The Indian AYUSH ministry has a track record of doing irresponsible stuff. Now they have published guidelines for treating Mucormycosis (black fungus) with homeopathy. Allow me to show you the crucial passages of their announcement:
… With the increasing cases of special variety of fungal infection, Mucormycosis (black fungus) the present information have been prepared with experience of senior clinicians in treating specific fungal infections and researchers of the system, for efficient treatment of suspected and diagnosed cases of Mucormycosis with Homoeopathy. This condition requires hospital based treatment under supervision and Homoeopathic medicines can be prescribed in an integrated manner. Since mostly immune compromised patients get this infection, strict monitoring of blood sugar and other vitals is required…
As a system with holistic approach, homoeopathy medicines may be selected based on the presenting signs and symptoms of each patient(4). Fungal infections are amenable to homoeopathic treatment. Various research studies undertaken on various fungi in-vitro model showed that homoeopathy medicine could prevent the growth of the fungus(5-8). Clinical studies have shown encouraging results on fungal infections (9-10). The medicines given here are suggestive based on their clinical use.
Symptomatic Homoeopathy management of Suspected and Diagnosed cases of Mucormycosis-
Note: -Apart from these lists of medicines any other medicine and any other potency may be
prescribed based on the symptom similarity in each case.
END OF QUOTE
Mucormycosis (black fungus) is a disease of immunocompromised patients. Five types can be differentiated:
- rhinocerebral (most common),
- gastrointestinal (rare).
Rhinocerebral mucormycosis commonly causes headaches, visual changes, sinusitis, and proptosis. Pulmonary mucormycosis commonly presents as a cough. Late diagnosis may result in dissemination, leading to high mortality. Treatment consists of amphotericin B, surgery, and immune restoration.
It is believed that the current surge of mucormycosis in India has an overall mortality rate of 50% and is triggered by the use of steroids which are often life-saving for critically ill Covid-19 patients. It almost goes without saying that homeopathy has not been shown to be effective against this (or any other) condition. As to the AYUSH ministry, the less they interfere with public health in India, the better for the survival of patients, I fear.
Please Edzard, read exactly:
“….prescribed in an integrated [!] manner……”
I find it downright cruel and unethical not to offer all therapies for dogmatic reasons, especially when conventional medicine threatens to fail …
Reminds me on Ivermectin….
insisting on sound evidence is not dogma!
You are actually suggesting that homeopathy can treat this infection? You should not be allowed to call yourself a doctor. How many times does it need to be repeated: homeopathy does not work!
Well, before he became a physician HH studied civil engineering. He should have planned buildings instead of dabbling in pseudo-medicine. The bad result of the latter can be seen in each of his answers, which he expresses here.
BTW, there is no solid evidence yet that Ivermectin may help against COVID-19.
Using the example of Ivermectin, you can see very well how cruel and accepting the death of many people the dogmatic and eminence-blased exclusion of possible additional therapies can be with Covid 19. The Hippocratic oath is trampled on here. So, from whom should the license to practice medicine be withdrawn? From the one who does EVERYTHING to save human lives? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrtd2wePvAl6RN_D-9jWVQQ
….and sorry, one who needs anonymity to write ad hominem is not worth answering. He is a wretched creature to be pitied.
He’d better take an example from Richard Rasker:
Richard Rasker on Monday 31 May 2021 at 18:54
“@Dr. Heinrich Hümmer
First of all I am pleased too that we can have a discourse in a polite and even respectful manner, even when seriously disagreeing on the subject at hand”
@Dr. Heinrich Hümmer
Sorry, but to my knowledge, there is no good evidence that Ivermectin can help people with Covid-19(*). And there is evidence that it can do harm in the form of rare but very serious side effects such as severe hypotension and hepatitis – especially in higher dosages.
I don’t mind if you keep quoting me on that – but then I would appreciate if you return the courtesy, and stop calling the best science-based advice that we have for Covid-19 treatments ‘cruel’ and ‘dogmatic’. And first and foremost, you should stop implying that all those countless scientists who are doing their very best to help fight Covid-19 are killing people instead of helping them.
I therefore strongly urge you to express your opinion on this in more neutral wording – and if you come up with Ivermectin as a treatment, please also supply credible scientific evidence (no anecdotes) that this medicine indeed helps people with Covid-19.
*: There are in-vitro studies showing that Ivermectin has a modest antiviral effect. However, this effect is only seen with concentrations that far exceed the normal therapeutic dose, which, combined with the lack of convincing beneficial effects in trials with patients, is a good reason for not prescribing Ivermectin.
“Update: The FLCCC Alliance’s “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19” has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and published on May 1, 2021, in the American Journal of Therapeutics!”
If one observes the way in which ivermectin as a possible (!) Adjuvant for Covid 19 is not tested without prejudice but rather discredited from the start, then this somehow reminds of the previous demonization of the laboratory thesis of Sars-CoV 2 …
@Dr. Heinrich Hümmer
Even if Mr. Pierre Kory (the man behind your source) would be vindicated after all – which I seriously doubt – this does not change the fact that you should not accuse scientists of incompetence, medical negligence and causing the death of patients for adhering to proper scientific standards for research and evidence.
Instead, you should ask yourself why Kory is so much more optimistic about the beneficial effects of Ivermectin than all those other doctors and scientists. Does Pierre Kory know things that other researchers don’t? I don’t think so: he is trained as a trauma and critical care specialist, with no research to his name, and without special expertise in the fields of infectious disease, virology or immunology, or any other relevant area. And his review encompasses studies that all those other scientists have seen too.
The the actual studies he refers to seem generally low-quality, with small sample sizes and small effects observed, and overall appear rather cherry-picked. Several have been severely criticized for being “fatally flawed” or the likes (e.g. López-Medina et al. (*)) – yet Kory has not removed them from the list, nor has he updated his conclusions to reflect the corrections in the study.
And how would you go about this ‘prophylaxis’ featuring prominently here? Do you suggest that we should give the entire population an ongoing treatment course of Ivermectin? Chronically medicating all people (or at least those not yet vaccinated or infected) doesn’t exactly sound like a good idea to me.
I’m afraid that Kory is just another one of those ‘brave maverick doctors’ who religiously believe in and promote their personal pet treatment, much like Didier Raoult did with hydroxychloroquine. This is usually a big red flag, and tells us more about the doctor than about the treatment (and I challenge you to come up with just one example where one doctor was right where all the rest had it wrong – yes, Semmelweiss was one such person, but that was 160 years ago).
Anyway, Kory’s claims certainly do not warrant your condemnation of all other doctors, and they certainly do not warrant his almost slanderous big-typeface headline featuring ‘Crime of the Century’.
*: When you look at https://ivmmeta.com/ , you still see very favourable results from López-Medina et al., and the primary link at https://c19ivermectin.com/lopezmedina.html still presents positive outcomes too (albeit already with a reference to an open letter criticizing this study) – and only the final version at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 tells us the real story:
In this randomized clinical trial that included 476 patients, the duration of symptoms was not significantly different for patients who received a 5-day course of ivermectin compared with placebo (median time to resolution of symptoms, 10 vs 12 days; hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07).
The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand effects on other clinically relevant outcomes.”
And this is by far not the only flawed study in Kory’s review.
30 years of practising medicine has taught me the wisdom of leaving well alone in many situations. If you know you can’t help, then at least that way you won’t do any harm.
@Dr. Heinrich Hümmer
Publishing a study is only the first step. Now the results have to be verified by other experts. You should know this, since you have published a study yourself, which you proudly present again and again on this blog. This is how scientific research works.
You know what scientific work means, don’t you, Heinrich?
BTW, the FLCCC is not very trustworthy.
And for the German reading audience there more hints that every reasonable person should skeptical regarding the FLCCC’s statements.
My preliminary conclusion: Ivermectin is the hydroxychloroquine of year 2021. A great hype, promoted by dubious groups but without no substantial evidence.
Bravo! Nearly without ad hominem….I could become a fan of RPGNo1!
But opposite to you I think, that DrBeen is one of the best informed experts in Covid 19 and very honest.
A Q&A-video produced by an unknown doctor is supposed to be a proof? For what? And why should this doctor be an expert on COVID-19 but an internet research leads to absolutely no result?
You should better listen to Christian Drosten’s podcast. Even you could learn something in the process.
Pseudoscience &untested remedies are a huge problem in India, especially with the government & Ayush ministry now trying hard to revive ‘traditional medicine’. Likely to do more harm to the Indians. In the case of mucormycosis/black fungus, this might be true in more ways than one- from causing it to worsening it. Mucorales being coprophilous (dung-loving, especially herbivore dung), the primary reason Indians could be having this unique fungal epidemic could be our obsession with ‘all things cow’, and the extensive use of cow dung and urine, habitually and as remedies.
This is a hypothesis I’ve proposed to bring greater awareness to this issue: https://countercurrents.org/2021/06/how-unique-regional-factors-collided-to-create-the-black-fungus-crisis-in-india-a-hypothesis/
Distressing that apart from homeopathy, Ayurveda actually prescribes cow urine & fumigation with burning cow dung to Rx and prevent mucormycosis! Hope mycologists do in-depth studies on this and issue advisories.
Indians are probably suffering so horribly from a totally preventable infection that could be controlled by taking care to avoid intimate & excessive contact with herbivore excreta! Hope good sense& science prevails