sting vs. injection - bee venom

[Guest guest]

From the canadian websight:

http://www.beevenom.com/

Chris

BEE VENOM: LIVE BEES vs. INJECTABLE SOLUTION

by Mihály Simics

Published in the Journal of the American Apitherapy Society, Fall

2000, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 15-16

I often receive phone calls and e-mails from people asking me about

the efficacy of different methods of applying bee venom. I am most

frequently asked to compare the venom from live bees to an injectable

venom solution. Many of my correspondents question the effectiveness

of a standardized product, but have no reasons to back up their doubt.

Evaluating the efficacy of bee venom for a particular health

condition is complex. What is right for one may be wrong for another,

and each case must be evaluated individually. Some points to be

considered are the nature of the illness, the attitude and

nutritional protocol of the patient, the qualifications of the

practitioner, the quality and quantity of available bee venom, and

the method of administering the venom.

Most of the information available about this issue is from pre-1970s

sources (Drs. Back, Broadman, Schwab) when injectable venom was in

the form of Whole Body Extract (WBE). In 1978 the FDA approved the

use of whole dried bee venom for desensitization. By that time, a

higher quality of venom was available for manufacturing of such

products. One reason that dried venom replaced WBE was that WBE was

not effective. This means that any literature about the effects of

injectable bee venom that references work done before the early

1970s, even newly published literature that uses these works as

resources, are using data based on solutions prepared from WBE, not

the solutions available today. With the introduction of Whole Dried

Bee Venom (WDBV) it became possible to prepare a standardized and

superior product for bee venom therapy. This means that the product

always contains the same quality and quantity of venom and is

suitable for use in both scientific studies and in treatments.

A comparison of bee stings to injectable venom solutions must begin

with the source of venom. Bees need pollen or protein rich nutrition

to make good quality venom. From spring to fall this is easily

archived in an area with continuous flowering plants. However, in the

late fall and winter, beekeepers tend to feed their bees with sugar

syrup (carbohydrate) and not with pollen (protein); consequently, the

quality of venom suffers. Whole dried bee venom is collected during

the peak or just at the end of honey flow when the bees' venom sacs

are full of quality venom, so this venom is of high quality when it

is reconstituted.

The quality of the venom solution also depends upon the preparation

method used. Evidence from MRIs show that a solution prepared from

Grade I. venom (VeneX) has the same effect on MS as venom from live

bee stings; solutions prepared from Grade II venom (BV, BVS) does not

provide the same effectiveness on MS as bee stings.

Below is a list of estimated-published effects of bee venom. Efficacy

is determined by several factors. These are either approximate values

or values that appear in published literature. The efficacy of the

venom from a summer bee with a good quality pollen source is

estimated at 100 percent. The administration method that determines

the quantity of the venom received is not included in this data:

Live bee (summer) 100%

Live bee (winter) 23-35%

Injection (Grade I.) Up to 95%

Injection (Grade II.) 60-80%

Cream, liniment (Apireven, Apisarthron and Forapin only) 55-65%

Cream, liniment (all other brands or not researched) 25-50%

Ambrocation 20-45%

Electrophoresis 60-80%

Ultrasonophoresis 45-75%

Homeoacupuncture Unknown

Bee venom and honey blend Unknown

Inhalation Unknown

Tablets and capsules Unknown

Oral drops or liquids Unknown

Bee venom in the form of direct bee stings has been used for

centuries, and it has always been considered an easy and effective

method of administration. In the past, beekeepers and apitherapists

used it exclusively. This has changed as more and more people have

begun to use bee venom therapy to control the symptoms of multiple

sclerosis, and the community and skeptics now ask for studies and

proof of efficacy.

Those who already benefit from bee sting therapy will find

satisfactory proof of bee venom's efficacy in the article by

Wolland published in Bee Informed, the Journal of the American

Apitherapy Society (Exciting Changes in MRI After Bee Venom Therapy

[Winter, 1999/2000] Vol 6, No 4: pp. 1 & 5.). Those who want clinical

studies of products that can be used in an office environment must

continue waiting for proof from researchers, but dedicated users know

that there is already proof.

It did not come from any well know university study nor from a

medical clinic, but from dedicated users who contacted me by mail and

telephone. Their findings are the result of a two years of dedicated

use of VeneX combined with outstanding support from their families,

proper nutrition, and other supporting therapies. The proof is in the

MRIs of patients showing improved conditions after using bee venom

therapy under controlled conditions in their own homes (Hauser, R.,

1998; Hauser, R., et al., 2001; Leaches, Maggots and Bees - TLC

Channel, 2000). Recently an MS patient informed me that when he

showed his MRIs to his physician, the physician reacted by saying

that it was the first time he had seen proof that an alternative

therapy works.

Bee venom therapy in the treatment of multiple sclerosis can be an

effective alternative to control the condition. The therapy can be

carried out with venom from live bees or with an injectable solution,

but must be accompanied with proper nutritional protocol and follow

therapeutic guidelines. If the MRI brain scan is a reliable way of

diagnosing multiple sclerosis, based on the MRIs of patients, venom

from both live bees and injections produce the same results. Feedback

from clients indicate the minimum benefit to a multiple sclerosis

patient is the ability to maintain his or her condition at the onset

of treatment.

It is unfortunate that the few studies funded by research institutes

have ignored the advice of those who have worked for decades as

apitherapists. As a result, the studies to date have been flawed

because of easily avoided mistakes such as the use of old venom,

venom overdose, and lack of proper protocol and patient support. Of

course in these cases, bee venom therapy fails.

Do not be discouraged if you see or hear discouraging news that bee

venom does not work in a certain clinical study. It may or may not

the failure of bee venom, and if one day you decide not to wait any

longer for official studies, you can start your own. Those who

successfully use bee venom therapy already know the benefits. They

also know that they are doing it right.

[Guest guest]

Chris: Thanks for sending this write up. It is very interesting.

As to this part....

>Those who already benefit from bee sting therapy will find

>satisfactory proof of bee venom's efficacy in the article by

>Wolland published in Bee Informed, the Journal of the American

>Apitherapy Society (Exciting Changes in MRI After Bee Venom Therapy

>[Winter, 1999/2000] Vol 6, No 4: pp. 1 & 5.).

Wolland is a personal friend of mine, and introduced me to BVT.

I am fairly convinced that he is a lyme case. He had an EM rash and

was treated a few weeks with antibiotics before coming down with MS.

He is hoping to be retested for lyme this fall, and get another MRI.

Functionally he is doing remarkably well and holds a full time job.

Steve E.

[Guest guest]

Oh yeah, and this part:

> One reason that dried venom replaced WBE was that WBE was

>not effective. This means that any literature about the effects of

>injectable bee venom that references work done before the early

>1970s, even newly published literature that uses these works as

>resources, are using data based on solutions prepared from WBE, not

>the solutions available today.

Dr. Broadman was very successful and treating Rheumatic conditions

with injectible bee venom in the 50s.

Steve E.