Updated Edition!
Qi-gong is a branch of Traditional Chinese Medicine that employs meditation, exercise, deep breathing and other techniques with a view of strengthening the assumed life force ‘qi’ and thus improving health and prolong life. Qi-gong has ancient roots in China and has recently also become popular in other countries. There are several distinct forms of qi-gong which can be categorized into two main groups, internal qi-gong and external qi-gong. Internal qi-gong refers to a physical and mental training method for the cultivation of oneself to achieve optimal health in both mind and body. Internal qi-gong is not dissimilar to tai chi but it also employs the coordination of different breathing patterns and meditation. External qi-gong refers to a treatment where qi-gong practitioners direct their qi-energy to the patient with the intention to clear qi-blockages or balance the flow of qi within that patient. According to Taoist and Buddhist beliefs, qi-gong allows access to higher realms of awareness.
The assumptions of qi-gong are not scientifically plausible. But this does not stop enthusiasts to submit it to clinical trials.
A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study was conducted with 231 adolescent girls aged 13-17 years suffering from premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Participants underwent a 4-week Qi Gong therapy program, with five 45-minute sessions weekly. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire and Modified PMS Scale, analysing pre- and post-intervention symptoms through descriptive statistics, paired t-tests and chi-square tests.
The intervention significantly reduced PMS severity, with mild PMS cases increasing from 48 (20.78%) to 166 (71.86%) post-intervention. Paired t-tests revealed a highly significant mean difference in PMS scores (T = 12.251, p < 0.001).
The authors concluded that Qi Gong therapy offers a holistic, non-invasive approach for managing PMS by addressing both physiological and emotional dimensions to the condition. Its ability to balance hormones, alleviate stress and improve overall quality of life makes it a valuable addition to PMS care.
This study originated from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecological Nursing, Nootan college of Nursing, Sankalchand Patel university, Visnagar, Gujarat, India; the Department of Pediatric Nursing of the same institution and the Department of Psychiatric Nursing of the same institution. One would have hoped that its authors know better than to draw such conclusions from such a study. Here are some points of concern:
- There is no reason why the treatment should be holistic.
- The study did not have a control group; causal inferences are thus not waarranted.
- The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment addressed either physiological or emotional dimensions.
- The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment did anything to hormones.
- The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment alleviated stress.
- The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment improved quality of life.
- I see no resason why the treatment should be promoted as a valuable addition to PMS care.
- The PMS severity changed after the treatment and not necessarily because of it.
- The true reasons it changed might be multifold, e.g.: placebo, regression towards the mean, social desirability.
- Misleading the public by drawing far-reaching conclusions has the potential to do untold harm.
I have said it often, and it saddens me to have to say it again:
If the quality of research into so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) does not improve dramatically, nobody can blame the public to not take SCAM seriously any more.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), America’s anti-vaxer in-chief, famously claimed his brain has been eaten by a worm. While this assumption is as ridiculous as the man himself, the actions and delusions of RFK Jr. seem almost to confirm that something fundamental must be wrong with his intellectual abilities.
Recently he said that he will be working to get cell phones out of schools. “Cell phones produce electric magnetic radiation, which has been shown to do neurological damage to kids when it’s around them all day … It’s also been shown to cause cellular damage and even cancer … Cell phone use and social media use on the cell phone has been directly connected with depression, poor performance in schools, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse … The states that are doing this have found that it is a much healthier environment when kids are not using cell phones in schools.”
There are two seperate issues here:
- Limiting children’s use of cell phones might be – for several (not health-related) reasons – a reasonable idea.
- The assumption that cell phones cause the type of damage that RFK Jr. claimed is nonsense.
There is plenty of evidence on the subject, some more reliable that others. The most reliable data do not support what RFK Jr. claims. Here are a few systematic reviews on the subject:
A recent systematic review included 63 aetiological articles, published between 1994 and 2022, with participants from 22 countries, reporting on 119 different E-O pairs. RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones (ever or regular use vs no or non-regular use) was not associated with an increased risk of glioma [meta-estimate of the relative risk (mRR) = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.89-1.13), meningioma (mRR = 0.92, 95 % CI = 0.82-1.02), acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 0.85-1.24), pituitary tumours (mRR = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.61-1.06), salivary gland tumours (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.78-1.06), or paediatric (children, adolescents and young adults) brain tumours (mRR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.51), with variable degree of across-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0 %-62 %). There was no observable increase in mRRs for the most investigated neoplasms (glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma) with increasing time since start (TSS) use of mobile phones, cumulative call time (CCT), or cumulative number of calls (CNC). Cordless phone use was not significantly associated with risks of glioma [mRR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.46; I2 = 74 %) meningioma, (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.70-1.18; I2 = 59 %), or acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.16; 95 % CI = 0.83-1.61; I2 = 63 %). Exposure from fixed-site transmitters (broadcasting antennas or base stations) was not associated with childhood leukaemia or paediatric brain tumour risks, independently of the level of the modelled RF exposure. Glioma risk was not significantly increased following occupational RF exposure (ever vs never), and no differences were detected between increasing categories of modelled cumulative exposure levels.
Another recent systematic review included 5 studies that reported analyses of data from 4 cohorts with 4639 participants consisting of 2808 adults and 1831 children across three countries (Australia, Singapore and Switzerland) conducted between 2006 and 2017. The main source of RF-EMF exposure was mobile (cell) phone use measured as calls per week or minutes per day. For mobile phone use in children, two studies (615 participants) that compared an increase in mobile phone use to a decrease or no change were included in meta-analyses. Learning and memory. There was little effect on accuracy (mean difference, MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02) or response time (MD -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02) on the one-back memory task; and accuracy (MD -0.02; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.00) or response time (MD -0.01; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.03) on the one card learning task (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). Executive function. There was little to no effect on the Stroop test for the time ratio ((B-A)/A) response (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04, very low certainty) or the time ratio ((D-C)/C) response (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05, very low certainty), with both tests measuring susceptibility to interference effects. Complex attention. There was little to no effect on detection task accuracy (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08), or response time (MD 0.02;95% CI 0.01 to 0.03), and little to no effect on identification task accuracy (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05) or response time (MD 0.00;95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). No other cognitive domains were investigated in children. A single study among elderly people provided very low certainty evidence that more frequent mobile phone use may have little to no effect on the odds of a decline in global cognitive function (odds ratio, OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58, 649 participants) or a decline in executive function (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.05, 146 participants), and may lead to a small, probably unimportant, reduction in the odds of a decline in complex attention (OR 0.67;95%CI 0.27 to 1.68, 159 participants) and a decline in learning and memory (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.99, 159 participants). An exposure-response relationship was not identified for any of the cognitive outcomes.
A 2022 systematic review concluded that the body of evidence allows no final conclusion on the question whether exposure to RF EMF from mobile communication devices poses a particular risk to children and adolescents.
That RFK Jr. sprouts BS almost every time he opens his mouth should be an embarrassment to all US citizens. For the rest of the world, it is more than that. In fact, it is fast becomming a serious concern: sooner or later, his insane delusions will affect public health on a global scale!
- pain,
- anxiety,
- fatigue,
- feelings (eg, happy, calm)
on 0- to 10-point numeric rating scales. Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests.
- What on earth is a ‘mixed-method, feasibility, pilot study’? A hallmark of pseudo-researchers seems to be that they think they can invent their own terminology.
- There is no objective, validated outcome measure.
- The conclusion that ‘Reiki is feasible‘ has been known and does not need to be tested any longer.
- The conclusion that ‘Reiki improved positive emotions and feelings and decreased negative measures’ is false. As there was no control group, these improvements might have been caused by a whole lot of other things than Reiki – for instance, the extra attention, placebo effects, regression towards the mean or social desirability.
- The conclusion that ‘implementing Reiki in clinical practice should be further explored to improve mental health and well-being’ is therefore not based on the data provided. In fact, as Reiki is an implausible esoteric nonsense, it is a promotion of wasting resources on utter BS.
Does it matter?
Why not let pseudo-scientists do what they do best: PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
I think it matters because:
- Respectable institutions like the Mayo Clinic should not allow its reputation being destroyed by quackery.
- The public should not be misled by charlatans.
- Patients suffering from mental health problems deserve better.
- Resources should not be wasted on pseudo-research.
- ‘Academic journals like ‘Glob Adv Integr Med Health’ have a responsibility for what they publish.
- ‘The ‘Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health‘ that seems to be behind this particular journal claim to be “the world’s most comprehensive community for advancing the practice of whole health, with leading expertise in research, clinical care, and education. By consolidating the top institutions in the integrative medicine space, all working in unison with a common goal, the Academic Consortium is the premier organizational home for champions of whole health. Together with over 86 highly esteemed member institutions from the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Canada and Mexico, our collective vision is to transform the healthcare system by promoting integrative medicine and health for all.” In view of the above, such statements are a mockery of the truth.
I don’t know whether you noticed but everyone seems to be going on about the new wonder SCAM (so-called alternative medicine) ‘BLACK SEED OIL’ (BSO). If you go on the Internet, you’ll find all sorts of health claims for it, e.g.:
- -Reduces Inflammation
- -High in Antioxidants
- -Can Lower Cholesterol
- -Helps to Fight Cancer
- -Can Kill Off Bacteria
- -Balances Blood Sugar
- -Helps to Lower Blood Pressure
Interesting?
I am – as always – doutful. Nonetheless, I had a look at BSO to find out more.
BSO (also known as black caraway, black cumin or kalonji oil) is derived from the tiny black seeds of Nigella sativa (N. sativa) that grows in hot areas like Eastern Europe, Northern African, and Southwestern Asia, etc. The Wikipedia entry states that “despite considerable use of N. sativa in traditional medicine practices in Africa and Asia, there is insufficient high-quality clinical evidence to indicate that consuming the seeds or oil can be used to treat human diseases”.
But Wiki is often not up-to-date, and I therefore looked into Medline. To my surprise, I found research to be extraordinarily active.
Nigella sativa contains several phytochemical compounds, such as thymoquinone, p-cymene, α-thujene, longifolene, β-pinene, α-pinene, and carvacrol. They confer an antioxidant effect to the seeds, leading to a potent anti-inflammatory effect. Particularly, thymoquinone increases the levels of antioxidant enzymes that counter oxidative stress in the liver. Additionally, the essential oil in N. sativa seeds effectively inhibits intestinal parasites and shows moderate activity against some bacteria, including Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus. Thymoquinone exhibits minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 8-16 μg/mL against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and exhibits MIC 0.25 µg/mL against drug-resistant mycobacteria. Similarly, quercetin shows a MIC of 2 mg/mL against oral pathogens, such as Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Furthermore, endophytic fungi isolated from N. sativa have demonstrated antibacterial activity. Further mechanisms involve inducing apoptosis, and inhibiting migration and invasion. N Sativa supplementation significantly decreases serum C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and malondialdehyde levels. It also improves total antioxidant capacity and superoxide dismutase levels.
But these effects do not neccessarily mean that BSO is clinically effective for any condition, particularly in view of its low bioavailability. So, what does the clinical evidence tell us? Here are just 9 of the most recent studies and reviews:
- This study aimed to investigate the possible beneficial cardioprotective effect of Nigella sativa in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Sixty children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes were randomized into two groups: group I (n = 30) who received Nigella sativa seed oil 450 mg twice daily after meals for 3 months in addition to insulin, and group II (n = 30) who received insulin alone. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and after the treatment. The lipid profile, malondialdehyde, nitric oxide, tumor necrosis factor-α, transforming growth factor-β, and troponin I were also measured before and after Nigella sativa treatment. After 3 months of Nigella sativa administration, group I had significantly lower cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, malondialdehyde, nitric oxide, tumor necrosis factor-α, transforming growth factor-β, and troponin I levels compared with their pretreatment levels and compared with group II. In addition, group I had a significantly higher left ventricular E’/A’ ratio and two-dimensional left ventricular global longitudinal strain (2D-LV GLS) compared with baseline values and compared with group II after treatment. Conclusions: Nigella sativa can improve subclinical left ventricular dysfunction in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
- This study evaluated the effects of Nigella sativa L. extract on glycemia among adolescents with PCOS. This secondary analysis used data from a randomized controlled trial conducted between March 2022 and March 2023. One hundred sixteen adolescent girls aged 12-18 years with PCOS were randomized into two groups. The intervention group received 1000 mg/day of Nigella sativa extract for 16 weeks, while the control group received 10 mg/day of medroxyprogesterone for 10 days per menstrual cycle over the same period. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and one- and two-hour post-prandial glucose levels were measured at baseline and after the intervention. 103 completed the study (50 in the Nigella sativa group and 53 in the control group). At baseline, there were no significant differences in FPG (p = 0.294), though the control group had higher one-hour (p = 0.002) and two-hour (p = 0.006) post-prandial glucose levels. Post-intervention, significant interaction effects were observed for FPG (p = 0.004) and two-hour post-prandial glucose (p = 0.023), indicating more significant reductions in the Nigella sativa group compared to the control group. Conclusions: Considering the observed effect of Nigella sativa supplementation on FPG and two-hour post-prandial glucose, it may offer a complementary approach to managing glycemia in adolescent PCOS. However, further research is warranted.
- This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) sought to evaluate the effects of Nigella sativa (N. sativa) consumption on glycemic index in adults. A systematic literature search up to December 2023 was completed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify eligible RCTs. Random effects models were assessed based on the heterogeneity tests, and pooled data were determined as weighted mean differences with a 95 % confidence interval. Finally, a total of 30 studies were found to be eligible for this meta-analysis. The pooled results using random effects model indicated that N. sativa supplementation significantly reduced FBS (SMD: -1.71; 95 % CI: -2.11, -1.31, p <0.001; I2= 92.7 %, p-heterogeneity <0.001) and HA1c levels (SMD: -2.16; 95 % CI: -3.04, -1.29, p <0.001; I2= 95.7 %, p-heterogeneity <0.001) but not effect on insulin (SMD = 0.48; 95 % CI: -0.53, 1.48, P = 0.353; I2= 96.1 %, p-heterogeneity <0.001), and HOMA-IR (SMD: -0.56; 95 % CI: -1.47, 0.35, p=0.229; I2= 95.0 %, p-heterogeneity <0.001). Conclusion: the evidence supports the consumption of N. sativa to reduce FBS and HA1c levels. Additional research, featuring extended durations and robust study designs, is necessary to determine the ideal dosage and duration of N. sativa supplementation for achieving a positive impact on glycemic markers.
- In this systematic review, the objective is to assess the effects of Nigella Sativa on parameters that reflect metabolic syndromes, such as lipid profile, blood pressure, blood glucose, and anthropometry indices. Six out of 8 randomised controlled trials (n:776) demonstrated a significant improvement in lipid profile (p <0.05), 5 out of 7 trials (n:701) showed a significant reduction in glycaemic indices (p <0.05), 1 out of 5 trials (n:551) demonstrated significant improvements in blood pressure (p <0.05), and 2 out of 7 trials (n:705) showed a significant reduction in anthropometric measurements (p <0.05). Conclusion: Nigella Sativa has proved to have a significant positive effect on lipid profile and glycaemic index. The results showed in the parameters of blood pressure and anthropometric indices are less convincing, as results were inconsistent across studies. Nigella Sativa can therefore be recommended as an adjunct therapy for metabolic syndrome.
- This study was designed to investigate the effect of Nigella sativa supplementation on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) symptoms and their severity in adolescents. The current randomized clinical trial was conducted on 114 adolescents with PCOS who were referred to gynecologist offices and clinics in Gonabad, Iran from March 2022 to March 2023. Participants were randomly allocated to the intervention (Nigella sativa 1000 mg/day) and control (10 mg/day medroxyprogesterone from the 14th day of the cycle for 10 nights) groups. The study duration was 16 weeks. Ovarian volume (measured by ultrasound), anthropometric and blood pressure; serum testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S), luteinizing hormone (LH), hirsutism severity (Ferriman-Gallwey score) levels were evaluated before and after the study. Data from 103 participants (control group = 53, intervention group = 50) were analyzed. The mean age of participants was 17.0 (Interquartile range [IQR]:2.0). The mean difference in hirsutism score changes (p < 0.001), right (p = 0.002), and left (p = 0.010) ovarian volume, serum LH (p < 0.001) and testosterone (p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control group. The frequency of oligomenorrhea, menometrorrhagia, and amenorrhea, were significantly reduced after the study in the intervention group compared to the control group (ps < 0.001). Conclusions: Short-term Nigella sativa supplementation may be effective in reducing ovarian volume and improving hormonal balance, and menstrual irregularities in adolescents with PCOS. Further research and long-term studies are warranted to validate the potential therapeutic effects of Nigella sativa in adolescents with PCOS.
- This study evaluates the efficacy of a novel mucoadhesive patch containing Nigella sativa 10% extract compared to triamcinolone 0.1% in alleviating symptoms and reducing lesion severity in patients with erosive-atrophic oral lichen planus. A pilot study comprising two groups, each with 10 patients, was conducted. The intervention group received mucoadhesive patches containing N. sativa 10% extract, while the control group received triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% patches. Pain and burning intensity, measured through visual analog scale, and lesion severity based on the Thongprasom scale were assessed weekly for 4 weeks. Descriptive records were kept for side effects and patient satisfaction. Pain and burning intensity decreased in both groups throughout the sessions, with the N. sativa group showing a greater reduction than the triamcinolone group. The reduction in burning intensity within each group was significant (p < .001), and there was a significant difference between groups only in the second session (p = .045). The overall difference between groups was not significant (p > .05). Lesion severity also decreased significantly in both groups (p < .001), with a significant difference between groups observed in the third session (p = .043) and overall throughout the study (p = .006). Conclusion: The use of N. sativa extract in mucoadhesive patches was as effective as corticosteroids in reducing pain, burning, and lesion severity in patients with oral lichen planus, with N. sativa showing superior results in some sessions. Notably, no significant complications were observed with N. sativa use, making it a promising treatment option for lichen planus.
- This study aimed to explore the impact of N. sativa supplementation on the lipid profile of adult participants. We searched Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases until December 2022. Random effects models were used, and pooled data were determined as standardized mean differences with a 95% confidence interval. The findings of 34 studies with 2278 participants revealed that N. sativa supplementation significantly reduced total cholesterol (TC) (SMD: -1.78; 95% CI: -2.20, -1.37, p < 0.001), triglycerides (TG) (SMD: -1.2725; 95% CI: -1.67, -0.83, p < 0.001), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (SMD: -2.45; 95% CI: -3.06, -1.85; p < 0.001) compared to control groups. However, a significant increase was found in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (SMD: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.38, 1.20, p < 0.001). Conclusion: N. sativa has improved effects on TG, LDL-C, TC, and HDL-C levels. Overall, N. sativa may be suggested as an adjuvant anti-hyperlipidemic agent.
- In this double-blind clinical trial, 70 nulliparous pregnant women referred to Hajar Hospital and Imam Ali clinics of Shahrekord and had missed abortion before the 12-week gestational age were selected and randomly divided into two interventions and control groups. The intervention group received 5 g of Nigella sativa oil alone daily for up to 3 days and the control group received a placebo. In case of nonresponse, 3 days after the last dose of medication or placebo, 800 μg of misoprostol (vaginal) were used. Data were analyzed by SPSS software. The chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, independent t-test and paired t-test were used for analytical statistics. According to the results, 18 cases (51.4%) in the intervention group and seven cases (20%) in the control group showed complete evacuation of uterine contents which had a significant difference (p < 0.05). The frequency of vagina physical examination and type of hemorrhage did not show any significant difference between the two groups before and after the intervention. After the intervention, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was significantly decreased in the intervention group but did not change in the control group (p < 0.05). The frequency of adverse events in the intervention group was three (8.6%) and in the control group was one (2.9%) which had no significant difference. Conclusion: Nigella sativa improves the outcome of missed abortion by reducing HCG and facilitating cervix dilatation and delivery of uterine contents.
- This systemaatic review evaluated the role of Nigella spp in managing allergic rhinitis (AR), a comprehensive review through systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted. To carry out a meta-analysis of clinical trials that used Nigella spp in treating AR based on current data. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Various databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Science Direct, Springer Link and the Cochrane Library, were searched until October 2023 to obtain RCTs assessing impact of Nigella spp in the control of AR. The current meta-analysis was carried out with a random-effects model. There were 8 studies enrolled, and our meta-analysis findings revealed that, relative to the control group, observation group exhibited the markedly increased total effective rate for allergic rhinitis treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 4.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] (2.57, 7.27), and p < 0.00001); three studies showed that the effect of Nigella spp for nasal symptoms treatment among patients with allergic rhinitis was superior in observation group to control group [mean difference = -2.60, 95% CI (-2.82, -2.38), p < 0.00001]; adverse effects occurred in five studies, all of which were transient, did not require medical intervention, and were not statistically significant between the two groups [OR = 1.01, 95% CI (0.59, 1.73), p = 0.98]. Conclusion: The observation group demonstrated relative safety and had an enhanced effect on allergic rhinitis treatment and total nasal symptom improvement than the control group. The inclusion of fewer studies and the lower quality of trial design might affect the stability of the results. However, the evidence-based findings that Nigella spp for allergic rhinitis treatment is more accurate should be validated in future large-scale, multicenter, and well-designed RCTs.
Yes, I know: the evidence is not perfect for any of the indications. In addition, there is a problem with low bioavailability. And I am suspicious of any SCAM that seems to be effective for an incredibly long list of conditions.
At the same time, I have to admit that, collectively, the research on BSO is impressive. As BSO has been used for centuries (as a spice etc.), serious adverse effects seem unlikely. The evidence regarding its effectiveness might not be fully convincing but, in my book, it is encouraging.
On this blog, we have discussed all sorts of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) but only rarely we scrutinize any of the many gadets and devices that are being promoted under the SCAM umbrella. Therefore, I will in future try to fill this gap.
This study investigated the effects of a magnetic pain relief patch (MPRP) on gait variability in adults. In 10 young men and women, MPRP was attached to 18 bilateral lower limb muscle areas (biceps femoris, gastrocnemius medialis, gastrocnemius lateralis, rectus femoris, soleus, semitendinosus, tibialis anterior, vastus medialis, and vastus lateralis) for 24 hours. Gait parameters collected from the accelerometer sensor were ground contact time, cadence, stance phase, swing phase, double support, stride length, and swing width, and were analyzed as gait variability. Data analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Significant differences were found in the left and right gait cycle time coefficient of variation (CV) (p=0.047 in left, p=0.028 in right), cadence CV (p=0.047 in left and right), and double support CV (p=0.028 in left and right) before and after attachment of the MPRP.
The author concluded that MPRP enhances gait variability and can be utilized as a potential tool to complement noninvasive pain management and rehabilitation strategies. However, further studies are required to prove the long-term benefits and optimal application protocol of MPRP use.
My interpretation is very different!
Background: Static magnets are marketed with claims of effectiveness for reducing pain, although evidence of scientific principles or biological mechanisms to support such claims is limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical evidence from randomized trials of static magnets for treating pain.
Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted from inception to March 2007 for the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and the UK National Research Register. All randomized clinical trials of static magnets for treating pain from any cause were considered. Trials were included only if they involved a placebo control or a weak magnet as the control, with pain as an outcome measure. The mean change in pain, as measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale, was defined as the primary outcome and was used to assess the difference between static magnets and placebo.
Results: Twenty-nine potentially relevant trials were identified. Nine randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing pain with a visual analogue scale were included in the main meta-analysis; analysis of these trials suggested no significant difference in pain reduction (weighted mean difference [on a 100-mm visual analogue scale] 2.1 mm, 95% confidence interval -1.8 to 5.9 mm, p = 0.29). This result was corroborated by sensitivity analyses excluding trials of acute effects and conditions other than musculoskeletal conditions. Analysis of trials that assessed pain with different scales suggested significant heterogeneity among the trials, which means that pooling these data is unreliable.
Interpretation: The evidence does not support the use of static magnets for pain relief, and therefore magnets cannot be recommended as an effective treatment. For osteoarthritis, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a clinically important benefit, which creates an opportunity for further investigation.
Our systematic review did evidently not stop the author to do his own study – good for him!
But what a study it is!!!
Alert readers will have noticed that the study has no control group. Others might have remarked that the notion of static magnets of this kind doing anything meaningful to our bodies lacks plausibility. Thus the observed effects cannot possibly attributed to the magnet therapy. Most likely they are due to the considerable attention the volunteers received.
Some might argue that such gadgets do no harm – so, why not use them? I would disagree with this notion. Firstly, they cost money and thus harm the finances of gullible consumers. Secondly, they distract people from effective treatments and thus have the potential to prolong the suffering of patients.
In view of all this, I feel I should rewrite the conclusions as follows:
Attention can improve pain and enhance gait variability. MPRP is neither biologically plausibe nor has it been shown to be clinically effective. Responsible clinicians should stop using MPRP and employ effective treatments instead. Future research on MPRP must be categorized as a waste of resources.
Guest post by Ken McLeod
O’Neill has graced these pages several times. Now we report on the developing conflict between her and the Seventh Day Adventist Church she uses to facilitate her lecture tours.
The General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the top governing body for the SDA worldwide, has issued a statement calling banned naturopath Barbara O’Neill “disingenuous”, referring to the “questionable nature” of her teachings. Signed by Fred Hardinge, the General Conference’s nutrition and lifestyle specialist, says “it [the Conference] is not able to recommend her as a speaker for churches or any gatherings”.[1]
O’Neil was made the subject of a Permanent Prohibition Order in 2019 by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, which found that she provided dangerous advice to vulnerable patients, that she did not have any qualifications in a health-related field, and that she failed to meet the expected standards of unregistered health professionals. [2]
That action stopped her from conducting her health seminars in Australia, so she has taken her business overseas. She has toured the world, conducting her health ‘lectures’ for the more credulous and naïve.[3]
At first her lecture tours were arranged via the Seventh Day Adventist Church community, and one interview refers to her program as “her ministry” several times.[4] Over time the Church leadership has become more concerned about the health misinformation that O’Neill provided to their congregants in that ‘ministry’.[5]
The General Conference statement was made public in the SDA newspaper The Fulcrum on 4 February 2025. The paper listed the SDA’s history of their concerns about O’Neill and reprinted a report to the General Conference by Hardinge.[6]
The Seventh-Day Adventist Church states “We encourage responsible immunisation/vaccination and have no religious or faith-based reason not to encourage our adherents to responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunisation programs. We value the health and safety of the population, which includes the maintenance of ‘herd immunity.” [7] O’Neill is an anti-vaxxer.
However, the statement does not mean that O’Neil is banned from SDA facilities. It says: “We are not the conscience of the individual church member and recognise individual choices.”
One insider told us that the General Conference has some authority, but it is not set in stone as would be a Catholic Church ex-cathedra ruling. SDA congregations could still invite her, but it becomes less likely because the local conferences will keep an eye on them, especially if they’re intending on having her speak in the church itself. “Adventists are very gullible when it comes to this kind of thing”, they said.
At first, Barbara O’Neill’s main venue was Living Springs Retreat in Alabama. Recordings of some of her recent seminars appear on their website but all they say now is “Please Note: We Occasionally Host Programs With Barbara O’Neill But She Is Not Here.” [8]
O’Neill’s current events program is quite packed and, at time of writing, included five lecture series at SDA venues in the USA and 19 at non-SDA venues.[9] Some of those non-SDA venues are linked to SDA churches. Queries were sent to each church asking if they intended to ignore the General Conference’s ‘recommendation’ but did not receive a response.
This is opening a schism of sorts within the Church, with some churches hosting her lectures, overtly or covertly.
Most of the 826 comments (so far) following The Fulcrum’s article are bitterly opposed to the General Conference’s statement and supportive of O’Neill, with posts like “Is the GC getting money from big pharma” and “Recommendations such as this from conference level and higher, means ‘uninvitable’ or, you know, risk losing your church building. It’s called soft power and our leaders are experts in that. This whole saga is nothing more than an attack on our God-given health message.” The phrase “Big Pharma” appears eight times.
O’Neill and her husband Michael have conducted interviews with supporters and attacked the General Conference. In one of seven video interviews that we found on YouTube, Barbara O’Neill says: “Honestly, just even writing this letter and distributing it to conferences and churches, this is not following the counsel of Jesus. … God is moving, and in the background, my beloved church is attacking the very work that God ordained me to do.”
Following that, the SDA magazine ‘Adventist Today’ ran another article on 14 March 2025 headlined ‘Defying General Conference Advice: Amazing Facts Promotes Aussie Health Crackpot Barbara O’Neill’[10] attacking her while naming and shaming the SDA broadcaster “Amazing Facts’ and the recalcitrant Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church. (Amazing Facts is an SDA broadcaster ‘with multiple television and radio programs on hundreds of media outlets around the world.’ [11])
It seems that there is a real campaign going on within the Church to jettison her. Good.
References
1 SDA magazine The Fulcrum https://www.fulcrum7.com/news/2025/2/4/the-gc-takes-a-stand-against-barbara-oneill
2 https://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/decisions-orders/public-statements-and-warnings/public-statement-and-statement-of-decision-in-relation-to-in-relation-to-mrs-barbara-o-neill
3 For example https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/controversial-wellness-coach-barbara-oneill-set-to-host-talk-in-ireland-this-month/a1781099169.html
4 Belt Of Truth Live Ep 30 February 2025 https://www.youtube.com/live/A8-LJUMQP_I
5 https://atoday.org/whos-protecting-adventists-from-misinformation-part-2-health-quackery/
6 https://www.fulcrum7.com/news/2025/2/4/the-gc-takes-a-stand-against-barbara-oneill
7 https://gc.adventist.org/official-statements/immunization/
8 https://www.livingspringsretreat.com/june-training-with-barbara-oneill?rq=Barbara%20o%27neill
9 https://officialbarbaraoneill.com/pages/events
10 https://atoday.org/amazing-facts-endorses-health-crackpot-barbara-oneill/
11 https://www.amazingfacts.org/about-us/our-story
Thanks to Trump and his administration, US science is descending into chaos. Federal grants are being frozen, Scientists are getting fired and are leaving the US in droves, the NIH is under threat, crucial meetings are being postponed indefinitely and anti-science increasingly dominates the agenda of the White House.
US Universities are forced to cut back offers of admission for graduate students. Many have stopped hiring as the Trump administration threatens to take away federal money over their handling of a wide range of issues. Meanwhile, JD Vance does not miss an occasion to insult Europeans and to lecture us about free speach. The whole scenario is so utterly bizarre that it seems to originate from a 3rd class science fiction film.
Back in July 2024, when JD Vance first launched his attack on universities, I pointed out that fascist movements are known to be notoriously anti-intellectual and anti-science. Adolf Hitler said he regretted that his regime still had some need for its “intellectual classes,” otherwise, “one day we could, I don’t know, exterminate them or something.” And the ‘bon mot’, “when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun”, is attributed even to several of the top Nazis of the Third Reich.
At the time, my comparison to fascist regimes may have seemed exaggerated to some. Now it is fairly obvious to all but the most deluded that it was spot on. Those who are not afraid of what Trump and his sycophants are doing to science are simply not listening!
In response to the multiple threats to science, ‘Stand Up for Science‘ organized demonstrations of scientific communities throughout the US. The central event took place in Washington, D.C. on March 7, 2025, with approximately 2,000 participants in attendance. Parallel demonstrations occurred in more than 30 additional U.S. cities, with international solidarity events reported in several countries, including over 30 locations in France.
Several universities in Europe and elsewhere have also reacted; they are busy putting programmes in place to receive scientists who are fleeing the US. The consequence will inevitably be a significant ‘brain drain’ that will haunt the US for decades to come.
This study investigated the impact of spirituality and SCAM (so-called alternative medicine) use on perceptions of vaccine harmfulness, with a focus on COVID-19 and mandatory childhood vaccinations. Additionally, it examined whether spirituality indirectly influences vaccine hesitancy through SCAM use and beliefs in conspiracies.
A cross-sectional probability-based survey was conducted with over 1300 participants from South Tyrol, Italy, in 2023, using the GrAw-7 (Gratitude/Awe) scale as a measure of the experiential aspect of non-religious spirituality. Statistical analysis encompassed Spearman’s correlation and linear regression to assess the associations between spirituality and vaccine perceptions. A mediation model was applied to evaluate the role of spirituality in shaping attitudes towards vaccination.
The results show that higher experiential spirituality was associated with increased perceived harmfulness of COVID-19 and mandatory childhood vaccinations. Spirituality as well as perceived harmfulness of COVID-19 vaccination and mandatory childhood vaccination were correlated with age, increased SCAM utilisation and conspiracy ideation, while institutional distrust was solely associated with vaccine scepticism but not with spirituality; well-being and altruism were only associated with spirituality. Mediation analysis revealed that experiential spirituality accounted for a modest but significant portion of the influence of SCAM use and conspiracy thinking on vaccine perceptions.
The authors concluded that their study underscores the association between experiential spirituality and vaccine perceptions, particularly among individuals with a predisposition towards SCAM and those who exhibit conspiracy-related beliefs, highlighting the intricate relationships without implying causation. While spirituality does not appear to directly hinder vaccine uptake, it correlates with heightened perceptions of vaccine risks, particularly within contexts where alternative health practices and distrust in mainstream medical authorities are prevalent. This relationship emphasises that people who score high on spiritual awareness may be indirectly influenced to differ from others with respect to vaccination attitudes by promoting scepticism towards vaccine safety and efficacy. Even if we cannot change the spirituality of people, we know now that we can address information campaigns not only by attempting to build trust but also by addressing information to people preferring SCAM use and being spiritual at once. We think that this result is an important insight when focusing vaccine campaigns on vaccine-hesitant persons. These findings emphasise the importance of incorporating spiritual awareness, convictions, and beliefs into public health communication strategies. To address vaccine hesitancy within spiritually inclined populations, public health campaigns could explore framing vaccination in ways that resonate with values such as community care, personal responsibility, or altruism while ensuring that these messages are tailored to the diverse beliefs and perspectives of these groups. Moreover, collaboration with spiritual and community leaders could serve as a strategy to strengthen vaccine acceptance in populations that perceive health through a spiritual perspective. Future research should further explore the interactions between spirituality, SCAM use, and beliefs in conspiracies, with an emphasis on understanding how spirituality mediates health behaviours in culturally and religiously diverse contexts. Longitudinal studies and analyses across broader demographic groups are necessary to generalise these findings and refine public health interventions aimed at addressing spirituality-linked vaccine hesitancy.
My interpretation of these findings is that they confirm what we have repeatedly discussed here: There is a link between SCAM use and vaccination hesitance. It most likely is due to a cross-correlation: a certain mindset (that includes spirituality and several other phenomena) influences the distrust in vaccinations as well as the use of SCAM (and other things like, for instance, the belief in conspiracy theories).
Measles had been declared eliminated from the US in 2000. Now the disease is back with a vengeance. In February, an unvaccinated Texan child became the first person in a decade to die from measles in the US. Another death occurred in New Mexico.
The reason for the outbreak is simple: the uptake of the measles vaccine dropped below the 95% rate that is necessary for herd immunity. In the region where the current outbreak began, only 82% of the kids were vaccinated. This triggered the outbreak and, in turn, might mean that the US will lose its ‘measles elimination status’.
Only days after his appointment, Trump pledged to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization and to drastically cut the US Agency for International Development. Both moves are likely to cause more cases of measles and similarly vaccine-preventable diseases in the US and around the world. To make matters worse, Trump administration has fired hundreds of workers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
And to make matters even worse, Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the US most deluded antivaxer. Since being appointed, Kennedy has downplayed the importance of the current measles outbreak, postponed a meeting of the CDC vaccine advisers, made statements like “vaccinations are over-rated” and claimed that good nutrition and treatment with vitamin A as ways to reduce measles severity. He even praised the benefits of cod liver oil as a measure against measles. “There are adverse events from the vaccine,” Kennedy said in a March 11 interview. “It does cause deaths every year. It causes all the illnesses that measles itself causes, encephalitis and blindness, et cetera. And so people ought to be able to make that choice for themselves.” Further confirming his cluelessness Kennedy also stated: “When you and I were kids, everybody got measles, and measles gave you … lifetime protection against measles infection. The vaccine doesn’t do that… The vaccine wanes 4.5% per year.”
But Kennedy does not just propagate BS in interviews, he also plans to investigate whether vaccines cause autism — an assumption that has been discredited ad nauseam. A spokesperson for the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) said: “The rate of autism in American children has skyrocketed. CDC will leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out what exactly is happening.”
Meanwhile in Texas, some parents, who evidently believe Kennedy’s deluded nonsense, are giving unvaccinated children vitamin A, which, of course, is toxic at high doses.
This systematic review was aimed at assessing whether spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) procedures (i.e., target, thrust, and region) impacted on pain and disability for adults with spine pain.
The investigators searched PubMed and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews indexed up to February 2022 and conducted a systematic search of 5 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials], PEDro [Physiotherapy Evidence Database], and Index to Chiropractic Literature) from January 1, 2018, to September 12, 2023. They included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from recent systematic reviews and newly identified RCTs published during the review process and employed artificial intelligence to identify potentially relevant articles not retrieved through our electronic database searches. The authors included RCTs of the effects of high-velocity, low-amplitude SMT, compared to other SMT approaches, interventions, or controls, in adults with spine pain. The outcomes were spinal pain intensity and disability measured at short-term (end of treatment) and long-term (closest to 12 months) follow-ups. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane RoB tool. Results were presented as network plots, evidence rankings, and league tables.
The researchers included 161 RCTs (11 849 participants). Most SMT procedures were equal to clinical guideline interventions and were slightly more effective than other treatments. When comparing inter-SMT procedures, effects were small and not clinically relevant. A general and nonspecific rather than a specific and targeted SMT approach had the highest probability of achieving the largest effects. Results were based on very low- to low-certainty evidence, mainly downgraded owing to large within-study heterogeneity, high RoB, and an absence of direct comparisons.
The authors concluded that there was low-certainty evidence that clinicians could apply SMT according to their preferences and the patients’ preferences and comfort. Differences between SMT approaches appear small and likely not clinically relevant.
What does that mean?
It means that it is largely irrelevant which form of SMT is being used; the outcomes are more or less independet of the technique that is applied. You don’t need to be particularly skeptical to go one step further and conclude that:
- The percieved effectiveness of SMT compared to other treatments is due to a placebo effect which is likely to be strong with a therapy involving touch, cracking bones, etc.
- The effects of different types of SMT are all similar because these interventions are little more than theatrical placebos.
- Since these placebos can cause consideraable harm, their risk/benefit balance is not positive.
- Because their risk/benefit balance fails to be positive, SMT cannot be recommended as a treatment in routine care.
