[H. Frei (Kinderarzt Laupen Schweiz) and A. Thurneysen]
Dr. Elzbieta Malarczyk, PhD, Professor emeritus at the Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin, Poland. Since 2000, she has been studying the effects of homeopathic dilutions of phenol on
the enzyme processes of fungi and bacteria. She has also undertaken studies of classical homeopathy in cooperation with medical doctors; this cooperation yielding many popular articles. Her research confirms what homeopaths have known for over 200 years: increasing potentisation according to the homeopathic principles of dilution and succusion has an obvious and predictable effect on living material even at sub-Avogadro dilutions (those where no molecules of the initial substance remain). The paper has been presented in short at a recent congress on complementary medicine in Florence, Italy, but given the abundance of information available at the congress, its importance seems to have been overlooked. Yet, this research could be rated as having the same importance as the works of Montagnier, no less.
For those of us who see the effects of accurate homeopathic prescriptions every day, no one would be surprised at the outcome. Some might not even consider that it is necessary to try to convince disbelievers that “homeopathy works” and yet, it is heartening to see that such research is being carried out. One would hope that it attracts the attention it deserves, adding yet another piece of evidence in support of the veracity of homeopathic dilutions. Through such research, it is becoming increasingly difficult to sweep aside homeopathy as “nonsense” or “against the laws of nature”.
“The activity of enzymes can be modified by homeopathic dilutions of their effectors”
Introduction: The fungal and bacterial materials are very useful for testing the influence of low and very low doses of molecular phenolic effectors on the enzymatic system of phenoloxidases when they are incubated together in the reaction space.
Aim: To search for a useful model of biological systems in order to study the action of diluted low molecular substances on living organisms, which is based on common physical and biochemical analytical procedures.
Method: The fungal and actinomyecetal bacterial materials from laboratory cultures, as a source of common phenoloxidases, laccase, perioxidase and O-demethylase, as well as the pure plant peroxidise, were used in experiments described earlier (1-5). Subsequent dilutions of low molecular phenolic metabolites, appropriate for the study of enzymatic systems, prepared in 75% ethanol in the proportion of 1:100 (centesimal) and dynamized by shaking, in accordance with homeopathic procedures, were prepared in our laboratory. During experiments with bacterial and fungal materials and a pure plant peroxidise, which were incubated together with subsequent dilutions of proper phenolic effector, different analytic methods were used, including a gel (PAGE) (4) and capillary (MEKCE) electrophoresis (5), spectral and coloricmetric methods (1,2,3) as well as electron microscopy (5).
Results: According to the presented data (1-5), the incubation of biological material with diluted phenolic effectors induces various effects on tested enzyme activity. The activity changed in
a sinusoidal manner with a gradual growth of dilution rate of tested effectors, which was distinctly visible on the diagram when the number of dilutions was localised on abacissa and biological activity on the ordinate.
Exemplary results of the chosen experiments will be presented. For tested enzymes: laccase, peroxidise and O-demethylase, the distance between maximal points of enzymatic activity, shown on
a sine curve, repeats more often every 10 subsequent centesimal dilutions. Along with the extension of the incubation period, the displacement of maximal and minimal points on the curve were noticed, which revealed a dynamic aspect of the studied phenomenon.
Conclusions: Fungal and bacterial cells seem to be a very convenient material for studying the action of diluted metabolites on enzymatic systems due to their popular presence in the environment. Results of all the experiments confirmed the same nature of aforementioned observations. Since other authors had similar conclusions concerning human (6,7) and plant materials (8,9), the described relations seem to be common in the natural world. It could also be stressed that the therapeutic effect of homeopathic remedies could be based on the mechanism described above, and it is highly probably that it leads to a normalisation of disturbed enzyme systems in living organisms.
For the full articles, click on the following links: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2655704/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651610/
[Dr. Farokh Master]
Research Methodology In Homoeopathy
Research is to discover answers through scientific application of procedures e.g. collecting, analysing and interpreting the data.
The research can be of following types: Dr. Archana Narang and Dr. Aurora has very beautifully classified the methods into following titles.
- This is carried out to find solution or remedies to a particular disease.
- It is as the name implies a very basic research, it’s usually undertaken for curiosity rather than to find solutions that we face in our homoeopathic clinical practice.
- It is the research we undertake to gain knowledge about the disease or the drug we don’t know at all, here the intension is to bring in new suggestion and idea.
This kind of research is key point to our trials regarding the action of remedies onto various systems in our body and diseases.
- It is the study of past case history and other information sources, with an intension to find the origin and development of a phenomenon/disease/remedy and to discover the
trends in the past, in order to understand the present and to anticipate the future.
- It is done to portray accurately the characteristics of a particular individual, situation or a group - i.e., drug pictures, disease pictures, individualized case studies, and research
regarding group studies.
- It is also called clinical research which aims at identifying the solutions e.g. role of glonine in benign hypertension or role of Pulsatilla on ovulation.
– It is designed to assess the effect of one particular variable on a phenomenon by keeping the other variables constant or controlled. It is done to test a hypothesis of a causal
relationship between variables
- Testing Research, i.e., clinical trials of (new or old) drugs on conditions which not appeared during drug proving but were benefitted in therapeutics (action of certain remedies on cancers).
• One-time Research- Research confined to a single time period.
• Longitudinal Research
– Research carried on over several time periods. The need of the hour according to me is clinical research: or "Evidence based medicine" is propagated through clinical research everywhere
in the world, what is important is to select a best protocol, in my clinic at Bombay I use Karnofsky performance status scale definitions rating criteria along with European Organization
for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C 30,
The protocols used by international agencies like OR ICMR should always be tried first.
Also one should include lots of experts from other system to evaluate our results and methods. The role of bio statistician can never be ignored in a best clinical trial.
The aim of the clinical research process is to gather scientific data at one place and to support & propagate Homoeopathy as evidence based science.
- Here one must do clinical drug proving from different age group, different sex, different occupation, different culture and compare the symptoms and signs that come out, I have been now
engaged in this field for more than two decades proving snake remedies with the same idea.
Drug standardization: The drug standardization is conducted to ensure quality, genuiness, and authenticity of raw drugs and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs as favorable
results cannot be expected from the remedies until they are of good quality.
Refer aphorism 122 it tells everything in this matter.
Here like allopathic drug companies we as a homoeopath should study the physiology, the metabolic pathways, the neuroendocrine mechanisms, the effects on neuromuscular system and all other
Systems including immunological system.
Homoeopathic pathogenetic trials (HPTs): commonly known as Drug Proving is the need of the hour.
Even though the method has not changed much after Hahnemann yet Dr. Jeremy Sherr’s book on drug proving methodologies is very useful. All practicing Homoeopaths can contribute to the
research in homoeopathy by contributing cases from their consulting rooms, this will help us to write down most reliable indications of our remedies, next area is repertory verification, if we can do this much I think it’s enough for the present. Let’s see two examples which I love to share with you, the following experiments shows that how beautifully homoeopathy works.
Paulo Bellavite, MD, and a group at the University of Verona (Italy) wrote an excellent review of clinical research in homeopathy in which they concluded:
“Overall, the literature concerning a total of 83 original studies suggests that homeopathy may have significant effects in some conditions, e.g. Galphimia glauca (low homeopathic dilutions/ dynamizations) in allergic oculorhinitis, Anas barbariae (high homeopathic dilution/dynamization) in influenza-like syndromes, classical individualised homeopathy in otitis, in allergic complaints and in fibromyalgia, and a few low-potency homeopathic complexes in sinusitis, rhinoconjunctivitis, arthritis. The evidence for individualised homeopathic therapy in the field of upper respiratory tract infections and for homeopathic immunotherapy in respiratory allergies is more conflicting. Pragmatic equivalence trials suggest that, in primary care, homeopathic treatment is not inferior to conventional treatment. A larger number of observational studies and of clinical trials -conducted in a methodologically correct manner without altering the treatment setting- are needed before sure
conclusions concerning the application of homeopathy for specific diseases can be drawn.” (Bellavite, Marzotto, Chirumbolo, 2011)
Autism and the Autism Spectrum
In 2011 an outcomes based study reported the results of treating 123 children with autism who underwent homeopathic treatment between from 1998 to 2009 (Bravalia, 2011).
Treatment effectiveness was determined by the ATEC (Autism Treatment Evaluation Check-list) scoring system, an internationally recognized scoring system to measure changes in autistic symptoms
after any treatment. The ATEC has four subsets that measure a range of symptom scores for the following categories: communication, sociability, sensory problems, and health and behavior.
Because ATEC is a system of evaluating the progress of different subsets of autistic children, they found groups of remedies that were valuable for autistic children with sensory problems (touch, sound, smell, vision); kinetic problems (hyperactive, aggressive, destructive, self-injurious, and violent behaviors); regressive problems (involuntary stool or urination and inappropriate sexual symptoms); problematic affects or moods; intense fears (dark, thunderstorms, ghosts, downward motion, being alone, crowds, heights, etc.); those with autistic savant abilities; and strong causation
in the child’s history for the onset of autism (for example: the autistic symptoms began after an acute illness, vaccination, use of suppressive medications, or after an acute emotional trauma).
The results of the study were promising. ATEC scores were assessed six months prior to treatment, at baseline when beginning treatment, and were then repeated every three months up to one year after onset of homeopathic treatment. The study had a good cross section of children of various age groups, both genders, and a cross section of children suffering from mild, moderate, and severe autism.
Changes in the ATEC scores were statistically significant with an average ATEC score improvement of 19.72 points (p value < 0.05). The ATEC scores improved almost 34% in the first three months and by 60% by six months into treatment. The quick change in symptoms within the first three months of treatment suggests a strong positive effect of the homeopathic treatment.
Autistic Hyperactivity Scores (AHS), which measures autistic hyperactivity symptoms such as restlessness, spinning, object fixation, fidgety, etc. in a range from 0 to 59, improved significantly after
homeopathic treatment from a score of 36 to 14.3 (p value < 0.05).
Most impressive was the observation nine children had complete reversal of their Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) score below the 30 level, which is in the neurotypical, non-autistic range after only one year of homeopathic treatment.
32 of the children in the study were in a subgroup that was analyzed because they had very pronounced sensory problems at onset of the study. Their ATEC scores began at 73.68 at the time of starting homeopathic treatment and were reduced to 55.74 after 12 months of treatment, and continued to reduce further to 46.41 after 18 months of treatment. This significant 43% reduction in symptoms shows that homeopathy can be very effective for treating sensory integration problems in children with autism.
Of interest to practicing homeopaths, the study showed that 1/3 of the children needed sequentially different changes in homeopathic remedies over time as their pattern of symptoms changed.
This observation is commonly seen in homeopathic clinical practice with patient experiencing long-standing chronic illness like autism where several different homeopathic prescriptions over time are needed as the main problems change.
Bravalia, P. Autism Spectrum Disorder: Holistic Homeopathy.
Homeopathic Links Spring 2011, Vol. 24: pp. 31
Hormesis (griech.: „Anregung, Anstoß“, engl.: adaptive response) ist die schon von Paracelsus formulierte Hypothese, dass geringe Dosen schädlicher oder giftiger Substanzen eine positive Wirkung auf den Organismus haben können. Sie wird heute in der Definition weiter gefasst. Bei medizinisch wirksamen Substanzen ist ein solcher dosisabhängiger Umkehreffekt gut nachweisbar (z.B. Digitalis, Colchicin oder Opium). Bei einer Reihe anderer Verbindungen und der Wirkung von radioaktiver Strahlung wird die Hypothese in Fachkreisen sehr kontrovers diskutiert.
Hormetische Effekte zeichnen sich durch eine nach oben oder unten geöffnete J- oder U-förmige Dosis-Wirkungs-Kurve aus (z.B. rote Kurve im Bild rechts). Hormetische Effekte kommen in unterschiedlichen Kontexten vor und haben unterschiedliche ihnen zugrundeliegende Mechanismen.
Immunstimulantien (z.B. Echinacea-Produkte) sollen -ohne im Sinn einer Impfung zu wirken- das Immunsystem des Körpers unspezifisch aktivieren, um so Infektionen abzuwehren. Dies ist eine hormetische Wirkung im engeren Sinn, die Effekte sind jedoch meist nicht wissenschaftlich sicher belegt.
Die Homöopathie verwendet Giftstoffe in extrem verdünnter Form als Heilmittel gegen Krankheiten, die vermeintlich dieselben Symptome aufweisen, wie durch die unverdünnten Giftstoffe beim Gesunden verursacht werden. Die Heilwirkung hatte jedoch der Begründer der Homöopathie, Samuel Hahnemann, einer „im innern Wesen der Arzneien verborgene[n], geistartige[n] Kraft“ zugeschrieben. Nach den Vorstellungen der meisten Homöopathen werden durch das Potenzieren ausschließlich die unerwünschten Wirkungen der Substanz reduziert, die erwünschten Wirkungen jedoch nicht. Viele Homöopathen glauben außerdem, dass durch das Zubereitungsverfahren die erwünschte Wirkung verstärkt wird. In der Praxis werden oft so hohe Verdünnungen („Hochpotenzen“) verwendet, dass kaum noch ein Molekül des ursprünglichen Stoffes in einer Medikamentendosis enthalten ist. Zur Begründung der Hochpotenzen ging Hahnemann davon aus, dass sich hier „die Materie […] roher Arznei-Substanzen […] zuletzt gänzlich in ihr individuelles geistartiges Wesen auflöse“. Heute behaupten Protagonisten der Homöopathie einen „Gedächtniseffekt“ des als Verdünnungsmittel benutzten Wassers. Kritiker schreiben etwaige Therapieerfolge dem Placeboeffekt zu. [Aus: Wikipedia]
Modus Operandi of Homoeopathy
There surrounds ample debate over whether Homoeopathy works or not. One way to deal with the scepticism is to make people familiar with the extensive scientific research and lab investigations being carried out in this field. It should be clear that this research is not carried out as a necessity to conclude upon a working principle of homoeopathic medicines or how miniscule doses of medicine are used in practice.
Research is carried out to augment and enhance the use of homoeopathic medicines. Some of these researches with explicit results have been published and made available to the public in order to generate an interest in homeopathic healing principles and also to enlighten readers on how to evaluate homeopathic research.
However, it can be rather confusing for readers to refer to research analysis as some studies show that homeopathy works and some say that it doesn’t. To rid readers of this confusion, a very recent development in research is used, called a "meta-analysis," which is a systematic review of a research that evaluates the overall results of experiments instead of single studies.
The following literature has been referred from Consumer's Guide to Homeopathy, Tarcher/Putnam.
In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homoeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal. This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.
The professors concluded, "The amount of positive results came as a surprise to us." With this knowledge, the researchers of the meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications."
There are different types of homeopathic clinical research, some of which provide research on individualization of remedies; some of which give a commonly prescribed remedy to all patients with similar ailment, and some of which give a combination of homeopathic remedies to people with a similar condition. These form good research material; however there are certain issues that researchers have to be aware of in order to obtain the best objective results.
For instance, if a study shows that there was no difference between those patients given a remedy and those given a placebo, the study does not disprove homeopathy; it simply proves that this one remedy is not effective in treating every person suffering from that ailment and he might most probably need a remedy based on his individualised study.
Some people are under the mistaken impression that homeopathic studies are impossibly complicated due to the need to individualize each remedy for the subjects. This is however not true as evidenced by a clinical trial done on subjects with asthma. Researchers at the University of Glasgow used conventional allergy testing to discover which substances these asthma patients were most allergic to which once was determined, the subjects were randomized into treatment and placebo groups. Those patients chosen for treatment were given the 30c potency of the substance to which they were most allergic (the most common substance was house dust mite). The researchers called this unique method of individualizing remedies "homeopathic immunotherapy" (homeopathic m
edicines are usually prescribed based on the patient's idiosyncratic symptoms, not on laboratory analysis or diagnostic categories). Subjects in this experiment were evaluated by both homeopathic and conventional physicians. This study showed that 82% of the patients given a homeopathic medicine improved, while only 38% of patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. Along with this recent asthma study, the authors performed a meta-analysis, reviewing all the data from three studies they performed on allergic conditions, which totalled 202 subjects. The researchers found a similar pattern in the three studies. Improvement began within the first week and continued through to the end of the trial four weeks later. The results of this meta-analysis were so substantial (P=0.0004) that the authors concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or controlled clinical trials do not. Because modern science is based on controlled clinical trials, it is a more likely conclusion that homeopathic medicines are effective.
As valuable as clinical studies are, laboratory researches too are equally important to conclude responses from homoeopathic treatment. Lab researches show biological activity of homeopathic medicines that cannot be explained as a placebo response, a common accusation of sceptics. Laboratory researches also shed some light on the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicines.
Where clinical research determines improvement in the health of a person, laboratory research measures changes in biological systems like cells, tissues and organs.
It is true that homeopaths are not entirely certain of the working principle of homeopathic medicines, but there are present numerous persuasive and convincing theories about their mechanism of action. Besides, to be entirely honest, there are contemporary modern medicines, including aspirin and certain antibiotics, whose mode of action is not completely known. Yet, practitioners of modern medicine do not hesitate to prescribe these medicines that they have incomplete knowledge of. For centuries now, the most common subject of scepticism towards homoepathy has been the exceedingly small doses of medicines being used in the treatment and cure of patients. Sceptics of homeopathy have asserted that there is "nothing" in the medicines because there are no molecules left in the highly diluted solutions.
However, new research published in the prestigious Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (1999) suggests that there may be something active in homeopathic medicines after all. In the article ‘The Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Solutions” - New Scientific Evidence for Homeopathic Micro doses by Dana Ullman, he mentions an experiment by Two Italian professors of chemistry, Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli. They measured the amount of heat emanating from plain double-distilled water and compared that with double-distilled water in which a substance was placed. Both the control water and the treated water underwent consecutive dilution between one to thirty times, with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, which represents the common pharmacological method in which homeopathic medicines are made. The researchers conducted over 500 experiments, approximately half of which were made with double-distilled water that was mixed with a specific acid and base substance and half were in the control group of only double-distilled water. The researchers found that 92% of the test solutions with the added acid or base
substance had higher than expected heat emanating from them (sodium chloride was one of the salt substances and a type of vinegar was one of the acid substances tested).
Dr. Vittorio Elia, the lead researcher, asserted, "We are setting the basis for a new science: the physics-chemistry of homeopathic water. These results make for a strong support to the hypothesis of the existence of a memory of water." "This study confirms that there is something there in homeopathic water," affirmed Dana Ullman. "It should now be known that physicians and scientists who assume that there is nothing in homeopathic medicines are showing their own ignorance of the scientific literature."
It is common perception that, in treating a disease, the higher or more potent the dose, the quicker, or better the cure. This common misconception has not only been proved incorrect but the opposite of this has been proved right. It was seen in a series of experiments and research that rather than a drug simply having increased effects as its dose becomes larger, exceedingly small doses of a drug will have the opposite effects of large doses. For instance, it is known that normal medical doses of atropine acts on the parasympathetic nerves, blocking it and causing mucous membranes to dry up, while exceedingly small doses of atropine cause increased secretions to mucous membranes. This pharmacological principle was concurrently discovered in the 1870s by two separate researchers, Hugo Schulz, a conventional scientist, and Rudolf Arndt, a psychiatrist and homeopath. Initially, this principle was called the Arndt-Schulz ‘law’, law being defined as a sequence of events that has
been observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions. More specifically, these reseachers discovered that weak stimuli accelerate physiological activity, medium stimuli inhibit physiological activity, and strong stimuli halt physiological activity. For example, very weak concentrations of iodine, bromine, mercuric chloride, and arsenious acid will stimulate yeast growth, medium doses of these substances will inhibit yeast growth and large doses will kill the yeast. In the recent past there has been a surge of experiments confirming and reconfirming this general principle. Unfortunately though, these experiments have been carried out by non-homoeopaths or those with little knowledge of homoeopathy, hence there isn’t any indisputable evidence to prove this principle with respect to homeopathic principles.
Despite the now strong evidence that homeopathic medicines promote biological activity and clinical efficacy, there is still great resistance to them. Recently, the Lancet published the research on the homeopathic treatment of asthma. In a press release announcing this research, they emphasized that although homeopathic medicines may provide some benefit to people with asthma, conventional medicines offer greater benefit.
This statement is bizarre firstly because the study didn't compare homeopathic and conventional medicine; it only compared homeopathic medicine with a placebo and secondly, the Lancet refused to openly acknowledge that homeopathic medicines may work after all.
It is given in the ‘Journal of the French Academy of Sciences‘ evidence of the bias that "defenders of science" have against homeopathy is their refusal to publish or even comment on the increasing body of research accruing to homeopathic medicine.
Science is supposed to be objective, though both physicists and psychologists teach us that objectivity is impossible. Science's long-term antagonism to homeopathy is slowly breaking down but not without significant reaction, fear, anxiety, and sometimes downright attack against homeopaths. Change is the basis of science. We seek to explore new territories to build mankind a better present and future. However, change is difficult, and significant change is even more difficult. Even though science advances from new knowledge, it tends to be unwilling to accept perspectives and knowledge that do not fit contemporary concepts and scientific theories.
The Most Useful Method of Learning Materia Medica
The essence of homoeopathy is individualization, with each drug having its own distinct personality. We have to get acquainted with different remedies in the Materia Medica and understand them as if they were our friends.
1st step in learning Materia Medica is feeling the remedies.
2nd step is to learn the mental symptoms of a drug, before the physical symptoms of the drug, as the mind is the most distinct and innermost part of a person. Unfortunately, our Materia Medica does not have fully developed mental aspects of drugs of most remedies.
3rd step is to study the aggravations and ameliorations by meteorological conditions, motion, heat, jar, position, touch etc. The characteristic desires and aversions of a remedy are
of great importance. Sometimes, in a drug, there are contradictions in this sphere of remedies, for e.g. desire as well as aggravation to fish in Natrum muriaticum.
4th step is to know the causation of disease typical of different remedies i.e. the ailments from in the remedy.
E.g. Ailments from mortification - Staphysagria
Ailments from suppressed diarrhea - Abrotanum
Ailments from injury - Nat-sulph.
When we have mastered the above points then we have to proceed to learn the physical symptoms to which the remedy specially applies.
For eg: Cardiovascular system of Veratrum viride,
Cerebro- spinal system of Zincum metallicum.
Also we must study the affinity of drugs for particular organs and tissue. For e.g. Kali carbonicum and its affinity for serous membranes.
We must be able to visualize the characteristic symptoms of a drug, like the cracked tongue in the center of Rhus venenata,
zigzag sensation of Calc.
5th step is to select the few peculiar, strange keynote symptoms out of the bulk of symptoms of a remedy. These may form similes, as we have
The Ragged Philosopher - Sulphur.
The Human Barometer - Merc-sol.
6th step is to get clearly in the mind the bodily functions such as micturition, defecation, digestion, menstruation and pregnancy.
7th step is to understand the alternating conditions e.g.
headache alternating with piles - Aloe,
cough alternating with eruptions - Croton tigrinum
and the concomitants of the remedy e.g.
coryza accompanied by diarrhoea -Sanguinaria canadensis. In the second edition of the Kent's repertory, these are given under a separate heading as alternations, but in the third edition
it is scattered through the book.
8th step is to study the pharmacology of drug including its effects in potentized form.
Opium - It contains two main groups of alkaloids. Phenanthrenes include morphine, codeine, and thebaine and are the main narcotic constituents. Isoquinolines such as
papaverine have no significant central_nervous_system effects. Morphine is by far the most prevalent and important alkaloid in opium, consisting of 10%-16% of the total, and
responsible for most of its effects such as lung edema, respiratory difficulties, coma, or cardiac or respiratory collapse.
In Cannabis the most prevalent group of psychoactive substances is delta- tetrahydrocannabinol. Other psychoactive substances are Tetrahydrocannabivarin, Cannabivarin,
Cannabidiol, but it is only found in small amounts.
Effects of tetrahydrocannabivarin are altered consciousness and perception, anxiety, paranoia, increased libido, increased heart rate, dryness of mouth.
Cannabinoids affect the basal ganglia, cerebellum and the hippocampus bringing about a change in movement and co-ordination.
9th step is to study the particular sphere of action of drugs. For e.g. the action of Natrum muriaticum on the pituitary - thyroid axis.
The action of Nitric acid on mucocutaneous junction.
The action of Pulsatilla on venous system.