear-headed analysis of COVID in Germany and for your unwavering perseverance despite the unfounded  criticism you have encountered.
Image



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtCsTrwXgAs2xJQ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

---------------------------------------------------------------

AZ Beobachter @AZ_Beobachter
7h
Replying to @goddeketal @DschlopesIsBack and 17 others

Yeah, the analysis done by #Homburg Institut für Statistik proofed, that at least one half of German people really suffer from unintended consequences of vaccination. Maybe most people are already dead.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Stefan Homburg @SHomburg
Replying to @AZ_Beobachter @goddeketal  and 17 others

Es gibt bald eine Strafanzeige gegen Sie. Ich schauer mir das nicht noch länger an.

10:04 AM · Apr 7, 2023
157 Views 4 Likes
[*/quote*]

 93 
 on: April 07, 2023, 03:59:35 PM 
Started by Yulli - Last post by Krik


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtGF7AsXwAA1pvq?format=png&name=small

 94 
 on: April 07, 2023, 03:41:16 PM 
Started by Krik - Last post by Krik
[*quote*]
Consumer Health Digest #23-14
April 2, 2023

Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by William M. London, Ed.D., M.P.H
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/william-m-london
., with help from Stephen Barrett, M.D
http://www.quackwatch.org/10Bio/bio.html
. It summarizes scientific reports; legislative developments; enforcement actions; news reports; Web site evaluations; recommended and nonrecommended books; and other information relevant to consumer protection and consumer decision-making. Its primary focus is on health, but occasionally it includes non-health scams and practical tips. To subscribe, click here
http://lists.quackwatch.org/mailman/listinfo/chd_lists.quackwatch.org


###

Judge reduces coverage of preventive services under Affordable Care Act plans

A U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas issued a final judgment
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.330381/gov.uscourts.txnd.330381.114.0.pdf
in a case challenging the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires most private health plans to cover a range of preventive
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/preventive-services-covered-by-private-health-plans/
services without any cost-sharing for those enrolled in the plans. The judge concluded
ttps://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/explaining-litigation-challenging-the-acas-preventive-services-requirements-braidwood-management-inc-v-becerra/
that coverage requirements of services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services since March 2010 were unconstitutional because members of that panel—16 volunteers, typically doctors and scientists—were not appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, which he said violated the U.S. Constitution’s appointments clause.
[Owermohle S. Texas judge strikes down major Obamacare provision protecting preventive care
https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/30/aca-birth-control-prep/
. Stat, March 30, 2023]

The judge’s decision places limits on the government’s ability to enforce those requirements nationwide. That means lung-cancer screening, medications such as statins to prevent heart disease, and medications to lower the risk of breast cancer (e.g., tamoxifen) may now be subject to copays, deductibles, or coinsurance. Full coverage would be maintained for screening mammography, colorectal-cancer screening, and cervical-cancer screening because they were recommended prior to March 2010.

The judge also ruled that the mandate to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medication taken to prevent HIV infections violates the religious rights of the conservative groups that brought the case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Coverage requirements that have not been overturned include: (a) vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), (b) women’s health services (such as contraception) recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and (c) children and young-adult services recommended by Bright Futures.
[Levitt L, and others. Q&A: Implications of the ruling on the ACA’s preventive services requirement
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/qa-implications-of-the-ruling-on-the-acas-preventive-services-requirement/
. Kaiser Family Foundation Policy Watch. March 31, 2023]
Both the plaintiffs and the Biden administration are expected to appeal the case as each side objects to parts of the judge’s decision.
[Appleby J, Andrews M. Judge’s decision would make some no-cost cancer screenings a thing of the past
https://khn.org/news/article/braidwood-becerra-aca-preventive-services-court-decision-reed-oconnor/
. Kaiser Health News, March 30, 2023]

###

FDA evaluating safety of unapproved dental devices

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a safety communication about concerns with the use of fixed (non-removable) palatal expanders used as dental devices on adults to remodel the jaw or treat conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD).
[Evaluation of safety concerns with certain dental devices used on adults
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/evaluation-safety-concerns-certain-dental-devices-used-adults-fda-safety-communication
. FDA Safety Communication, March 30, 2023]
The devices of concern include:

Anterior Growth Guidance Appliance (AGGA) and Fixed Anterior Growth Guidance Appliance (FAGGA)
Anterior Remodeling Appliance (ARA) and Fixed Anterior Remodeling Appliance (FARA)
Osseo-Restoration Appliance (ORA) and Fixed Osseo-Restoration Appliance (FORA)
any other similar device types
The FDA announced it is evaluating safety concerns following reports of serious complications with the use of these devices such as chronic pain, tooth dislocation, flared teeth, uneven bite, difficulty eating, damaged gums, exposed roots, bone erosion, and tooth loss. Its recommendations include:

Be aware that the safety and effectiveness of these devices to treat conditions such as OSA and TMD, or to remodel the jaw in adults have not been established.
Consider that these devices intended for these uses have not been cleared or approved by the FDA.
Consult with a dental professional for problems or concerns with a dental device.
Report
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/evaluation-safety-concerns-certain-dental-devices-used-adults-fda-safety-communication?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery#reporting
 any problems with these devices to the FDA.
The FDA’s safety communication was likely prompted by a recent Kaiser Health News–CBS News investigation
https://khn.org/news/article/dental-device-lawsuits-displaced-teeth-agga-steve-galella/
 of the AGGA. At least 20 patients have filed lawsuits in the past three years alleging the device caused grievous harm.
[Werner A, Kelman B. FDA evaluates ‘safety concerns’ over dental devices featured in KHN-CBS investigation
https://khn.org/news/article/fda-safety-concern-evaluation-agga-dental-device-investigation/
. Kaiser Health News, March 31, 2023]

###

Experts spotlight liver injury from herbal dietary supplements in the U.S

Experts on natural products and toxicology have provided an overview of the problem of liver damage due to herbal dietary supplement (HDS) use in the United States. They suggest two strategies they hope will improve consumer safety and drive bad actors from the marketplace. One is a path for pre-clinical assessment and the other is the establishment of a list of products.
[Gurley BJ, and others. Hepatoxicity due to herbal dietary supplements: Past, present, and the future
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36183923/
. Food and Chemical Toxicology 169:113445, 2022]

Their key points include:

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 provides an insufficient framework for regulating HDS products.
20% of adult Americans regularly consume HDS products.
Liver toxicity is among the most frequent serious events reported through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Adverse Event Reporting System.
20% of all drug-induced liver injuries in 2013, many of which required hospitalization and liver transplantation or resulted in death, were attributable to HDS, according to the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network.
Most HDS-induced liver injuries (HILI) are attributable to unusual and heretofore untested combinations of exotic botanical extracts and/or purified phytochemicals, poorly researched new dietary ingredients, products intentionally adulterated with approved or unapproved drugs, or combinations of these.
Multi-ingredient products linked to HILI cases have included Slimquick, Hydroxycut, OxyELITE Pro, and several formulations marketed by Herbalife.
HILI cases have been linked to products marketed for bodybuilders and products containing cannabidiol.
Ingredients in HDS products, including caffeine and yohimbine extract, can interact with other ingredients, leading to liver injury.
Ingredients in HDS products that came on the market since 1994, such as green tea extract, Hoodia gordonii, Garcinia cambogia, or Scutelleria, are responsible for a significant proportion of HILI cases.
Adulterated products have contributed significantly to the HILI problem.
HDS products on the market with suspected potential for causing liver injuries include products containing: (a) Ashwagandha and Coleus forskohlii extract (CFE) used in Ayurvedic medicine, (b) kratom, (c) turmeric, and (d) Tinospora cordifolia, more commonly known as Giloy.
###

Barefoot-running claims scrutinized

Exercise physiologist Nick Tiller, MRes, PhD, has examined the history, false advertising, and demonization of the sneaker industry associated with the promotion of oxymoronic “barefoot running shoes.” He notes that several systematic reviews have found no reduction on injury rates from runners transitioning from cushioned sneakers to barefoot shoes.
[Tiller N. Barefoot running: Conspiracies and controversies
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/barefoot-running-conspiracies-and-controversies/
. Skeptical Inquirer, Feb 17, 2023]

==================
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Consumer Advocate
7 Birchtree Circle
Chapel Hill, NC 27517

Telephone: (919) 533-6009

http://www.quackwatch.org (health fraud and quackery)
[*/quote*]

 95 
 on: April 07, 2023, 12:47:00 AM 
Started by Pangwall - Last post by Zitrone
Bei ScienceDirect ist der Volltext der Studie zu finden:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526820922002245

Dort ist auch der wesentliche Teil zu sehen.

ScienceDirect gehört anscheinend zu  Elsevier.

Die Zeitschrift, in der die Studie veröffentlicht wurde, gehört anscheinend auch zu Elsevier:

https://www.clinical-breast-cancer.com/article/S1526-8209(22)00224-5/fulltext

Weil die HTML-Seiten der Artikel meist großer Schrott sind, empfehle ich die PDF-Version (1,2 MB groß):

https://www.clinical-breast-cancer.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1526-8209%2822%2900224-5


Ganz unscheinbar, sogar mit vollständig abgekürzten Namen, sind am Ende die Autoren angegeben mit ihren Offenlegungen finanzieller und administrativer und sonstiger Verstrickungen:

[*quote*]
This work was supported by Boiron.

Disclosure
JM, DS, NB, NH, YLM, EL and MB has received grants or
consultancy fees from Boiron. PT and NB are employees of Boiron.

[*/quote*]

ZWEI Autoren sind Angestellte von Boiron, Frankreich.

ALLE ANDEREN 7 AUTOREN haben "Forschungsgeld" oder Beraterhonorar von Boiron erhalten.

Mit anderen Worten: ALLE 9 AUTOREN WURDEN VON BOIRON BEZAHLT.

Das heißt: Diese "Studie" ist eine gekaufte Auftragsarbeit. Davon hat die Fälscherwerkstatt HRI natürlich nichts geschrieben.Weil sich die meisten Leute nicht die Mühe machen, die Originalarbeit zu besorgen und zu lesen, bleibt in der Öffentlichkeit das hängen, was Tourniers Fälscher veröffentlichen.

Das heißt: Daß die "Studie" in Wahrheit von Boiron gekauft und über ihre Angestellten manipuliert wurde (das Stichwort hierzu heißt "BIAS" = Voreingenommenheit), wird verschwiegen.




https://www.clinical-breast-cancer.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1526-8209%2822%2900224-5
[*quote*]
Original Study

Benefits of Homeopathic Complementary Treatment in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study Based on the French Nationwide Healthcare Database

Jacques Medioni, 1 , 2 Daniel Scimeca, 3 Yecenia Lopez Marquez, 4 Emmanuelle Leray, 5
Marie Dalichampt, 6 Nicolas Hoertel, 2 , 7 Mohammed Bennani, 8 Pascal Trempat, 9
Naoual Boujedaini 9


Abstract

This study evaluated the benefits of homeopathy on the quality of life (QOL) of patients with nonmetastatic
breast cancer (BC). There is an increasing use of homeopathy in patients with BC after diagnosis, leading to an
overall decrease in medications that palliate the side effects of cancer treatment. This may indicate that QOL
is improved in patients with BC who use homeopathy.
Background: Complementary therapy in oncology aims to help patients better cope with the illness and side effects
(SEs) of cancer treatments that affect their quality of life (QOL). This study aimed to assess the benefits of homeo-
pathic treatment on the health-related QOL (HRQOL) of patients with non-metastatic breast cancer (BC) prescribed
in postsurgical complementary therapy. Patients and Methods: An extraction from the French nationwide healthcare
database targeted all patients who underwent mastectomy for newly diagnosed BC between 2012 and 2013. HRQOL
was proxied by the quantity of medication used to palliate the SEs of cancer treatments. Results: A total of 98,009
patients were included (mean age: 61 ± 13 years). Homeopathy was used in 11%, 26%, and 22% of patients respec-
tively during the 7 to 12 months before surgery, the 6 months before, and 6 months after. Thereafter, the use remained
stable at 15% for 4 years. Six months after surgery, there was a significant overall decrease (RR = 0.88, confidence
interval (CI) 95 = 0.87-0.89) in the dispensing of medication associated with SEs in patients treated with ≥ 3 dispensing of
homeopathy compared to none. The decrease appeared to be greater for immunostimulants (RR = 0.79, (CI) 95 = 0.74-
0.84), corticosteroids (RR = 0.82, (CI) 95 = 0.79-0.85), and antidiarrheals (RR = 0.83, (CI) 95 = 0.77-0.88). Conclusion:
The study showed an increasing use of homeopathy in patients with BC following diagnosis. This use was maintained
after surgery and seemed to play a role in helping patients to better tolerate the SEs of cancer treatments.
Clinical Breast Cancer, Vol. 23, No. 1, 60–70 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ )
Keywords: Breast cancer, Complementary therapy, Homeopathy, HRQOL, Quality of life

Introduction

1  APHP Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France
2  Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
3  Maisons-Alfort, France
4  Service d’Hépatogastroentérologie, Hôpital de la Croix Rousse, Lyon, France
5  Univ Rennes, EHESP, CNRS, Inserm, ARENES UMR 6051, RSMS U 1309, F-35000 Rennes, France
6  Nantes, France
7  APHP Corentin Celton, Paris, France
8  Qualees, Paris, France
9  Boiron, Messimy, France

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women world-
wide. It is estimated that 2.3 million new BC cases were diagnosed in
2020. 1 Since 2008, there has been a 20% increase in the incidence of
BC worldwide, and the overall mortality rate has increased by 14%. 2
The prognosis of patients with BC has clearly improved over the past
few years. With BC survival rates being improved, attention is now
being paid to the side effects (SEs) and possible sequelae of cancer
therapies and patients’ quality of life (QOL). Treatment of BC
Submitted: Feb 24, 2022; Revised: Sep 21, 2022; Accepted: Oct 1, 2022; Epub: 8
October 2022
Address for correspondence: Mohammed Bennani, Qualees, 10 rue bleue, 75009, Paris,
France.
60
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
E-mail contact: mohammed.bennani@qualees.com
1526-8209/$ - see front matter © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ )
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2022.10.001Jacques Medioni et al
may include surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and/or hormone
treatment. These treatments may have acute adverse effects, creating
an additional burden on patients. 3-5 These may be some of the
reasons why increasing numbers of patients with BC nowadays wish
to use complementary methods as supportive care in cancer therapy.
In Europe, use of complementary medicine (CM) in oncology is
growing, with the frequency of use varying from 14.8% in Greece
to 73.1% in Italy. 6 Its purpose is to help patients better cope with
the illness and SEs of cancer treatments that particularly affect their
health-related QOL (HRQOL). Most European countries show
similarities in the use of complementary medicine. Homeopathy
is one of the most commonly used complementary therapies along
with herbs, vitamins, and medicinal teas in 7 out of 14 European
countries 6 ; it is reported to be used in an average of 31.4% of cancer
patients. 7 , 8 In some studies, the use of homeopathy in patients with
cancer has been associated with an improvement in QOL and a
decrease in fatigue symptoms, although the benefits of homeopathy
on QOL have rarely been investigated. 9
Studies have documented relief from adverse drug reactions and
better HRQOL in patients with cancer receiving additive homeo-
pathic treatment. 9 These observations suggest that homeopathy
may provide benefits to patients when combined with conventional
cancer care. However, these conclusions are largely based on case
reports, and data regarding patient survival are limited. 10 - 13 Thus,
there are a few comparative studies, particularly with large-scale
patient numbers, that use a nationwide healthcare database, most
of which deal with descriptive epidemiology. Homeopathy is one of
the most common complementary and alternative medicine thera-
pies used for cancer treatment, while it has been reported to be used
in 12% to 19% of patients with BC. 14 Studies have documented
relief from adverse drug reactions and better HRQOL in patients
with cancer receiving additive homeopathic treatment. 9 Compara-
tive studies with a larger number of patients are therefore needed to
investigate these findings.
Objectives
The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of homeopa-
thy treatment in association with conventional medicine in support-
ive oncology care on the HRQOL of patients with non-metastatic
BC compared to conventional medicine without homeopathy in
a French cohort. Secondary objectives included the description of
patients’ profiles and care treated with or without homeopathy, the
impact of homeopathy on costs, and the investigation of predictive
factors for homeopathy use.
Materials and Methods
Study Design and Inclusion Criteria
This was a national retrospective cohort study based on extrac-
tion from the French nationwide healthcare database (Système
National des Données de Santé; SNDS). 15 This database regis-
tered all beneficiaries covered by the health insurance regimes and
collected several data: (1) the dates of care and costs reimbursed by
the health insurance and those paid by the patients; (2) data on
hospital stays, including medical information; (3) patients’ charac-
teristics (age, sex, place of residence, long-term illness (ALD30),
affiliation to the Universal Health Coverage (Couverture Maladie
Universelle, CMU), date of death if applicable); and (4) data on
medical causes of death. 15 All women who underwent mastectomy
for newly diagnosed nonmetastatic BC between 2012 and 2013
were included. As supportive care may have been involved before
and after surgery, 2 observational phases were identified for each
patient: time between diagnosis of BC and surgery (presurgical time)
and time after surgery with a follow-up end date to December 31,
2018 (postsurgical time). This post-surgical time lasts 5 complete
years, regardless of the year of the surgery, and takes into account
the death of patients, which may have occurred during the follow-
up. Diagnostic data were identified by the first occurrence of inter-
national classification of disease (ICD)-10 code C50 (whole C50.x,
C77.3, D48.6, D05.0, D05.1, D05.7, D05.9, Z85.3) in hospital
data or by the date of disease onset in ALD30 declaration. The
ALD30 declaration gathers severe and/or chronic diseases which can
lead to a total refund. All patients who under went surger y for newly
diagnosed breast cancer during 2012 to 2013 were identified using
the combination of codes: common classification of medical acts
(CCAM, classification commune des actes médicaux) for the surgi-
cal procedure and ICD-10 for the associated principal diagnosis.
Descriptions of the variables used in this study and their associated
ICD codes are provided in Supplemental Material 1. Patients with
recurrent or metastatic BC were excluded from the study. Recur-
rence was identified by scanning a historical 2-year time span before
surgery and considering the period between diagnosis and surgery.
The study was approved by the French CEREES (Comité
d’Expertise pour les Recherches, les Etudes et les Evaluations dans
le domaine de la Santé) ethics committee (authorisation number
1129159bis) in February 2020, and the French data protection
authority CNIL (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des
Libertés) in April 2020. All data were centralized in a secure
database.
Exposition Evaluation
Homeopathy exposure was determined by identifying the
number of dispensing treatments. This information is available in
the inter-regime consumption data mart (datamart de consum-
mation inter-régime, DCIR), which compiles all individual data
of health insurance beneficiaries used for epidemiological studies.
Successive periods of 180 days were considered. The exposition
and outcomes were assessed over a 180-day period and over the
first period following the exposition. The first year of follow-up
was distinguished based on the presence of radiotherapy and/or
chemotherapy. The distinction of the first year was justified by the
duration of the common sequence of successive treatments for BC
after mastectomy (chemotherapy and radiotherapy) before the initi-
ation of long-term hormone therapy. This distinction is pointed out
in a national cancer institute (Institut National du Cancer, INCa)
report about the takeover deadline of BC, from diagnosis to the
end of radiotherapy 16 . The number of patients dispensing for 6
months following inclusion determined several exposure levels. This
count was first analyzed as a discrete quantitative variable, from 0
(no exposure) to the maximum dispensing for one patient in the
cohort. It was then divided into 3 classes: no exposition = no
use (class 1), intermediate exposition = 1-2 homeopathic medica-
tions dispensing (class 2), and elevated exposition = regular use
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
61above a threshold of ≥ 3 homeopathic dispensing (class 3). As the
French SNDS collected data on refund treatments, we only identi-
fied dispensed homeopathic treatments. No information was avail-
able for the patients on self-medication.
Outcome Criteria
The main outcome was HRQOL. Considering the impact of
the illness and the SEs of cancer treatments that particularly affect
HRQOL, we primarily retained 2 categories of medications that
can be used as proxies of HRQOL in patients with BC. The first
category included medications or acts that palliate SEs associated
with cancer treatments affecting HRQOL (antiemetics, antidiar-
rhea, mouthwashes, antalgics, corticoids, antibiotics, antifungals,
immunostimulants [drugs or processes which induce or enhance an
immune response], topical medications [such as ointments, creams,
or gels applied to the affected skin]). The second category included
medications prescribed for the treatment of anxiety, depression,
and sleeping disorders (antidepressants, anxiolytics, antiepileptics
that showed efficiency in anxiety disorder treatment, antipsychotics,
hypnotics other than benzodiazepins, and sedative antihistaminic
anticholinergics). We also explored sick leave and disabilities linked
to exhaustion, reduced motivation, and activity. For the analysis of
sick leave, we only included women of working age (i.e., between
18 and 60 years old). Descriptive variables included sex, age at
surger y, type of surger y, CMU, presence of a referring physician,
number of historical mammograms, the French DEPrivation index
(FDEP), sick leave history, times of homeopathic treatment dispens-
ing, comorbidities (coronary heart disease, arterial hypertension,
diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), other
chronic diseases, history of depression, anxiety and sleep disorders,
and history of cancer other than BC). CMU care is a free extended
health care for people who earn less than 7611 € per year. The FDEP
is an index that characterizes the socioeconomic status of patients
according to their municipality of residence. 17
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SAS software (9.x
version, SAS Institute, NC). Qualitative variables are presented
as percentages per class, and continuous variables are presented
as means and standard deviations. All models were adjusted for
patients’ characteristics at inclusion (sex, age, type of surgery, type of
adjuvant therapy [radiotherapy/chemotherapy], comorbidities) and
those of the physician implied in cancer care (socio-demographic
characteristics, localization, type of activity, volume of prescription).
The continuity of care (COC) was assessed to represent the durabil-
ity of the relationship between a patient and its physician. 18 The
COC index is a time-dependent variable developed by Bice and
Boxerman, which was used to measure this variable. 19 Models used
for the analysis of the consumption of medications related to the
treatment of anxiety and depression and sick leave were also adjusted
for the level of exposure during the 180 days before the evalua-
tion period (based on the number of dispensing medications), the
number of months after surgery, the COC index during the last
180 days, and the cumulative duration of homeopathy treatment
after surgery. Models used for the analysis of the consumption of
medications used to palliate SEs related to cancer treatments were
62
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
also adjusted for the level of exposure during the 180 days before
the evaluation period (based on the number of dispensing medica-
tions), the number of months after surgery, the COC index during
the last 180 days, and the cumulative duration of homeopathic treat-
ment since the start of radiotherapy or chemotherapy. The analy-
sis of the consumption of medications related to the treatment of
anxiety and depression or palliate SEs related to cancer treatments
was performed using a Poisson mixed model with random effects
on patients. The analysis of sick leave was performed using a linear
mixed model. Multivariate analysis was conducted using a logistic
model to identify predictive factors for the use of homeopathy as
supportive care. All analyses were performed with an alpha risk of
5%.
Results
All patients responding to the inclusion/exclusion criteria from
the SNDS healthcare database between 2012 and 2013 were
included ( Figure 1 ). A total of 98,009 patients were included, with
a mean age at surgery of 61 ± 13 years ( Table 1 ; Figure 1 ).
A large majority of patients underwent partial mastectomy (or
breast tumorectomy) (N = 77,896, 80%), and total mastectomy
was performed in 21% (n = 20,113) of the patients ( Figure 1 ).
Moreover, 43% of the patients (N = 41,670) were treated to
minimize vascular risk in the year before surgery.
A 5-year follow-up was completed in 89% of the patients. The
remaining 11% of the patients died (9%) or lost sight (2%) before
the end of the follow-up period ( Table 1 ).
Homeopathy was observed in 11% of patients 7 to 12 months
before surgery, 26% during the 6 months before surgery, 22%
during the 6 months after surgery, 18% 7 to 12 months after surgery,
and 15% for 4 years ( Figure 2 ). Six months after surgery, 9% of
women took at least 3 homeopathic drugs; this percentage was
maintained for the rest of the follow-up period ( Figure 2 ). Before
surgery, patients receiving homeopathy (class 2) appeared to get
more benefit (14% vs. 18%) and to have less reported diabetes (6%
vs. 8%), cardiovascular (8% vs. 10%), and hypertensive (38% vs.
44%) comorbidities compared to patients without homeopathy (all
P < .01) (Supplemental Material 2). These results were similar at 6
and 12 months postoperatively. There was also a lower proportion
of deaths in women that received homeopathy than in women that
did not (6% vs. 10%) (Supplemental Material 2).
Radiotherapy, Chemotherapy, and Hormonotherapy
During the follow-up of 5 years, 37%, 82%, and 71% of women
were treated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonother-
apy, respectively ( Table 1 ). Most women who were treated
with chemotherapy (92%) and radiotherapy (49%) started treat-
ment within 3 months following surgery. Women treated with
hormonotherapy (40%) started treatment between 3 and 6 months
after surgery. The combination of radiotherapy-hormone therapy or
chemotherapy-radiotherapy-hormone therapy was administered to
63% of the patients ( Table 1 ). Approximately a quarter of patients
that underwent chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy
also received homeopathy (Supplemental Material 3).Jacques Medioni et al
Table 1
Description of the Population
Mean age at surgery (years)
Total
N = 98,009 Total
Mastectomy
N = 20,113 Partial Mastectomy
and Tumorectomy
N = 77,896 P -Value
61 ( ±13) 63 ( ±16) 60 ( ±12) < .01
French Deprivation index (FDEP, quintile)
7414 (8%) 1607 (8%) 5807 (7%) < .01
1st quintile (less disadvantaged) 19,409 (20%) 3790 (19%) 15,619 (20%) < .01
2nd quintile 17,782 (18%) 3471 (17%) 14,311 (18%) < .01
3rd quintile 18,166 (19%) 3587 (18%) 14,579 (19%) < .01
4th quintile 18,145 (19%) 3792 (19%) 14,353 (18%) < .01
5th quintile (most disadvantaged) 17,093 (17%) 3866 (19%) 13,227 (17%) < .01
6994 (7%) 1602 (8%) 5392 (7%) < .01
Treated for diabetes in the year prior to surgery (at least
3 dispensing) 7135 (7%) 1709 (8%) 5426 (7%) < .01
Treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the
year prior to surgery (at least 3 dispensing) 5438 (6%) 1178 (6%) 4260 (5%) .03
History of cancer other than breast cancer 5155 (5%) 1129 (6%) 4026 (5%) .01
History of cardiovascular disease 9258 (9%) 2756 (14%) 6502 (8%) < .01
41,670 (43%) 9065 (45%) 32,605 (42%) < .01
8756 (9%) 3630 (18%) 5126 (7%) < .01
Less than 1 y 1234 (1%) 619 (3%) 615 (1%) < .01
Between 1 and 2 y 1743 (2%) 817 (4%) 926 (1%) < .01
Between 2 and 3 y 1960 (2%) 837 (4%) 1123 (1%) < .01
Between 3 and 4 y 2078 (2%) 822 (4%) 1266 (2%) < .01
Between 4 and 5 y 3432 (4%) 992 (5%) 2440 (3%) < .01
87,562 (89%) 16,026 (80%) 71,536 (92%) < .01
36,122 (37%) 9695 (48%) 26,427 (34%) < .01
[0-3] mo 33,117 (92%) 8847 (91%) 24,270 (92%) < .01
[3-6] mo 1260 (3%) 250 (3%) 1010 (4%) < .01
[6-9] mo 144 (0%) 54 (1%) 90 (0%) < .01
[9-12] mo 119 (0%) 51 (1%) 68 (0%) < .01
[1-5] y 1482 (4%) 493 (5%) 989 (4%) < .01
80,544 (82%) 12604 (63%) 67,940 (87%) < .01
[0-3] mo 39,178 (49%) 4102 (33%) 35,076 (52%) < .01
[3-6] mo 20,101 (25%) 3466 (27%) 16,635 (24%) < .01
[6-9] mo 19,350 (24%) 4520 (36%) 14,830 (22%) < .01
[9-12] mo 1105 (1%) 205 (2%) 900 (1%) < .01
Treated with hormone therapy during the 5 y after surgery 69,894 (71%) 14,618 (73%) 55,276 (71%) < .01
Mean duration of hormone therapy (years) 3.53 ( ±1.54) - - [0-3] mo 16,564 (24%) 5162 (35%) 11,402 (21%) < .01
[3-6] mo 28,077 (40%) 3202 (22%) 24,875 (45%) < .01
[6-9] mo 18,993 (27%) 5000 (34%) 13,993 (25%) < .01
[9-12] mo 4443 (6%) 833 (6%) 3610 (7%) < .01
[1-5] y 1817 (3%) 421 (3%) 1396 (3%) < .01
Unknown
Affiliation to the Universal Health Coverage (CMU)
Histories
Treated for vascular risk (antihypertensive or
hypolipidemic treatments) in the year preceding surgery
(at least 3 dispensing)
Death
Follow-up time
5 y (complete follow-up)
Treatments
Treated with chemotherapy during the 5 y after surgey
Time between surgery and first session of chemotherapy
Treated with radiotherapy during the 5 y after surgery
Time between surgery and first session of radiotherapy
Time between surgery and first session of hormone
therapy
( continued on next page )
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
63Table 1
( continued )
Total
N = 98,009 Total
Mastectomy
N = 20,113 Partial Mastectomy
and Tumorectomy
N = 77,896 P -Value
No treatment 8469 (9%) 2562 (13%) 5907 (8%) < .01
Chemotherapy only 979 (1%) 486 (2%) 493 (1%) < .01
Radiotherapy only 10,952 (11%) 752 (4%) 10,200 (13%) < .01
Hormone therapy only 5955 (6%) 3341 (17%) 2614 (3%) < .01
Chemotherapy - Radiotherapy 7715 (8%) 1695 (8%) 6020 (8%) < .01
Chemotherapy – Hormone therapy 2062 (2%) 1120 (6%) 942 (1%) < .01
Radiotherapy – Hormone therapy 36,511 (37%) 3763 (19%) 32,748 (42%) < .01
Chemotherapy - Radiotherapy – Hormone therapy 25,366 (26%) 6394 (32%) 18,972 (24%) < .01
Treatment received in the 5 y following surgery
Medications prescribed to palliate SEs of cancer
During the 6 months after surgery (first semester), 95% of
patients took medications to palliate SEs of cancer treatments,
among which 74% had ≥ 3 dispensing (Supplemental Material 4).
The global percentage of consumption of these medications was
decreased to 79% during the 7 to 12 months after surgery and then
maintained at approximately 75% during the remaining follow-
up. The most frequently prescribed medications were antalgics
(91%), corticosteroids (40%), and antiemetics (36%). During the
first semester after surgery, there was a significant overall decrease
Figure 1
64
Flowchart of study population.
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
(Relative Risk RR = 0.88, confidence interval (CI) 95 = 0.87-
0.89) in SEs associated with the dispensing of medications in
patients who had ≥ 3 homeopathy dispensing during the previ-
ous semester compared to those who had none ( Figure 3 ). The
decrease appeared to be greater for immunostimulants (RR = 0.79,
(CI) 95 = 0.74-0.84), corticosteroids (RR = 0.82, (CI) 95 = 0.79-
0.85), antidiarrheals (RR = 0.83, (CI) 95 = 0.77-0.88), systemic
antifungals (RR = 0.86, (CI) 95 = 0.80-0.92), and antiemetics
(RR = 0.90, (CI) 95 = 0.87-0.93) ( Table 2 ). There was also a
significant decrease in the use of antalgics, systemic antibiotics, andTable 2
Assessment of the Evolution in the use of Medications Administered to Palliate SEs of Cancer Treatments Received During the First and Second Semester After Surgery
Without Adjustment
RR (3 + vs 0)
IC95%(RR)
P -value
With Adjustment
RR (3 + vs 0)
IC95%(RR)
P -value Decrease
Before
Adjustment Decrease
After
Adjustment
Treatments received during the first semester after surgery
Medications palliating SEs of treatments for cancer 0.87 [0.86; 0.88] < .01 0.88 [0.87; 0.89] < .01 13% 12%
Immunostimulants 0.64 [0.6; 0.69] < .01 0.79 [0.74; 0.84] < .01 36% 21%
Corticoids 0.79 [0.76; 0.81] < .01 0.82 [0.79; 0.85] < .01 21% 18%
Antidiarrheals 0.80 [0.74; 0.85] < .01 0.83 [0.77; 0.88] < .01 20% 17%
Systemic antifungals 0.77 [0.72; 0.83] < .01 0.86 [0.80; 0.92] < .01 23% 14%
Antiemetics 0.69 [0.66; 0.72] < .01 0.90 [0.87; 0.93] < .01 31% 10%
Mouthwashes 0.92 [0.87; 0.98] < .01 0.94 [0.89; 1.00] 0.04 8% 6%
Antalgics 0.93 [0.92; 0.95] < .01 0.94 [0.92; 0.95] < .01 7% 6%
Systemic antibiotics 0.93 [0.90; 0.96] < .01 0.94 [0.91; 0.97] < .01 7% 6%
Emollients et protectives 0.97 [0.93; 1.02] 0.28 0.99 [0.95; 1.04] 0.77 3% 1%
Treatments received during the second semester after surgery
0.94 [0.92; 0.95] < .01 0.94 [0.93; 0.95] < .01 6% 6%
Immunostimulants 0.83 [0.75; 0.92] < .01 0.86 [0.78; 0.95] < .01 17% 14%
Corticoids 0.84 [0.80; 0.88] < .01 0.81 [0.77; 0.85] < .01 16% 19%
Antidiarrheals 1.00 [0.93; 1.08] 0.89 0.99 [0.92; 1.07] 0.85 0% 1%
Systemic antifungals 0.97 [0.88; 1.06] 0.47 0.93 [0.85; 1.02] 0.15 3% 7%
Antiemetics 0.69 [0.63; 0.75] < .01 0.72 [0.66; 0.78] < .01 31% 28%
Mouthwashes 1.07 [1.00; 1.13] 0.05 1.03 [0.97; 1.10] 0.35 -7% -3%
Antalgics 0.98 [0.96; 1.00] 0.02 0.99 [0.97; 1.00] 0.16 2% 1%
Systemic antibiotics 1.01 [0.98; 1.04] 0.39 1.01 [0.98; 1.04] 0.48 -1% -1%
Emollients et protectives 1.13 [1.07; 1.18] < .01 1.12 [1.07; 1.18] < .01 -13% -12%
In this table, risk ratios (RR) are calculated taking into account homeopathy dispensing during the previous semester.
Medications palliating SEs of treatments for cancerFigure 2
Number of homeopathic drugs dispensing for 6-months periods before and after surgery. This figure shows the
evolution of the consumption of homeopathic drugs on a 6-month period according to the previous one. For example, 7
to 12 months before surgery, 11% of women used homeopathy, with 7% having 1 to 2 dispensing (in pink) and 4%
having > 3 dispensing sessions (in red). Among women who had more than 3 dispensing sessions, 60% of them had
still more than 3 dispensing sessions 6 months before till surgery, 30% had 1 to 2 dispensing, and 10% did not use
homeopathy thereafter. This figure shows also that 17% of women received homeopathy for the first time in the 6
months before surgery.
mouthwash. During the second semester after surgery, there was
also a significant overall decrease (RR = 0.94, (CI) 95 = 0.93-0.95)
in SEs associated with the dispensing of medications in patients
who had ≥ 3 homeopathy dispensing during the previous semester
compared to those who had none. The decrease appeared to be
greater for antiemetics (RR = 0.72, (CI) 95 = 0.66-0.78), corti-
coids (RR = 0.81, (CI) 95 = 0.77-0.85), and immunostimulants
(RR = 0.86, (CI) 95 = 0.78-0.95)) ( Table 2 ).
Medications prescribed for the treatment of anxiety,
depression and sleeping disorders
Six months after surgery, half (49%) of the population took
medications for anxiety, depression, or sleeping disorders. There
was an overall decrease in dispensing medication against anxiety
66
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
after this period (from 41% during the 7-12 months after surgery
to 36% following 43 months after surgery or later) (Supplemen-
tal Material 4). The decrease was greater for anxiolytics (from 36%
to 22% at 5 years postsurgery) and hypnotics (from 16% to 9%
at 5 years postsurgery). Antidepressants were taken by 18% of the
population 6 months postsurgery and remained stable during the
5-years follow-up. Antidepressant, antiepileptic, antipsychotic, and
sedative antihistaminic anticholinergic dispensing remained stable
after surgery. There was no difference in the dispensing of these
medications after surgery between patients receiving homeopathy
and those who did not ( Figure 3 ).Jacques Medioni et al
Figure 3
Results of the mixed Poisson model on: A. Number of dispensing of drugs administered to palliate the adverse effects
of cancer treatments over the semesters following surgery as a function of the number of dispensing of homeopathy
over the 6 months preceding each semester (adjusted model); B. Number of dispensing of drugs against anxiety,
depression and sleeping disorders over the semesters following surgery as a function of the number of dispensing of
homeopathy over the 6 months preceding each semester (adjusted model); C. Number of dispensing for at least one
day of sick leave over the semesters following surgery as a function of the number of dispensing of homeopathy over
the 6 months preceding each semester (adjusted model).
Impact on sick leave Predictive Factors for Homeopathy use After Surgery
The proportion of women who took at least one day of sick
leave was 64% in the year after surgery, 41% in the second year,
28% in the third year, and 19% in the following years (Supple-
mental Material 4). Half of the women took > 310 days of sick
leave in the first year, 200 days in the second year and 67 days
in the third year. During the first semester, there was no differ-
ence in the duration of sick leave between women that had received
homeopathy and those who had not ( Figure 3 ). During the second
and third semesters, women that had received ≥ 3 homeopathy
dispensing took significantly more days of sick leave than women
that had not received homeopathy (RR = 1.76, CI 95 = 1.52-2.04
for the second semester, RR = 2.03, CI 95 = 1.74-2.38 for the
third semester). Among patients who took at least one sick leave
during the semester, women that had received ≥ 3 homeopathy
dispensing took on average more days of sick leave (from 4 to 10
days according to the semester) than women that had not received
homeopathy. Women in more advantaged areas, younger, who underwent a
partial mastectomy, without a medical history, consulting several
physicians, and with stage 1 cancer experienced an increase in the
number of prescriptions of homeopathy ( Table 3 ).
Impact on reimbursed costs by health insurance the year
after surgery
The mean cost of medications administered to palliate SEs of
cancer treatments during the first semester after surgery was 963 € ±
1842 €. During the first semester after surgery, this cost was lower for
women who received ≥ 3 homeopathy dispensing (843 € ± 1703 €)
than for women who did not receive homeopathy (1056 € ± 1907 €).
This difference was not observed during the second semester (93 €
± 365 € vs. 90 € ± 332 €).
The mean hospital cost in the first semester after surgery was
7153 € ± 5309 €. This cost was lower for women who received ≥
3 homeopathy dispensing (7123 € ± 5407 € vs. 7246 € ± 5355 €),
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
67Table 3
Description of Predictive Factors for the use of Homeopathy After Surgery
3 + Homeopathic Medication
Dispensing vs. 0
OR
CI95%
P-Value
Variable 1-2 Homeopathic Medication
Dispensing vs. 0
OR
CI95%
P-Value Affiliation to the Universal Health Coverage (CMU) 0.79 [0.73; 0.86] < .001 0.42 [0.38; 0.48] < .001
2nd quintile vs. 1st quintile (less disadvantaged) 1.12 [1.06; 1.19] < .001 1.08 [1.01; 1.15] .03
3rd quintile vs. 1st quintile (less disadvantaged) 1.01 [0.95; 1.07] .73 1.02 [0.96; 1.10] .42
4th quintile vs. 1st quintile (less disadvantaged) 0.90 [0.85; 0.96] < .01 0.89 [0.83; 0.96] .001
5th quintile (the most disadvantaged) vs. 1st quintile (less disadvantaged) 0.79 [0.75; 0.85] < .001 0.72 [0.67; 0.78] < .001
Age at surgery ∗ 10 (years) 0.86 [0.85; 0.88] < .001 0.87 [0.86; 0.89] < .001
Type of surgery (Partial mastectomy/tumorectomy vs. total mastectomy) 1.27 [1.21; 1.33] < .001 1.17 [1.11; 1.24] < .001
Treated for diabetes in the year prior to surgery (at least
3 dispensing) 0.69 [0.63; 0.74] < .001 0.44 [0.39; 0.49] < .001
Treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the
year prior to surgery (at least 3 dispensing) 0.87 [0.80; 0.95] < .01 0.85 [0.77; 0.94] < .01
History of cancer other than breast cancer 0.91 [0.83; 0.99] .03 0.86 [0.78; 0.96] < .01
History of cardiovascular disease 0.74 [0.70; 0.80] < .001 0.66 [0.61; 0.72] < .001
Treated for vascular risk (antihypertensive or
hypolipidemic treatments) in the year preceding surgery
(at least 3 dispensing) 0.72 [0.69; 0.75] < .001 0.6 [0.57; 0.63] < .001
French Deprivation index (FDEP, quintile)
whereas it was higher during the second semester after surgery for
this population (5769 € ± 6766 € vs. 5544 € ± 7424 €) compared to
women who did not receive homeopathy.
Discussion
Our results indicated that the use of homeopathy could have
a positive impact on the reduction of dispensing of medications
used to palliate SEs of BC treatments in the year following surgery,
regardless of the type of surgery and treatment. This may indicate
that QOL can be improved in patients with BC receiving homeopa-
thy.
This study highlights the benefits of homeopathy treatment in
combination with conventional medicine in supportive oncology
care on the HRQOL of patients with non-metastatic BC compared
to conventional medicine without homeopathy. Supportive care is
defined as care and support that are necessary for patients affected
by serious disease and is used in conjunction with medical and
specific treatments. 20 Their goal is to improve the QOL of patients
through physical, psychological, and social plans. They include a
wide range of therapies (drugs, hypnosis, physical activity, massages,
etc.) that consider the implications of the disease, psychological and
emotional impact, and SEs linked to cancer treatments.
The use and type of CM (acupuncture, homeopathy, phytother-
apy, hypnosis) vary across countries. 6 , 10 , 11 , 21 In France, the preva-
lence of complementary therapy varies greatly in studies, from
16.4% to 60%, regardless of the type of cancer. 12 , 13 , 22 , 23 A system-
atic review showed increasing use of these medicines, with an average
rate of 31.4% in 1998 to 40% in 2012. 24 In a recent multi-
center European survey, homeopathy was found to be the fourth
most frequently prescribed CM to cancer patients (40.4 %), after
acupuncture (55.3%), and before herbal medicine (38.3%) and
traditional Chinese medicine (21.3%). 25
68
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
With the development of supportive care and complementary
therapies, patients are increasingly willing to use alternative drugs,
especially to palliate the adverse effects of conventional treatments,
such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonotherapy. 26 Patients
are aware that homeopathy is a complementary therapy that will
help them to better support specific treatments and the psycholog-
ical consequences of cancer. 23 , 27 It is important for physicians to
identify the needs of their patients and include supportive care in
the care pathway when requested.
However, only a few comparative studies have evaluated the
benefits of homeopathy in patients with cancer, and none of
them have been conducted in France. In 2019, a literature review
identified 8 randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of
homeopathy on the adverse effects of cancer treatments. 7 Five of
these studies showed a positive impact of homeopathy on patients’
QOL. In 1988, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind
trial including 82 patients showed a reduction in the symptoms
severity score. 28 In 2001, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-
blind trial showed a significant reduction in the severity and
duration of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in 30 children that
underwent bone marrow transplantation. 29 In 2004, a randomized,
single-blind trial of 254 patients showed better prevention with
Calendula officinalis of acute skin toxicity and greater patient satis-
faction with regard to pain and dermatitis. 30 In 2015, a monocen-
tric randomized controlled trial of 410 patients showed ameliora-
tion of health state and subjective well-being. 8 The 3 last studies
showed no benefits. 31 - 33 The first study aimed to evaluate the
efficacy observed in the study reported by Traumeel et al. on the
control of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in 190 Israelian
patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) and
oral mucositis. 31 The second study aimed to evaluate the efficacy
of the additive cocculine on the control of chemotherapy-induced
nausea and vomiting in 431 French patients with BC. 32 The thirdJacques Medioni et al
study assessed the efficacy of homeopathic antiemetic therapy in 44
patients with BC. 33
Several psychometric tools are commonly used to evaluate QOL
in patients with BC 34 , 35 : anxiety, depression, tiredness, social
impact, motivation and activity reduction, and SE of treatments.
In our study, since none of these data were available in the
French nationwide healthcare database, we mainly retained substi-
tute indicators: the consumption of medications used to palliate SEs
of cancer treatments and the consumption of medications prescribed
for anxiety, depression, and sleeping disorders.
In several studies, reducing adverse reactions to cancer treatments
was the main indication for using complementary medicine, includ-
ing homeopathy. 25 In our study, the use of homeopathy was associ-
ated with a decrease in medications administered to palliate SEs
of cancer treatments during the first and second semesters after
surgery, especially antiemetics, corticosteroids, immunostimulants,
and antidiarrheals. SEs play a major role in the reduction of QOL in
patients with BC. The decrease in the consumption of these medica-
tions in the 2 semesters following surgery using homeopathy may
encourage the use of homeopathy in patients with BC. Neverthe-
less, there was no difference in the use of medications prescribed for
anxiety, depression, and/or sleep disorders between the groups.
Furthermore, homeopathy is associated with an increase in the
duration if sick leave, but only during the second and third semesters
after surgery. These results are consistent with those of a previous
study. 36 This may be influenced by patient profiles. Patients with
homeopathy are mostly younger and less socially disadvantaged.
These patients may come from a more privileged class, take better
care of themselves, and probably have a healthier lifestyle. 10
Our study has several strengths. Exploitation of the French
nationwide healthcare database presents a major benefit in longitu-
dinal follow-up over a long period, with a small number of patients
lost to follow-up. This database allows the constitution of an exhaus-
tive cohort that covers 98% of the general French population. The
population of patients analyzed can be considered almost exhaustive,
thus avoiding the risks and uncertainties associated with sampling.
This study had several limitations. The source database includes
only refunded treatments or consultations. Self-medication and
other supportive care (acupuncture, phytotherapy, hypnosis) were
not included. Furthermore, the name and quantity of homeopathic
therapies are not available in this database, which is why exposition
was measured according to the number of dispensing procedures.
The function of supportive care for homeopathic drugs has not
been fully established. Another limitation is that treatment compli-
ance could not be measured. Therefore, the dispensed treatments
are not necessarily consumed. Finally, no causality could be defini-
tively drawn from the observational results. However, it encourages
the performance of additional randomized control trials, especially
given the very low risks associated with homeopathy.
Conclusion
Homeopathy is increasingly used in patients with BC, starting
immediately after diagnosis. This use was sustained after surgery and
seemed to play an important role in helping patients to better toler-
ate the SEs of cancer treatments. To our best knowledge, this is the
first study to evaluate the QOL of patients based on exploitation
of the French nationwide healthcare database. Further studies are
needed to support our results, but the use of homeopathy seems
to be an efficient way to reduce SEs in cancer treatment. Better
communication is needed between the oncologists, homeopaths,
and patients to provide the latter with a good QOL.
Clinical Practice Points
Despite the progress in cancer treatment, patients continue to
experience distress and disability during and after cancer treatment.
Complementary medicines (CMs), such as homeopathy, are used to
address these symptoms. In recent years, there has been an increasing
use of homeopathy as supportive care for conventional cancer treat-
ment. Evidence shows that homeopathy can alleviate the side effects
(SEs) of conventional treatments, resulting in improved quality of
life (QOL) and better compliance with cancer treatments, especially
in patients with breast cancer (BC). However, only a few compara-
tive studies have used nationwide healthcare databases in oncology.
The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of homeopathy
treatment on the QOL of patients with nonmetastatic BC dispensed
as post-surgical complementary therapy.
Our study showed a consistent evolution of homeopathy
consumption over a long follow-up period (7 years). There was an
increase in the use of homeopathy in patients with BC, starting
immediately after diagnosis (from 11% to 26%). This consumption
was higher during the first year following surgery (22% and 18%,
respectively), and then maintained at 14% to 15% for the next 4
years. The use of homeopathy can have an important impact on
the QOL of women with BC by helping them better cope with the
illness and SEs of cancer treatments. This time-consistent evolution
was confirmed regardless of the type of surgery and treatment.
These results can help improve the care and management of
cancer patients and promote communication between the oncolo-
gist, homeopath physician, and patient.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the data extraction department of the National
Health Insurance Fund for providing data, assisting in the develop-
ment of the extraction specifications and developing the targeting
programmes. This work was supported by Boiron.

Disclosure
JM, DS, NB, NH, YLM, EL and MB has received grants or
consultancy fees from Boiron. PT and NB are employees of Boiron.


Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.10.001 .
References
1. The Global Cancer Obser vator y. Cancer facts sheet - Breast. https://gco.iarc.fr/
today/data/factsheets/cancers/20- Breast- fact- sheet.pdf (1 December 2021).
2. Leggett S, Koczwara B, Miller M. The impact of complementary and alterna-
tive medicines on cancer symptoms, treatment side effects, quality of life, and
survival in women with breast cancer—a systematic review. Nutrition and Cancer .
2015;67:373–391 .
3. Buijs C, Vries EGE de, Mourits MJE, Willemse PHB. The influence of endocrine
treatments for breast cancer on health-related quality of life. Cancer Treat Rev .
2008;34:640–655 .
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
694. Odle TG. Adverse effects of breast cancer treatment. Radiol Technol . 2014;85
297M-319M; quiz 320M-323M .
5. Jiwa M, Long A, Shaw T, et al. The management of acute adverse effects of breast
cancer treatment in general practice: a video-vignette study. J Med Internet Res .
2014;16 .
6. Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D, et al. Use of complementary and alterna-
tive medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol . 2005;16:655–663 .
7. Shukla P, Nayak C, Baig MQ, Misra P. A systematic review of controlled trials
of homeopathy in adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in cancer.
Homœopathic Links . 2019;32:131–140 .
8. Frass M, Friehs H, Thallinger C, et al. Influence of adjunctive classical homeopathy
on global health status and subjective wellbeing in cancer patients – a pragmatic
randomized controlled trial. Complementary Therapies in Med . 2015;23:309–317 .
9. Rostock M, Naumann J, Guethlin C, Guenther L, Bartsch HH, Walach H. Classi-
cal homeopathy in the treatment of cancer patients - a prospective observational
study of two independent cohorts. BMC Cancer . 2011;11:19 .
10. Crocetti E, Crotti N, Feltrin A, Ponton P, Geddes M, Buiatti E. The use of comple-
mentary therapies by breast cancer patients attending conventional treatment. Eur
J Cancer . 1998;34:324–328 .
11. Downer SM, Cody MM, McCluskey P, et al. Pursuit and practice of comple-
mentary therapies by cancer patients receiving conventional treatment. BMJ .
1994;309:86–89 .
12. Simon L, Prebay D, Beretz A, et al. Medecines complémentaires et alternatives
suivies par les patients cancéreux en France. 2007.
13. Saghatchian M, Bihan C, Chenailler C, Mazouni C, Dauchy S, Delaloge S. Explor-
ing frontiers: use of complementary and alternative medicine among patients with
early-stage breast cancer. Breast . 2014;23:279–285 .
14. Molassiotis A, Scott JA, Kearney N, et al. Complementary and alternative medicine
use in breast cancer patients in Europe. Support Care Cancer . 2006;14:260–267 .
15. Tuppin P, Roquefeuil L de, Weill A, Ricordeau P, Merlière Y. French national
health insurance information system and the permanent beneficiaries sample. Revue
d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique . 2010;58:286–290 .
16. Institut National du Cancer (INCa). Etude sur les délais de prise en charge des cancers
du sein et du poumon dans plusieurs régions de France en ; 2011. .
17. Rey G, Rican S, Jougla E. Mesure des inégalités de mortalité par cause de décès.
Approche écologique à l’aide d’un indice de désavantage social. BEH . 2011:87–90 .
18. Hoertel N, Limosin F, Leleu H. Poor longitudinal continuity of care is associated
with an increased mortality rate among patients with mental disorders: Results
from the French National Health Insurance Reimbursement Database. Eur Psychi-
atry . 2014;29:358–364 .
19. Bice TW, Boxerman SB. A quantitative measure of continuity of care. Med Care .
1977;15:347–349 .
20. Que sont les soins de support ? - AFSOS. Association Francophone des Soins
Oncologiques de Support .
21. Cassileth BR, Deng G. Complementary and alternative therapies for cancer. The
Oncologist . 2004;9:80–89 .
22. Sarradon-Eck A, Bouhnik A-D, Rey D, Bendiane M-K, Huiart L, Peretti-Wa-
tel P. Use of non-conventional medicine two years after cancer diagnosis in France:
evidence from the VICAN survey. J Cancer Surviv . 2017;11:421–430 .
23. Bagot J-L, Legrand A, Theunissen I. Use of homeopathy in integrative oncology in
strasbourg, france: multi-center cross-sectional descriptive study of patients under-
going cancer treatment. Homeopathy . 2021;3:168–173 .
70
Clinical Breast Cancer January 2023
24. Horneber M, Bueschel G, Dennert G, Less D, Ritter E, Zwahlen M. How many
cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review
and metaanalysis. Integr Cancer Ther . 2012;11:187–203 .
25. Rossi E, Vita A, Baccetti S, Stefano M, Voller F, Zanobini A. Complementary and
alternative medicine for cancer patients: results of the EPAAC survey on integrative
oncology centres in Europe. Supportive care in cancer : off j Multinational Assoc
Supportive Care in Cancer . 2014;23:1795–1806 .
26. Bagot J-L, Karp J-C, Messerschmitt C, et al. Recommandations thérapeutiques
de la Société Homéopathique Internationale de Soins de Support en Oncolo-
gie (SHISSO) - Therapeutic recommendations of the International Homeopathic
Society of Supportive Care in Oncology (IHSSCO). La Revue d’Homéopathie .
2017;8:183–191 .
27. Schmitz O. Les points d’articulation entre homéopathie et oncologie convention-
nelle. Anthropologie & Santé Revue internationale francophone d’anthropologie de la
santé. 2011 .
28. Kulkarni A, Nagarkar B, Burde G. Radiation protection by uise of homoeopathic
medicines. Hahnemann Hom Sand . 1988:20–23 .
29. Oberbaum M, Yaniv I, Ben-Gal Y, et al. A randomized, controlled clinical trial
of the homeopathic medication TRAUMEEL s® in the treatment of chemother-
apy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation. Cancer .
2001;92:684–690 .
30. Pommier P, Gomez F, Sunyach MP, D’Hombres A, Carrie C, Montbarbon X.
Phase III randomized trial of calendula officinalis compared with trolamine for
the prevention of acute dermatitis during irradiation for breast cancer. JCO .
2004;22:1447–1453 .
31. Sencer S, Zhou T, Freedman L, et al. Traumeel S in preventing and treating
mucositis in young patients undergoing SCT: a report of the Children’s Oncol-
ogy Group. Bone Marrow Transpl . 2012;47:1409–1414 .
32. Pérol D, Provençal J, Hardy-Bessard A, et al. Can treatment with Cocculine
improve the control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in early breast cancer
patients? A randomized, multi-centered, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase
III trial. BMC Cancer . 2012;12:603 .
33. Daub E, Gerhard I, Bastert G. Homeopathic antiemetics in Chemotherapy : a
prospective, randomized trial. Obstetrics and gynecol . 2000;60 .
34. Mercier M, Schraub S. Qualité de vie : quels outils de mesure ? - Quality of life :
what are the assessment instruments ? Deauville . 2005 .
35. Klein D, Mercier M, Abeilard E, et al. Long-term quality of life after
breast cancer: a French registry-based controlled study. Breast Cancer Res Treat .
2011;129:125–134 .
36. Ostermann JK, Reinhold T, Witt CM. Can additional homeopathic treatment
save costs? A retrospective cost-analysis based on 44500 insured persons. PLoS One .
2015;10 .
[*/quote*]

 96 
 on: April 07, 2023, 12:13:55 AM 
Started by Pangwall - Last post by Zitrone
Die "Studie" ist bei Pubmed zu finden. Sie zeigt zwar einen Punkt der Schweinerei auf (Pascal Trempat  und Naoual Boujedaini sind Angestellte des Homöopathika-Herstellers Boiron), zeigt aber nicht das ganze Komplott der Betrüger:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36376237/

[*quote*]
NIH NLM

Clin Breast Cancer

. 2023 Jan;23(1):60-70.
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.10.001. Epub 2022 Oct 8.
Benefits of Homeopathic Complementary Treatment in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study Based on the French Nationwide Healthcare Database
Jacques Medioni  1 , Daniel Scimeca  2 , Yecenia Lopez Marquez  3 , Emmanuelle Leray  4 , Marie Dalichampt  5 , Nicolas Hoertel  6 , Mohammed Bennani  7 , Pascal Trempat  8 , Naoual Boujedaini  8


Affiliations

    1
    APHP Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France; Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
    2
    Maisons-Alfort, France.
    3
    Service d'Hépatogastroentérologie, Hôpital de la Croix Rousse, Lyon, France.
    4
    Univ Rennes, EHESP, CNRS, Inserm, ARENES UMR 6051, RSMS U 1309, F-35000 Rennes, France.
    5
    Nantes, France.
    6
    Université Paris Cité, Paris, France; APHP Corentin Celton, Paris, France.
    7
    Qualees, Paris, France. Electronic address: mohammed.bennani@qualees.com.
    8
    Boiron, Messimy, France.




PMID: 36376237 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.10.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2022.10.001

Free article

Abstract

Background:
Complementary therapy in oncology aims to help patients better cope with the illness and side effects (SEs) of cancer treatments that affect their quality of life (QOL). This study aimed to assess the benefits of homeopathic treatment on the health-related QOL (HRQOL) of patients with non-metastatic breast cancer (BC) prescribed in postsurgical complementary therapy.

Patients and methods:
An extraction from the French nationwide healthcare database targeted all patients who underwent mastectomy for newly diagnosed BC between 2012 and 2013. HRQOL was proxied by the quantity of medication used to palliate the SEs of cancer treatments.

Results:
A total of 98,009 patients were included (mean age: 61 ± 13 years). Homeopathy was used in 11%, 26%, and 22% of patients respectively during the 7 to 12 months before surgery, the 6 months before, and 6 months after. Thereafter, the use remained stable at 15% for 4 years. Six months after surgery, there was a significant overall decrease (RR = 0.88, confidence interval (CI)95 = 0.87-0.89) in the dispensing of medication associated with SEs in patients treated with ≥ 3 dispensing of homeopathy compared to none. The decrease appeared to be greater for immunostimulants (RR = 0.79, (CI)95 = 0.74-0.84), corticosteroids (RR = 0.82, (CI)95 = 0.79-0.85), and antidiarrheals (RR = 0.83, (CI)95 = 0.77-0.88).

Conclusion:
The study showed an increasing use of homeopathy in patients with BC following diagnosis. This use was maintained after surgery and seemed to play a role in helping patients to better tolerate the SEs of cancer treatments.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Complementary therapy; HRQOL; Homeopathy; Quality of life.

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles

    Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.
    Peckham EJ, Cooper K, Roberts ER, Agrawal A, Brabyn S, Tew G. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 4;9(9):CD009710. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009710.pub3. PMID: 31483486 Free PMC article.
    Abstracts of Presentations at the Association of Clinical Scientists 143rd Meeting Louisville, KY May 11-14,2022.
    [No authors listed] Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2022 May;52(3):511-525. PMID: 35777803 No abstract available.
    Homeopathy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.
    Peckham EJ, Nelson EA, Greenhalgh J, Cooper K, Roberts ER, Agrawal A. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 13;(11):CD009710. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009710.pub2. PMID: 24222383 Updated. Review.
    Homeopathic Treatment as an Add-On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Three-Arm, Multicenter Study.
    Frass M, Lechleitner P, Gründling C, Pirker C, Grasmuk-Siegl E, Domayer J, Hochmair M, Gaertner K, Duscheck C, Muchitsch I, Marosi C, Schumacher M, Zöchbauer-Müller S, Manchanda RK, Schrott A, Burghuber O. Oncologist. 2020 Dec;25(12):e1930-e1955. doi: 10.1002/onco.13548. Epub 2020 Nov 7. PMID: 33010094 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
    Does a homeopathic medicine reduce hot flushes induced by adjuvant endocrine therapy in localized breast cancer patients? A multicenter randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial.
    Heudel PE, Van Praagh-Doreau I, Duvert B, Cauvin I, Hardy-Bessard AC, Jacquin JP, Stefani L, Vincent L, Dramais D, Guastalla JP, Blanc E, Belleville A, Lavergne E, Pérol D. Support Care Cancer. 2019 May;27(5):1879-1889. doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4449-x. Epub 2018 Sep 7. PMID: 30194492 Clinical Trial.

See all similar articles
Publication types

    Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

    Aged
    Breast Neoplasms* / etiology
    Breast Neoplasms* / therapy
    Delivery of Health Care
    Female
    Homeopathy* / adverse effects
    Humans
    Mastectomy / adverse effects
    Middle Aged
    Quality of Life
    Retrospective Studies

LinkOut - more resources

    Full Text Sources
        ClinicalKey
        Elsevier Science
        Ovid Technologies, Inc.
    Medical
        Genetic Alliance
        MedlinePlus Health Information

full text provider logo

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.
Follow NCBI

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894
[*/quote*]

 97 
 on: April 06, 2023, 11:38:35 PM 
Started by Pangwall - Last post by Zitrone
Sowohl die "Studie" als auch die Berichte darüber sind hinterhältige Fälschung und Betrug.

Ich werde einige Punkte aus der Pressemitteilung genannten PR-Aktion kurz durchgehen.


Es beginnt schon mit dem hier schon bekannten Christoph Trapp:

[*quote*]
Homeopathy Research Institute, Berlin, Germany
Christoph Trapp, Telefon-Berlin 0170 9917 649,
[*/quote*]

Welche Rolle spielt Trapp für HRI? Ich sehe hier mindestens einen Interessenkonflikt. Es sei denn, die Macher geben öffentlich zu, daß ALLES ein abgekartetes Spiel ist.


Die Pressemitteilung:

https://www.hri-research.org/de/2023/03/studienmonitor-nr-4-2023-grosse-kohortenstudie-in-frankreich-brustkrebspatientinnen-profitieren-von-zusaetzlicher-homoeopathischer-behandlung/

[*quote*]
Homeopathy Research Institute
[...]
Die Studie zeigte, dass eine zusätzliche homöopathische Behandlung Frauen hilft, die Nebenwirkungen einer Krebsbehandlung besser zu vertragen.
[...]
[*/quote*]

Nein, das hat die Studie nicht gezeigt. Was hat die Studie in Wahrheit gezeigt? Daß die Frauen durch Indoktrination und Täuschung dazu gebracht wurden, ihr Schicksal und ihre Schmerzen und Ängste hinzunehmen. Eine Kuscheldecke, ein Frauencafe und tägliche Treffen mit Freunden und Leidensgenossinnen hätten ganz sicher bessere Ergebnisse geliefert.


Die Langfassung der Pressemitteilung:

https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023.03.27_HRI-Monitor-Nr.4-Medioni.pdf

[*quote*]
Presseerklärung
Studienmonitor Nr. 4/2023
Große Kohortenstudie in Frankreich: Brustkrebspatientinnen profitieren
von zusätzlicher homöopathischer Behandlung

[*/quote*]

Diese Tatsachenbehauptung ist falsch. Die Frauen profitieren nicht von der angeblichen Behandlung. Würde man sich ernsthaft mit der Materie befassen, was die Homöopathen natürlich nicht getan haben, müßte man die Mittel durch Placebos ersetzen. Dann käme die Wahrheit über die Manipulationen ans Licht.


[*quote*]
Die Studie zeigte, dass eine zusätzliche homöopathische Behandlung
Frauen hilft, die Nebenwirkungen einer Krebsbehandlung besser zu vertragen.

[*/quote*]

Nein, das tut sie nicht.


[*quote*]
Was sind die wissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse?

- 26 Prozent der Frauen nahmen in den sechs Monaten vor der Operation und 22 Prozent in den
sechs Monaten nach der Operation homöopathische Arzneimittel ein; danach blieb die Verwendung
homöopathischer Arzneimittel in den verbleibenden vier Jahren der Studie bei 15 Prozent stabil.

[*/quote*]

Das ist doch seltsam:

VOR der schweren Operation (Entfernung der Brust!)  nehmen 26 Prozent homöopathische Mittel

NACH der schweren Operation (Entfernung der Brust!)  nehmen 22 Prozent homöopathische Mittel

Nach 6 Monaten fallen die homöopathischen Mittel auf 15 Prozent.

Von 26 Prozent runter auf 22 Prozent ist ein Verlust von 4 Prozentpunkten. Das sieht harmlos und gering aus, ist es aber nicht.

4 von 26 ist 15 Prozent!

Die Nebenwirkungen der Operation sind doch NACH der Operation. Trotzdem steigt die Einnahme nicht, sondern sie fällt um mehr als 1/7. Das ist verkehrte Welt. Wer ernsthafte Forschung betreibt, muß diesen Fehler bemerken.

Nach 6 Monaten fällt die Einnahme auf 15 Prozent. Das ist ein Verlust von 7 Prozentpunkten.

7 von 22 ist rund 31 Prozent!

Hier fällt auf, daß die homöopathischen Mittel volle 5 Jahre lang genommen werden. Warum werden die so lange genommen? Sind die Frauen zu Pillenjunkies degeneriert?

Ebenso muß gefragt haben, wer von den Frauen VOR der Operation homöopathische Mittel genommen hat. Dabei muß auch beobachtet werden, wer gewechselt hat:

*** vorher Homöopathie - hinterher nicht mehr

*** vorher keine Homöopathie - dann Homöopathie-Junkie

In der vorliegenden Form sind die Daten erstens wertlos und weisen zweitens auf eine Umkehrreaktion, die aber offensichtlich nicht weiter untersucht wurde.


[*quote*]
- Bei Frauen, denen in den 6 Monaten vor der Mastektomie 3 oder mehr homöopathische
Arzneimittel verabreicht wurden, war die Verwendung konventioneller Arzneimittel zur Linderung
körperlicher Nebenwirkungen der Krebsbehandlung in den 6 Monaten nach der Mastektomie um 12
Prozent niedriger als bei Frauen, die keine homöopathischen Arzneimittel erhalten hatten. Dieser
Unterschied war signifikant 6 . Ein ähnliches Muster wurde in der Phase 7-12 Monate nach der
Operation beobachtet
7 .
[*quote*]

Hier sehen wir eine deutliche Perversion der Homöopathie: es wird unterschieden nach der Zahl der homöopathischen Mittel.

Was ist das entscheidende Merkmal hierbei? Daß die Frauen offensichtlich leichter zu manipulieren waren, wenn die MEHR verschiedene Mittel bekamen. Das ist eine deutliche Folge der Indoktrination. Wie man sieht, bekamen diese Frauen WENIGER "konventionelle" Medikamente. Haben sich die Frauen das selbst ausgesucht oder wurde ihnen das vom Arzt so vorgegeben?


[*quote*]
- Die Studie ergab keinen Unterschied in der Verwendung von konventionellen Medikamenten gegen
Angstzustände, Depressionen und Schlafstörungen während der gesamten postoperativen
Beobachtungszeit zwischen Patientinnen, die zusätzlich homöopathische Arzneimittel erhielten und
Patientinnen, die nur konventionelle Medizin verwendeten.

[*/quote*]

Das ist ein Offenbarungseid. Ausgerechnet bei "Angstzuständen, Depressionen und Schlafstörungen" MUSSTEN ALLE Frauen gleichviel KONVENTIONELLE Mittel nehmen. Das beweist, daß die homöopathischen Mittel völlig wirkungslos waren. Allerdings schreiben Tourniers Fälscher das nicht explizit und leicht verständlich, sondern vertuschen es durch eine falsche Umschreibung.


[*quote*]
- Die durchschnittlichen Kosten für konventionelle Arzneimittel, die zur Linderung der
Nebenwirkungen der Krebsbehandlung in den 6 Monaten nach der Operation gegeben wurden,
waren bei Frauen, denen 3 oder mehr homöopathische Arzneimittel verabreicht wurden, niedriger
als bei den Frauen, denen keine Homöopathika verabreicht wurden 8 . Dasselbe galt für die
durchschnittlichen Krankenhauskosten
9 .
[*/quote*]

Hier wird das Kostenargument aus dem Ärmel gezogen. Das ist der Trick, mit dem Krankenversicherungen und Politiker getäuscht werden. Denn die werden mit den angeblich geringeren Kosten geködert. Das Leiden der Frauen interessiert die kein bißchen.

Jetzt kommen wir zu einem weiteren Kernproblem:

[*quote*]
Warum sind die Ergebnisse dieser Studie so wichtig?

Trotz der großen Fortschritte in der Krebsbehandlung leiden Patientinnen immer noch stark unter den
Nebenwirkungen. Die Ergebnisse der aktuellen Studie deuten darauf hin, dass die Homöopathie den Einsatz
konventioneller Medikamente zur Behandlung der Nebenwirkungen bei Frauen mit nicht-metastasiertem
Brustkrebs im Jahr nach der Mastektomie reduzieren kann. Dadurch können die Lebensqualität und die
Compliance mit der konventionellen Krebsbehandlung verbessert werden.

[*/quote*]

In diesem hochtrabenden Schwulst ist nur ein Wort wichtig: "Compliance". Es besagt, daß die Patienten den Anweisungen der Ärzte folgen. Es ist eine Unterwerfung.

Hier wird nichts anderes beschrieben, als daß Frauen durch die Suggestion mit MEHR homöopathischen Mitteln dazu gebracht werden, WENIGER konventionelle Mittel zu nehmen. Die Frauen werden ruhiggestellt und die Kassen sparen Geld für Medikamente.


[*quote*]
Da Patienten zunehmend nach komplementär-medizinischen Arzneimitteln fragen, um die Nebenwirkungen
ihrer Krebsbehandlung zu lindern, sollten Ärzte mehr über nicht-konventionelle Therapien wissen. Diese
Studie zeigt, dass Frauen, die zusätzlich zu ihrer konventionellen Behandlung homöopathische Arzneimittel
einnehmen, die Nebenwirkungen der Behandlung besser vertragen und weniger zusätzliche konventionelle
Medikamente benötigen.
Dies unterstreicht, wie wertvoll es ist, die Homöopathie als Bestandteil der
unterstützenden Behandlung in die Krebstherapie aufzunehmen.
[*/quote*]

Die Lüge:
"Frauen, die zusätzlich zu ihrer konventionellen Behandlung homöopathische Arzneimittel
einnehmen," vertragen " die Nebenwirkungen der Behandlung besser"

Die Wahrheit:
"Frauen, die zusätzlich zu ihrer konventionellen Behandlung homöopathische Arzneimittel
einnehmen," ERTRAGEN "die Nebenwirkungen der Behandlung", weil sie darauf konditioniert wurden.

Homöopathie in der Krebsbehandlung ist ein niederträchtiger Betrug, mit dem Menschen in das Ertragen ihres Leidens konditioniert werden und Krankenversicherungen dadurch Geld sparen.

Eine Krankenversicherung, die dabei mitmacht, ist organisierte Kriminalität.

 98 
 on: April 06, 2023, 08:40:51 PM 
Started by Yulli - Last post by Pangwall


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtCvLuHWwAE19_7?format=jpg&name=large

 99 
 on: April 06, 2023, 08:36:46 PM 
Started by Yulli - Last post by Pangwall
Russian Nazis



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtC0HNdWYAgjgEd?format=jpg&name=small

 100 
 on: April 06, 2023, 08:34:53 PM 
Started by Yulli - Last post by Pangwall


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtCC7GtX0AYNihM?format=jpg&name=small

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]