Monthly Archives: February 2016

On Sunday 21 February, Andrew Herxheimer died at the age of 90. He was a clinical pharmacologist, founding editor of the Drugs & Therapeutics Bulletin from 1963 to 1992, Emeritus Fellow of the UK Cochrane Centre, convenor of the Cochrane Collaboration on Adverse Effects Methods Group and a co-founder of the DIPEx charity, which owns and runs .

Andrew has contributed a significant amount of papers on a large variety of subjects to the medical literature. His most recent articles were published only a few months ago. Andrew’s energy, wit and enthusiasm seemed infectious, and he has inspired many.

The official CV of Andrew is most impressive but, in my view, it can never do justice to the man himself. He was kind, witty and bright – a true gentleman through and through. His interests ranged wide, and his comments on so many different issues were as incisive as they were inspiring. His knowledge was vast and his vision clear. With everything he did, he seemed guided by a never-failing moral compass. He was a rational and critical thinker like few else, yet his warmth and kindness always dominated.

I had the pleasure to meet Andrew soon after I took up my post in Exeter. We became friends almost instantly and, many times, he supported me with his kindness. In 1996, we published an article together in the BMJ entitled THE POWER OF PLACEBO. Here is its concluding paragraph:

“…all doctors should be encouraged to look at their own practice to examine the nonspecific ingredients that they use daily and those that they do not use. Giving greater attention in daily practice to ‘adjuvants’ (specific as well as non-specific) could considerably increase effectiveness and efficacy – for example, by saying more useful things to patients in better ways. Methods will be needed for implementing such approaches. Until they are available, good common sense and old-fashioned bedside manners might already take us far – as they say, when all else fails, talk to your patient.”

Andrew Herxheimer was a great man, a kind friend, a brilliant scientist and a compassionate doctor. Without him, medicine seems far less inspired, amusing and joyful.

I get comments of this nature all the time, sometimes by the dozen per day. As the argument is so very common, let me ONCE AGAIN explain what is wrong with it. Here are 10 very simple points for those who find it hard to understand the issue.

  1. My expertise is in alternative medicine and not in pharmacology. I know many pharmacologists who are competent to criticise aspects of pharmacotherapy and do so regularly. I do NOT consider myself competent to comment on pharmacotherapy.
  2. The fact that some things are not perfect in one area of health care (e. g. pharmacotherapy) does certainly not mean that one is not allowed to criticise shortcomings in other areas (e. g. homeopathy).
  3. As far as I can tell, it is not pharmaceuticals that ‘kill 100k a year’, but the issue is more complex: a sizable proportion of this tragic total is due to medical errors, for instance.
  4. The 100k figure seems to refer to the US where the vast majority of the population take pharmaceuticals but only about 2% of the population ever try homeopathy.
  5. Nobody seems to dispute that pharmaceuticals have beneficial effects beyond placebo; the general consensus regarding highly diluted homeopathics is that they have no effects beyond placebo.
  6. To judge the value of a therapy, it is naïve and dangerously misleading to consider just its risks. If we did that, aromatherapy would be preferable to surgery, reflexology would be better than chemotherapy and OF COURSE homeopathy would be better than pharmacotherapy. And if we then implemented this ‘wisdom’ into routine practice, we would hasten the deaths of millions.
  7. Any reasonable judgement of the value of any therapy must account for its documented risks in relation to its documented benefits. In other words, we must always try to weigh the two against each other and do a risk/benefit analysis.
  8. If a therapy is associated with finite risks and no benefits, its risk/benefit balance cannot possibly be positive. Where the benefit is non-existent or doubtful, even relatively small risks will inevitably tilt this balance in to the negative.
  9. This is precisely the situation that applies to homeopathy: its benefits beyond placebo are doubtful and its risks are fairly well documented.
  10. This means that homeopathy cannot be considered to be a therapy that is fit for purpose.

Cervical spine manipulation (CSM) is a popular manipulative therapy employed by chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists and other healthcare professionals. It remains controversial because its benefits are in doubt and its safety is questionable. CSM carries the risk of serious neurovascular complications, primarily due to vertebral artery dissection (VAD) and subsequent vertebrobasilar stroke.

Chinese physicians recently reported a rare case of a ‘locked-in syndrome’ (LIS) due to bi-lateral VAD after CSM treated by arterial embolectomy. A 36-year-old right-handed man was admitted to our hospital with numbness and weakness of limbs after receiving treatment with CSM. Although the patient remained conscious, he could not speak but could communicate with the surrounding by blinking or moving his eyes, and turned to complete quadriplegia, complete facial and bulbar palsy, dyspnoea at 4 hours after admission. He was diagnosed with LIS. Cervical and brain computed tomography angiography revealed bi-lateral VADs. Aorto-cranial digital subtraction angiography showed a vertebro-basilar thrombosis which was blocking the left vertebral artery, and a stenosis of right vertebral artery. The patient underwent emergency arterial embolectomy; subsequently he was treated with antiplatelet therapy and supportive therapy in an intensive care unit and later in a general ward. After 27 days, the patient’s physical function gradually improved. At discharge, he still had a neurological deficit with muscle strength grade 3/5 and hyperreflexia of the limbs.

The authors concluded that CSM might have potential severe side-effect like LIS due to bilaterial VAD, and arterial embolectomy is an important treatment choice. The practitioner must be aware of this complication and should give the patients informed consent to CSM, although not all stroke cases temporally related to CSM have pre-existing craniocervical artery dissection.

Informed consent is an ethical imperative with any treatment. There is good evidence to suggest that few clinicians using CSM obtain informed consent from their patients before starting their treatment. This is undoubtedly a serious violation of medical ethics.

So, why do they not obtain informed consent?

To answer this question, we need to consider what informed consent would mean. It would mean, I think, conveying the following points to the patient in a way that he or she can understand them:

  1. the treatment I am suggesting can, in rare cases, cause very serious problems,
  2. there is little good evidence to suggest that it will ease your condition,
  3. there are other therapies that might be more effective.

Who would give his or her consent after receiving such information?

I suspect it would be very few patients indeed!


I just came across this announcement and thought I let the readers of this blog know about it:

Journal of Cancer Therapy Special Issue on Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer

A complementary therapy is treatment that is used along with standard medical treatment.  An alternative therapy is generally used instead of conventional medical treatment. They both are non-traditional methods of diagnosing, preventing, or treating cancer or its symptoms, and usually have not gone through rigorous testing and are not supported by evidence. Some types of therapy may not be completely safe and may even cause harmful side effects.

In this special issue, we intend to invite front-line researchers and authors to submit original research and review articles on exploring Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer. Potential topics include, but are not limited to:

  • Acupuncture
  • Amygdalin
  • Brachytherapy
  • Cyberknife
  • Essiac therapy
  • Herbal remedies
  • Hyperbaric oxygen therapy
  • Ketogenic diet
  • Massage therapy
  • Music therapy
  • Photodynamic therapy
  • Relaxation techniques

I know nothing about this journal; I cannot say that it looks overtly woolly – but the announcement seems a little odd. Some of the treatments listed, for instance, clearly do NOT fall under the umbrella of CAM. And, somehow, I get the feeling that they might be looking for contributions that are in favour of CAM for cancer or promote ‘integrative oncology’ – but I might be entirely wrong here.
Anyway, to make sure they get some critical submissions on the subject, I thought I let all of you know. Perhaps you feel like sending them an article pointing out that AN ALTERNATIVE CANCER CURE IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

The Independent asked me yesterday to write a 500-word piece on homeopathy. I accepted with pleasure. About two hours after I had sent it, my article appeared on their website. As I had not even seen their edited version, I was surprised how much they changed without my permission.

No, I am not cross about this – I know by now how journalists function. Yet I think that some of their changes did change my meaning, and therefore I have decided to post here the original. Since I did not get paid nor sign a copyright transfer, I think I am perfectly entitled to do that.


Time to get real about homeopathy


The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia recently published what might be the most thorough evaluation of homeopathy in the 200-year long history of this therapy. They assessed a total of 57 systematic reviews summarizing 176 individual clinical trials focused on 68 different conditions. They concluded that, firstly, there is no evidence that homeopathy works better than placebo, and, secondly, that patients may harm themselves, if they nevertheless employ homeopathy instead of effective therapies. Already in 2002, on the basis of a similar but less comprehensive analysis, I concluded that “the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice” []. Yet homeopaths around the world seemed shocked by this news and are now on the war-path to rubbish or suppress it.

This reaction is as surprising as it is ridiculous. The conclusion that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos had already been derived from the utter implausibility of Hahnemann’s theories that like cures like and that diluting a remedy would render it not weaker but stronger. Oliver Wendell Holmes, for instance, famously wrote in 1842 that homeopathy is “a mingled mass of perverse ingenuity, of tinsel erudition, of imbecile credulity, and of artful misinterpretation, too often mingled in practice…with heartless and shameless imposition.”

Homeopaths, however, claimed for the last 200 years that science was not yet able to explain how homeopathy works, in other words, that homeopaths are ahead of their time. The fact, however, is that scientists have always been perfectly able to affirm that there cannot be an explanation for homeopathy that does not fly in the face of science.

“The proof is in the pudding”, homeopaths countered, “if patients benefit from homeopathy, it works regardless what the science tells us!” This argument too has long been shown to be based on little more than the delusion of homeopaths. Patients benefit from the therapeutic encounter, from the placebo-effect and from other phenomena that are unrelated to the sugar pills dished out by homeopaths. To convey such benefits to their patients, clinicians do not need placebos. Administering truly effective treatments with compassion will make them benefit from both the specific and the non-specific effects of the therapy in question. This means that just using placebos like homeopathics is unethical and amounts to cheating the patient.

Given the overwhelming evidence against homeopathy it seems now time to act. There is no reason any longer for consumers, patients, politicians, journalists etc. to believe in homeopathy. Pretending there is room for a legitimate debate is merely misleading the public. There is also no reason to have homeopathy on the NHS, to pay for homeopathic hospitals or to invest into further research. After researching the subject for more than two decades, I am convinced that the only legitimate place for homeopathy is in the history books.

Germany is, as we all know, the home of homeopathy. Here it has an unbroken popularity, plenty of high level support and embarrassingly little opposition. The argument that homeopathy has repeatedly been shown to merely rely on placebo effects seems to count for nothing in Germany.

Perhaps this is going to change now. On January 30, a group of experts from all walks of life have met in Freiburg to discuss ways of informing the public responsibly and countering the plethora of misinformation that Germans are regularly exposed to on the subject of homeopathy. They founded the ‘Information Network Homeopathy’ and decided on a range of actions.

No doubt, some will ask where does their financial support come from? And no doubt, some will claim that we are on the payroll of ‘Big Pharma’. The truth is that we have no funding; everyone gives his/her own time free of charge and pays for his/her own expenses etc. And why? Because we believe in progress and feel strongly that it is time to improve healthcare by relegating homeopathy to the history books.

One of the first fruits of the network’s endeavours is the Freiburger Erklärung zur Homöopathie’, the ‘Freiburg Declaration on Homeopathy’. I have the permission to reproduce the document here in full (the translation is mine):


Despite the support of politicians and the silence of those who should know better, homeopathy has remained a method which is in clear opposition to the proven basics of science. The members and supporter of the ‘Information Network Homeopathy’ view homeopathy as a stubbornly surviving belief system, which cannot be accepted as part of naturopathy nor medicine. The information network is an association of physicians, pharmacists, veterinarians, biologists, scientists and other critics of homeopathy who are united in their aim to disclose this fact more openly and make the public more aware of it.


During the more than 200 years of its existence, homeopathy has not managed to demonstrate its specific effectiveness. Homeopathy only survives because it has been granted special status in the German healthcare system which is, in the opinion of the experts of the network, unjustified. Drugs have to prove their effectiveness according to objective criteria, but homeopathics are exempt from this obligation. We oppose such double standards in medicine.

Homeopathy has also not managed to demonstrate a plausible mode of action. Instead its proponents pretend that there are uncertainties which need to be clarified. We oppose such notions vehemently. Homeopathy is not an unconventional method that requires further scientific study. Its basis consists of long disproven theories such as the ‘law of similars’, ‘vital force’ or ‘potentisation by dilution’.


We do not dispute the therapeutic effects of a homeopathic treatment. But they are unrelated to the specific homeopathic remedy. The perceived effectiveness of homeopathics is due to suggestion and auto-suggestion of the patient and the therapist. The mechanisms of such (self-) deceit are multi-fold but well-known and researched. Symptomatic improvements caused by context-effects must not be causally associated with the homeopathic remedy. We assume that many physicians and alternative practitioners using homeopathy are unaware of the existence and multitude of such mechanisms and are acting in good faith. This, however, does not alter the fact that their conclusions are wrong and thus potentially harmful.


We do not claim that the scientific method which we uphold can currently research and explain everything. However, it enables us to explain that homeopathy cannot explain itself. The scientific method shows the best way we have for differentiating effective from ineffective treatments. A popular belief in therapeutic claims nourished by politicians and journalists can never be a guide for medical activities.


Our criticism is not aimed at needy patients or practising homeopathic clinicians; it is aimed at the school of homeopathy and the healthcare institutions which could have long recognised the nonsensical nature of homeopathy, but have chosen not to interfere. We ask the players within our science-based healthcare system to finally reject homeopathy and other pseudoscientific methods and to return to what should be self-evident: scientifically validated, fair and generally reproducible rules promoting top-quality medicine for he benefit of the patient.


Dr.-Ing. Norbert Aust, Initiator Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie

Dr. med. Natalie Grams, Leiterin Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie

Amardeo Sarma, GWUP Vorsitzender und Fellow von CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry)


Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor, Universität Exeter, UK

Prof. Dr. Rudolf Happle, Verfasser der Marburger Erklärung zur Homöopathie

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hell, Vorsitzender des Wissenschaftsrates der GWUP

Prof. Norbert Schmacke, Institut für Public Health und Pflegeforschung, Universität Bremen

Dr. rer. nat. Christian Weymayr, freier Medizinjournalist

On his website, Christopher Kent describes himself as a chiropractor and an attorney. He is the owner of On Purpose, LLC, and the president of the ‘Foundation for Vertebral Subluxation’. This organisation states on their website the following:

The chiropractic profession is in the midst of deep and serious changes. These changes are taking place in the larger context of health care and an even larger socio-cultural worldview that is not necessarily congruent with the founding principles and tenets of the chiropractic profession. In other cases some of the original premises of the chiropractic profession are being co-opted by others as they come to see the value in the niche that chiropractic has carved out for itself. During this tumultuous time it is ever more important that the profession hold fast to its unique and distinguishing features for these are all we really have claim to. Beyond holding ground already gained there is a sense of urgency that the profession must seriously advance itself in the area of vertebral subluxation. The identification and care for this pathophysiological process is uniquely chiropractic and through research, education, policy and service we must ensure that we remain at the forefront of its elucidation. Through research, science, education, policy and service the mission of the Foundation is to advocate for and advance the founding principles and tenets of the chiropractic profession in the area of vertebral subluxation. A sick and suffering humanity needs us and we need you to join us on this mission.

A 1973 graduate of Palmer College of Chiropractic, Kent is also a Diplomate and Fellow of the ICA College of Chiropractic Imaging. Dr. Kent, as he likes to call himself, is known within the chiropractic profession for his dedication to integrating the science, art, and philosophy of chiropractic for doctors and students of chiropractic. He was awarded Life University’s first Lifetime Achievement Award in 2007. Dr. Kent is former chair of the United Nations NGO Health Committee, the first chiropractor elected to that office.

It is easy to see that Kent one of the most rampant subluxationist one is likely to come across. He is alarmed by any fellow chiro who might be in the slightest critical about subluxation. On his blog, he writes about THE CANCER OF SUBLUXATION DENIALISM:

A position paper has been produced by a group of six European chiropractic programs which states, in part: “The teaching of vertebral subluxation complex as a vitalistic construct that claims that it is the cause of disease is unsupported by evidence. Its inclusion in a modern chiropractic curriculum in anything other than an historical context is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary.” This follows a similar statement issued by the General Chiropractic Council on the United Kingdom. Both statements are the latest manifestations of a growing movement of subluxation denialism. Logical fallacies and inherent contradictions are the currency used to propagate these positions… A disturbing trend is the willingness of some chiropractic academicians and researchers to abandon chiropractic terminology as well as chiropractic analytical strategies… One example is the suggestion that the terms vertebral subluxation, joint fixation, joint dysfunction are interchangeable. They are not the same thing. There are significant operational and epistemological differences. Implicit in the term vertebral subluxation are both biomechanical and neurological elements. Vertebral subluxation is a relational neurological process that impacts the human experience, not merely a fixated joint. A fixated or tender joint might represent one manifestation of vertebral subluxation, not a synonym for vertebral subluxation. The notion that they are the same leads to confusion and ambiguity—a denialist’s best friends. Research designs based upon the haphazard application of ill-defined interventions selected by utilizing examination procedures whose reliability has not been established cannot be considered “scientific.” What fruit has been borne by the allopathic research programs currently underway? The aberrant perception by students and some chiropractors that chiropractic is a subset of medicine, and that adjusting is a subset of manipulation? The perception that chiropractic care is temporary analgesia at best, and placebo therapy at worst? A pernicious consequence of failing to use chiropractic terms, such as subluxation and adjustment in article titles, abstracts, and key words is that when a scholar, journalist, researcher, or lay person searches databases for these words, the papers purporting to support subluxation will not show up as “hits.” One researcher has stated that she uses terms such as manipulation and joint fixation because subluxation and adjustment are not MESH terms. Therefore, some purportedly “high impact” journals will not allow them as key words. The fix is simple: include them in the title and abstract. Failure to do so will result in “no impact” when the papers cannot be found when searching using chiropractic terms. Rest assured denialists know this. Search PubMed using the terms “chiropractic” and “subluxation.” Up will pop denialist opinion pieces. Conspicuously absent will be papers purportedly supportive of subluxation, but use terms such as manipulation or joint fixation. The value of chiropractic research lies in its potential to improve our clinical strategies, and to provide us with a scientifically sound basis for making claims to the public and the scientific community. We cannot dismiss meaningful differences in culture and objectives as “just words.”

On this blog and elsewhere, people have been pointing out that

  • subluxation is at the heart of chiropractic ‘philosophy’,
  • subluxation, as understood in the realm of chiropractic, is a myth,
  • yet it has kept chiropractors in clover from the day DD Palmer allegedly cured his janitor of his deafness,
  • since several years, some rationalists within the chiropractic profession have started working towards abandoning this term and the concept behind it,
  • in recent months, these efforts have yielded some limited success,
  • one could therefore hope that progress is taking hold and the chiropractic profession might finally stop adhering to myths.

Reading what Kent and the many like-minded chiropractors have to say about these issues makes me less hopeful. Progress, it seems, is in the way of a healthy cash-flow, and therefore it must be vilified. A cult can tolerate neither criticism nor the progress that might come from it.

Non-validated diagnostic methods, like those in abundant use in alternative medicine, run an unacceptably high risk of producing false positive or false negative diagnoses. The former would be a diagnosis that the patient is, in fact, not suffering from; this enables the charlatan to get rich on treating something that is not even there. The latter would be missing an illness that might even kill the patient. Thus both scenarios are unquestionably harmful.

It is now 21 years ago that I published a review of alternative diagnostic techniques entitled ‘WHICH CRAFT IS WITCHCRAFT?’. Here is the abstract:

The prevalence of complementary medicine in most industrialised countries is impressive and increasing. Discussions of the topic often focus on therapeutic approaches and neglect diagnostic methods specific for complementary medicine. The paper summarises the data available on such “alternative” diagnostics. Scientific evaluations of these are scant, and most techniques have never been properly validated. The ones that have can be demonstrated to be not reproducible, sensitive, or specific. The ones that have not should be regarded as such until shown otherwise by rigorous testing. Therefore it seems that “alternative” diagnostic methods may seriously threaten the safety and health of patients submitted to them. Orthodox doctors should be aware of the problem and inform their patients accordingly.

Exactly 15 years after the publication of this paper, PRINCE CHARLES published his book ‘HARMONY‘ where is covers amongst many other topic also the subject of alternative diagnostics. This is what he tells us about them:

I have also learn from leading experts how we can understand a great deal about the causes of ill health through more traditional methods of diagnosis – for example, through examination of the iris, ears, tongue, feet and pulse, very much the basis of the Indian Ayurvedic system. This is not to say that modern diagnostic techniques do not have a role, but let us not forget what we can gain by using the knowledge and wisdom accumulated over thousands of years by pioneers who did not have access to today’s technology. In fact, an over-reliance can often mean that the subtle signs of imbalance revealed by the examination of the eyes, pulse and tongue are totally missed. Including the fruits of such knowledge, gleaned over 8 000 years of studying the relationship of the human body to the rest of Nature and to the Universe, can but only provide an extra, valuable resource to doctors as they seek to make a full diagnosis. Why persist in denying the immense value of such accumulated wisdom when it can tell us so much about the whole person – mind, body and spirit? Employing the best of the ancient and modern in a truly integrated way is another example of harmony and balance at work.

Charles is talking here about iridology, amongst other methods. Iridologists try to diagnose disease or susceptibility to disease by analysing the colour pattern of a patient’s iris. It happens to be a technique that has repeatedly been put to the test. In 1999, I published a systematic review of the evidence and concluded that the validity of iridology as a diagnostic tool is not supported by scientific evaluations. Patients and therapists should be discouraged from using this method.

Given that the evidence for alternative diagnostic techniques is either negative or absent, why does the heir to the throne advocate using them? Does he not know that he has considerable influence and endangers the health of those who believe him? Why does he call this nonsense valuable? The answer probably is that he does not know better.

There is nothing wrong with Charles’ ignorance, of course. He is not a medic (if he were, his quackery might get him struck off the register!) and does not need to know such things! But, if he is ignorant about certain technicalities, should he write about them? At the very least, when giving such concrete medical advice about diagnostic methods, should he not recruit the expertise of people who do know about such matters?

In Charles’ defence, I should mention that apparently he did ask several physicians for help with his book. Two of those who he acknowledged in HARMONY have been mentioned on this blog before: Mosaraf Ali and Michael Dixon.


Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, gave a lecture on the subject of veterinary homeopathy in the mid-1810s. Ever since, homeopathy has been used for treating animals. Von Boennighausen, a Dutch lawyer and early convert to homeopathy, was one of the first influential proponents of veterinary homeopathy.

However, veterinary medical schools tended to take a very dim view of homoeopathy, and the number of veterinary homeopaths initially remained small. In the 1920ies, veterinary homoeopathy was revived in Germany. Members of the “Studiengemeinschaft für tierärztliche Homöopathie” (Study Group for Veterinary Homoeopathy), which was founded in 1936 and had Nazi support, started to investigate this approach.

Today, veterinary homeopathy is popular, not least because of the general boom in alternative medicine. Prince Charles has become one of its most prominent advocate. In his book HARMONY, he writes:

“…one of the big arguments used against homeopathy is that it does not really work medically. The criticism is that people simply believe they feel they are going to feel better and so they think they are better. They have responded to the so-called ‘placebo effect’. It is for this reason that critics of homeopathy argue that it is a trick of the mind and its remedies are nothing more than sugar pills. What none of those who take this view ever seem to acknowledge is that these remedies also work on animals, which are surely unlikely to be influenced by the placebo effect. I certainly remember that when I started to introduce homeopathic remedies on the Duchy Home Farm, farm staff who had no view either way reported that the health of an animal that had been treated had improved so I wonder what it is that prevents the medical profession from even considering the evidence that now exists of trials of homeopathic treatments carried out on animals? It is not the quackery they claim it to be. Or if it is, then I have some very clever cows in my shed!”

[I do love this quote; it so very clearly shows the frightfully muddled thinking of this man.]

In many countries, veterinary homeopaths have their own professional organisations. In other countries, however, veterinarians are banned from practicing homeopathy. In the UK, only veterinarians are allowed to use homeopathy on animals, but ironically anyone regardless of background can use it on human patients. In the US, homeopathic vets are organised in the Academy of Veterinary Homeopathy.

But what do homeopathic vets treat? One website informs us that the conditions frequently treated are: arthritis, lameness, cruciate rupture, chronic diarrhoea, atopy, allergy, autoimmune disorders (auto-immune), periodic ophthalmia (moon blindness, moonblindness, recurrent uveitis, recurrent ophthalmia, ERU), head shaking (headshaking, head-shaking), hip dysplasia, COPD, sweet itch, laminitis, corneal ulcer, elbow dysplasia, RAO, DJD, OCD, bone cysts, pasteurellosis (pasteurella), chlamydia, cryptosporidia, pneumonia, meningitis, mastitis, ringworm, epilepsy, pyoderma, eczema, dermatitis, eosinophilic myositis, eosinophilic granuloma, rodent ulcer, miliary eczema (miliary dermatitis), kidney problems, liver problems (hepatopathy), cystitis.

Now I can almost hear you shout: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE???

May I refer you to a previous post on the matter?

It discussed a review aimed to assess risk of bias and to quantify the effect size of homeopathic interventions compared with placebo for each eligible peer-reviewed trial. Judgement in 7 assessment domains enabled a trial’s risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise reliable evidence, if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in specified domains. A trial was considered to be free of vested interest, if it was not funded by a homeopathic pharmacy.

The 18 RCTs found by the researchers were disparate in nature, representing 4 species and 11 different medical conditions. Reliable evidence, free from vested interest, was identified in only two trials:

  1. homeopathic Coli had a prophylactic effect on porcine diarrhoea (odds ratio 3.89, 95 per cent confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 12.68, P=0.02);
  2. individualised homeopathic treatment did not have a more beneficial effect on bovine mastitis than placebo intervention (standardised mean difference -0.31, 95 per cent CI, -0.97 to 0.34, P=0.35).

The authors conclusions are clear: Mixed findings from the only two placebo-controlled RCTs that had suitably reliable evidence precluded generalisable conclusions about the efficacy of any particular homeopathic medicine or the impact of individualised homeopathic intervention on any given medical condition in animals.

…homeopaths…will try to claim that [the review] was a biased piece of research conducted, most likely, by notorious anti-homeopaths who cannot be trusted. So who are the authors of this new publication?

They are RT Mathie from the British Homeopathic Association and J Clausen from one of Germany’s most pro-homeopathic institution, the ‘Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung’.

At this stage, some of my readers are quite angry, I imagine. They might wonder how to protect defenceless animals from homeopathic quacks. But how?

Simple! Just sign the petition to ban veterinary homeopathy! I mean it – please do!!!

Case reports of adverse effects after chiropractic spinal manipulation usually come as publications in peer-reviewed medical journals. As such they tend to documents that are factual, detached and clinical. This is an intended effect and is meant to increase objectivity; at the same time it omits all of the directness and emotions that are associated with such incidences which can, of course, be important. Here is a case report that is dramatically different. It is a story told by a sibling of the victim (both had been having manipulations for migraines regularly) on this website. As I think it is poignant, I have not changed anything except for shortening it slightly.

My youngest brother has been receiving chiro for… long, however last week he received very, very aggressive neck adjustments 3 times in a row. The last one left him feeling off and he felt like it worsened his migraine. He called me asking if I had ever had an adjustment worsen a headache and I said yes, once or twice. He then told me it was creating a different vision issue than his regular migraine aura. I told him get to emergency ASAP. He had a full stroke 15 minutes later. At the age of 29 years. Thank God he went to ER, he told me he almost went to try to sleep it off after he hung up the phone.

An MRI and CT scan showed that the stroke was NOT a clot that was already formed and agitated/released by the neck adjustment. But that the adjustment had actually caused a large tear in his vertebral artery and that it had in turn caused bleeding into his brain and consequently the stroke.

The doctor told him that had he not come in right when he did, he would most certainly have died or in the best case scenario, been a vegetable.

I realize that perhaps the chiropractor did not realize how aggressive he was being or even consider the trauma he could cause. Or maybe, he made a poor judgement call, he is only human. I have since consulted my own chiropractor, who sadly, is of the opinion that it’s just not possible for a chiropractor to cause such trauma and that it simply was an issue waiting to happen and that the adjustment just ‘helped’ it along. He stated over and over that chiro CANNOT cause a stroke. I am scared enough to not go back. I find physio to help my neck more anyway.

The other part is, the ER doctor told my brother that he has seen what he considers to be an alarming increase in chiropractic related strokes and vertebral artery tears. I realize that nowhere NEAR even 90% of all patients adjusted have this issue, but it definetely exists and it IS scary.

I expect that several apologists will now accuse me again of being alarmist, but I do wonder how often such cases happen and remain unreported. I am certainly not aware that this case has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can now be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.

Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.