Can intercessory prayer improve the symptoms of sick people?
Why should it? It’s utterly implausible!
Because the clinical evidence says so?
No, the current Cochrane review concluded that [the] findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care.
Yet, not all seem to agree with this; and some even continue to investigate prayer as a medical therpy.
For this new study (published in EBCAM), the Iranian investigators randomly assigned 92 patients in 2 groups to receive either 40 mg of propranolol twice a day for 2 month (group “A”) or 40 mg of propranolol twice a day for 2 months with prayer (group “B”). At the beginning of study and 3 months after intervention, patients’ pain was measured using the visual analogue scale.
All patients who participate in present study were Muslim. At the beginning of study and before intervention, the mean score of pain in patients in groups A and B were 5.7 ± 1.6 and 6.5 ± 1.9, respectively. According to results of independent t test, mean score of pain intensity at the beginning of study were similar between patients in 2 groups (P > .05). Three month after intervention, mean score of pain intensity decreased in patients in both groups. At this time, the mean scores of pain intensity were 5.4 ± 1.1 and 4.2 ± 2.3 in patients in groups A and B, respectively. This difference between groups was statistically significant (P < .001).
The above figure shows the pain score in patients before and after the intervention.
The authors concluded that the present study revealed that prayer can be used as a nonpharmacologic pain coping strategy in addition to pharmacologic intervention for this group of patients.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This study is, in fact, extraordinary – but only in the sense of being extraordinarily poor, or at least it is extraordinary in its quality of reporting. For instance, all we learn in the full text article about the two treatments applied to the patient groups is this: “The prayer group participated in an 8-week, weekly, intercessory prayer program with each session lasting 45 minutes. Pain reduction was measured at baseline and after 3 months, by registered nurses who were specialist in pain management and did not know which patients were in which groups (control or intervention), using a visual analogue scale.”
Intercessory prayer is the act of praying on behalf of others. This mans that the patients receiving prayer might have been unaware of being ‘treated’. In this case, the patients could have been adequately blinded. But this is not made clear in the article.
More importantly perhaps, the authors fail to provide any numeric results. All that we are given is the above figure. It is not possible therefore to run any type of check on the data. We are simply asked to believe what the authors have written. I for one have great difficulties in doing so. All I do believe in relation to this article is that
- the journal EBCAM is utter trash,
- constantly publishing rubbish is unethical and a disservice to everyone,
- prayer does not need further research of this nature,
- and poor studies often generate false-positive findings.
Is acupuncture a pseudoscience? An interesting question! It was used as the title of a recent article. Knowing who authored it, the question unfortunately promised to be rhetorical. Dr Mike Cummings is (or was?) the ‘Medical Director at British Medical Acupuncture Society’ – hardly a source of critical or sceptical thinking about acupuncture, I’d say. The vast majority of his recent publications are in ‘ACUPUNCTURE IN MEDICINE’ and his blog post too is for that journal. Nevertheless, his thoughts might be worth considering, and therefore I present the essence of his post below [the footnotes refer to my comments following Cummings’ article]:
…Wikipedia has branded acupuncture as pseudoscience and its benefits as placebo . ‘Acupuncture’ is clearly is not pseudoscience; however, the way in which it is used or portrayed by some may on occasion meet that definition. Acupuncture is a technique that predates the development of the scientific method  … so it is hardly fair to classify this ancient medical technique within that framework . It would be better to use a less pejorative classification within the bracket of history when referring to acupuncture and other ancient East Asian medical techniques . The contemporary use of acupuncture within modern healthcare is another matter entirely, and the fact that it can be associated with pre-scientific medicine does not make it a pseudoscience.
The Wikipedia acupuncture page is extensive and currently runs to 302 references. But how do we judge the quality or reliability of a text or its references? … I would generally look down on blogs, such as this, because they lack … hurdles prior to publication . Open peer review was introduced relatively recently associated with immediate publication. But all this involves researchers and senior academics publishing and reviewing within their own fields of expertise. Wikipedia has a slightly different model built on five pillars. The second of those pillars reads:
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as “the truth” or “the best view”. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors’ personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
Experts within a field may be seen to have a certain POV (point of view), and are discouraged from editing pages directly because they cannot have the desired NPOV (neutral POV). This is a rather unique publication model in my experience, although the editing and comments are all visible and traceable, so there is no hiding… apart from the fact that editors are allowed to be entirely anonymous. Have a look at the talk page behind the main acupuncture page on Wikipedia. You may be shocked by the tone of much of the commentary. It certainly does not seem to comply with the fourth of the five pillars, which urges respect and civility, and in my opinion results primarily from the security of anonymity. I object to the latter, but there is always a balance to be found between freedom of expression (enhanced for some by the safety of anonymity) and cyber bullying (almost certainly fuelled in part by anonymity). That balance requires good moderation, and whilst there was some evidence of moderation on the talk page, it was inadequate to my mind… I might move to drop anonymity from Wikipedia if moderation is wanting.
Anyway my impression, for what it’s worth, is that the acupuncture page on Wikipedia is not written from an NPOV, but rather it appears to be controlled by semi professional anti-CAM pseudosceptics . I have come across these characters  regularly since I was introduced to the value of needling in military general practice. I have a stereotypical mental image: plain or scary looking bespectacled geeks and science nuts , the worst are often particle physicists … Interacting with them is at first intense, but rapidly becomes tedious as they know little of the subject detail , fall back on the same rather simplistic arguments  and ultimately appear to be motivated by eristic discourse rather than the truth .
I am not surprised that they prefer to close the comments, because I imagine that some people might object rather strongly to many of the statements made in this text.
Here are my short comments: I should perhaps stress that I am not the author of nor a contributor to this Wiki (or any other) page.  Is this an attempt to employ the ‘appeal to tradition’ fallacy?  The Wiki page does by no means classify the ancient history of acupuncture as pseudoscience.  I have always felt that classification of science or medicine according to geography is nonsensical; they should not be classified as Western or Asian but as sound or not, effective or not, etc.  As we have often seen on this blog, the ‘hurdles’ (peer-review) are often laughable, particularly in the realm of alternative medicine.  This article is essentially trying to show that the Wiki page is biased. Yet it ends with a bonanza of insults which essentially reveal the profound bias of the author.
IS ACUPUNCTURE PSEUDOSCIENCE? Cummings’ article promised to address this question. Sadly it did nothing of the sort. It turned out to be an incompetent rant about a Wiki page. If anything, Cummings contributed to the neutral reader of his text getting convinced that, indeed, acupuncture IS a pseudoscience! At least Wiki used facts, arguments, evidence etc. and it went a lot further in finding a rational answer to this intriguing question.
With well over 800 articles, this blog has become somewhat of a reference library for subjects related to alternative medicine (I know that some journalists already employ it in this way [if you want to use it in this way, try the search box on the right top of the page]). To review the year 2016 in alternative medicine, I will now use it for exactly this purpose. In other words, I will highlight those posts from 2016 which, in my view, have taught us something potentially valuable or are otherwise remarkable.
Here we go!
19 January 2016: What are the competencies of a paediatric chiropractor? Chiropractors disagree, of course, but I think they should be foremost to realise that chiropractors must not treat children.
21 January 2016: Are naturopaths dangerous? The short answer is, yes, many are!
29 January 2016: Is the Internet a good source of information for cancer patients? No, in the realm of alternative medicine, the Internet can be very dangerous indeed.
15 February 2016: Alternative practitioners employ a multitude of diagnostic techniques. These methods are not validated and run an unacceptably high risk of false-positive or false-negative results.
22 March 2016: The career-path to becoming a convinced homeopath … may be less far puzzling than you think.
24 March 2016: Even the most respected medical journals are now beginning to publish very weak, borderline fraudulent studies of alternative medicine.
26 March 2016: Alternative practitioners seem to never protest even against the most outrageous quackery within their ranks.
28 March 2016: NICE might finally start being a little more critical about the value of alternative therapies.
02 April 2016: The ability to think critically seems extremely rare amongst alternative practitioners.
13 April 2016: Many, if not most, of the ‘research’ papers published in alternative medicine seem to have little to do with science but turn out to be exercises in promotion.
16 April 2016: There is no epidemic that does not bring some dangerously delusional homeopaths to the fore.
23 May 2016: Integrative medicine is one of the most colossal deceptions in healthcare today.
24 May 2016: Some CAM researcher are too good to be true.
10 June 2016: Pharmacists who sell quackery are probably quacks.
22 July 2016: Far too many TCM products are of lamentably poor quality.
19 August 2016: The German ‘HEILPRAKTIKER’ is a relic from the Nazis that continues to endanger public health.
03 September 2016: Homeoprophylaxis is a criminally bad idea; it has the potential to endanger public health.
04 September 2016: Quackery can kill people – and sadly, it does so with depressing regularity.
06 September 2016: Research into alternative medicine is scarce and usually of deplorably poor quality.
26 September 2016: Holistic dentistry is a con – just like holistic medicine; the term ‘holistic’ has degenerated into an advertising gimmick.
04 October 2016: Data fabrication in China is rife and further undermines the trustworthiness of TCM studies.
21 October 2016: Most (if not all) of the money spent on chiropractic is wasted.
10 December 2016: When sceptics criticise homeopathy, they are often wrong.
19 December 2016: Charlatans‘ income crucially relies on advertising lies.
22 December 2016: Homeopathy is not just useless for humans, it also does not work in animals.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!
Perhaps I have a weak spot for fish oil; more likely, however, I just like positive news – and, in alternative medicine, there is not much of it. That’s why I have written about the potential benefits of fish-oil again and again and again and again.
Reduced intake of fish oil, i.e. n−3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs), may be a contributing factor to the increasing prevalence of asthma and other wheezing disorders. Yet the evidence is neither clear nor strong. This study was aimed at shedding more light on the issue; specifically, it tested the effect of supplementation with n−3 LCPUFAs in pregnant women on the risk of persistent wheeze and asthma in their offspring.
The investigators randomly assigned 736 pregnant women at 24 weeks of gestation to receive 2.4 g of n−3 LCPUFA (fish oil) or placebo (olive oil) per day. Their children were followed prospectively with extensive clinical phenotyping. Neither the investigators nor the participants were aware of group assignments during follow-up for the first 3 years of the children’s lives, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period during which only the investigators were unaware of group assignments. The primary end point was persistent wheeze or asthma, and the secondary end points included lower respiratory tract infections, asthma exacerbations, eczema, and allergic sensitization.
A total of 695 children were included in the trial, and 95.5% completed the 3-year, double-blind follow-up period. The risk of persistent wheeze or asthma in the treatment group was 16.9%, versus 23.7% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.97; P=0.035), corresponding to a relative reduction of 30.7%. Prespecified subgroup analyses suggested that the effect was strongest in the children of women whose blood levels of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid were in the lowest third of the trial population at randomization: 17.5% versus 34.1% (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.83; P=0.011). Analyses of secondary end points showed that supplementation with n−3 LCPUFA was associated with a reduced risk of infections of the lower respiratory tract (31.7% vs. 39.1%; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.98; P=0.033), but there were no statistically significant associations between supplementation and asthma exacerbations, eczema, or allergic sensitization.
The authors concluded that supplementation with n−3 LCPUFA in the third trimester of pregnancy reduced the absolute risk of persistent wheeze or asthma and infections of the lower respiratory tract in offspring by approximately 7 percentage points, or one third.
The authors must be congratulated. This trial is stunning in many ways: it was carefully designed and executed; its results are clear and important; its write-up is excellent. The research was supported by private and public research funds, all of which are listed at www.copsac.com. The Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Ministry of Health, the Danish Council for Strategic Research, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and the Capital Region Research Foundation provided core support.
It is debatable whether the intake of fish oil falls under the umbrella of alternative medicine. In a way, it reminds me of the famous saying: what do we call alternative medicine that works? We call it medicine. It also holds an important reminder for all who make claims about the benefit of alternative therapies: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Can these findings be translated into practical advice to consumers? The NEJM discussed this question in an accompanying article in which the case of a fictional pregnant woman (Ms. Franklin) was considered. Here is what they concluded: …there is benefit and little risk associated with n−3 LCPUFA supplementation. Even though we do not know Ms. Franklin’s EPA and DHA levels, there is likely to be a benefit for her child, at little risk, cost, or inconvenience. She should start taking n−3 LCPUFA supplements.
Despite my soft spot for fish oil, I might add that, while we give advice of this nature, we nevertheless need to insist on independent replications to have certainty.
In real medicine, most doctors view telephone consultations as highly problematic and would use them but in emergency situations or when there is no realistic other choice. Not so in homeopathy! Here telephone consultations are actively promoted my many – many who have a financial interest in it, that is.
Take this press-release, for instance; I have slightly abbreviated the text but abstained from correcting the many mistakes to give you a realistic impression of the high standard of the firm offering it.
START OF QUOTE
Solviva Health is an online treatment initiative based on… homeopathy. Since homeopathy’s introduction by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, the popularity of this system is growing day by day . According to World Health Organization, homoeopathy is the second largest system of medicine in the world . India is one among the top nations to adopt this technique of curing and describes it as a natural way of healing. Solviva Health is an online homeopathic treatment platform that interacts with their patients through online initiatives like emails, video conferencing, web chat, telephonic and all other possible communication sources. The main motto of this initiative is to provide medical services not only to the local people of Mohali but also to extend the reach of this quality treatment to rest of India & all across the world. It’s one amongst very few genuine platforms to avail the world class homeopathic medical services without visiting the doctors…
Whenever you need an expert guidance, the doctor is just a phone call away.
The medical team present under SolvivaHealth is well-known personalities in their respective field. The clinic specializes in Allergies, Polycystic ovarian disease, Female disorders, Rheumatoid arthritis, Joint problems & Child disorders. Suppose, “Before a specified team of doctors has to handle a particular case, the patient can check all the doctors’ detail for testimonial verifications, which are available online on the official website.” As per many sources, homeopathic treatment do not have side-effects and one of the safe & reliable way to tackle Allergies, Asthma, Female Disorders which are usually not having any cure in Allopathy… “Solviva Health provides the much awaited first Indian homeopathy online consultancy treatment services, which allows you to get all the precise treatment at the comfort of your home.”
Solviva Health is one of the first of it’s kind in India that offers treatment via online or telephonic interactions between doctors and patients. They have successfully completed 3 years in offering quality homeopathic treatment services with a patient satisfaction rate of 95%.
END OF QUOTE
I am sure that Hahnemann would be turning in his Parisian grave, if he knew about this. He and most of his followers have always stressed the importance of taking a long and detailed history during an empathetic, personal encounter with the patient.
But there is another important aspect here to consider: telephone consultations are by definition devoid of any physical examination of the patient by the clinician. I know that, generally speaking, homeopaths attach much less importance to physically examining their patients. I always have found this odd and borderline negligent. To omit them completely is no longer borderline but crosses the line into unethical behaviour, I think.
To me, it seems as though Solviva Health (and all the other firms that offer homeopathy by telephone) have found a method of maximising their income, while minimising the already meagre benefit of homeopathy. As we all know, if homeopathy has any positive effects on patients, it is through the personal encounter with an empathetic clinician. Telephone services are likely to be far less effective than fact-to-face consultations at building constructive therapeutic relationships.
Yes, the festive season is upon us and therefore it is high time to discuss detox (yet again). As many of us are filling their fridges to the brim, most of us prepare for some serious over-indulgence. Following alt med logic, this must prompt some counter-measures, called detox.
The range of treatments advocated by detox-fans is weird and wide (see also below):
- various alternative diets,
- herbal, vitamins, minerals and other ‘natural’ supplements,
- various forms of chelation therapy,
- electromagnetic devices,
- colonic irrigation and enemas,
- various forms of skin bruising,
- sauna and other means of inducing extensive sweating,
- ear candles,
- etc., etc.
I suppose it was to be expected that detox often goes with other crazy beliefs. This website, for instance, shows that it is even associated with anti-vaxx:
START OF QUOTE
Whether you believe vaccines to be harmful or not, one has to admit that all the ingredients added to vaccines cannot be good for anyone, especially children.
As David Wolfe has discussed, vaccines contain the following: sucrose, fructose, dextrose, potassium phosphate, aluminum potassium sulfate, peptone, bovine extract, formaldehyde, FD&C Yellow #6, aluminum lake dye, fetal bovine serum, sodium bicarbonate, monosodium glutamate, aluminum hydroxide, benzethonium chloride, lactose thimerosal, ammonium sulfate, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, bovine extract), calf serum, aluminum phosphate, aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, and ethanol.
That is a long scary list and many of these things will not leave the body naturally. Thus, a gentle detox is necessary.
Living Traditionally suggests a detoxification bath with both Zendocrine and epsom salt. Zendocrine is an essential oil mixture made up of tangerine, rosemary, geranium, juniper berry, and cilantro. Rosemary, juniper berry, and cilantro are good choices for detoxification and tangerine and geranium are purifiers.
Silica is also good for a heavy metal detox. Natural News states, “Aluminum (Al) is passed out through the urine when one supplements silica. It seems there’s little danger of taking too much, as long as adequate water is consumed and vitamin B1 and potassium levels are maintained.”
One of the best ways to get silica in your system is with the horsetail herb, rye, barley, oats, wheat, and alfalfa sprouts nuts.
Chlorella is one of the best detoxifying substances available. According to Dr. Mercola, “Chlorella is uniquely designed to not bind to the minerals your body naturally needs to function optimally. It does not bind to beneficial minerals like calcium, magnesium, or zinc. It’s almost as if chlorella knows which metals belong in your body and which chemicals need to be removed. Supplementing with chlorella is like unleashing a tiny army inside your body to fight the battle of removing toxins from your tissues and ushering them back outside your body where they belong.”
You can take it in supplement form or add a powdered version to your smoothie.
Probiotics are what is needed to put good bacteria system to rights when it has been thrown off by toxins. “They can provide assistance by decreasing the number of bad bacteria while helping to restore balance between good and bad bacteria in the gut and to keep your body functioning properly.” (LiveStrong)
Some probiotic foods include: organic yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, kombucha, and fermented vegetables.
Omega 3 oils are especially good for cell repair and keeping your brain healthy. This is because of their high fat content is similar to the fats that are naturally part of cell and brain systems. (Daily Mail)
A teaspoon daily should be enough or you could take a supplement.
According to Natural Society, cilantro is a very gentle detoxification tool. It is also effective for removing heavy metals from the brain.
For 2-3 weeks, add a teaspoon of cilantro to your food, smoothie, or just eat it up. You can also substitute with 6-7 drops of cilantro essential oil by adding it to your bath.
END OF QUOTE
Don’t you just adore the sources quoted by the author as evidence for his/her statements?
As I said, the therapies recommended for detox are diverse. Yet, they have one important feature in co<span style=”color: #668a1d;”>mmon: they are not based on anything remotely resembling good evidence. As I stressed in my article of 2012:
The common characteristics of all of these approaches are that they are unproved. Even experts who are sympathetic to alternative medicine and AD admit: ‘while there are hundreds of randomized controlled trials on drug and alcohol detox, there are no such trials of detox programs focusing on environmental toxins … at present, “detox” is certainly more of a sales pitch than a science’. The ‘studies’ of AD that have been published are of such poor methodological quality that no conclusions can be drawn from them.
While there is a total absence of sound evidence for benefit, some of these treatments have been associated with risks which depend on the nature of the treatment and can be particularly serious with diets (malnutrition), supplements (hepatoxicity), chelation (electrolyte depletion) and colonic irrigation (perforation of the colon).
Yet detox is big business’. A recent survey, for instance, suggested that 92% of US naturopaths use some form of detox. To lay people, its principles seem to make sense and, in many of us, the desire to ‘purify’ ourselves is deep rooted. Thus detox-entrepreneurs (including Prince Charles who, several years ago, launched a ‘Detox-Tincture’ via his firm Duchy Originals) are able to exploit a gullible public.
Proponents of detox are keen to point out that ‘a modern science of ‘detoxicology’ seems to be emerging’. If there is such a thing, it should address the following, fundamental questions:
- What are the toxins and toxicants?
- What evidence exists that they damage our health?
- How do we quantify them?
- How do we diagnose that a patient requires detox?
- Which treatments are effective in eliminating which toxins?
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to answer any of these questions. Until this situation changes, I do not think a ‘science of detox’ exists at all.
The fact that much of chiropractic might be bogus has frequently been discussed on this blog. A recent press-release provided me with more evidence for this notion. It proudly announced a new book entitled “Beyond the Back: The Chiropractic Alternative For Conditions Beyond Back Pain”
The text claimed that shortly after the launch, the book hit #1 on the Amazon.com best seller list out of all Chiropractor books and also reached #1 for the category of Holistic Medicine.
When I checked (22/12/2016), I was not able to confirm this statement: #47 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Medical eBooks > Alternative & Holistic > Holistic Medicine, #58 in Books > Medical Books > Allied Health Professions > Chiropractic. But let’s not be petty; let’s rather see what the book has to offer.
‘Beyond the Back’ focuses on how Chiropractic care can do so much more than just alleviate back pain, the press-release says. From avoiding knee surgery to resolving athletic injuries, chiropractic care allegedly is a 100% natural health solution for a wide variety of conditions… In fact, in some cases, chiropractors can help their patients get off medications entirely and even avoid surgery, the press-release continues.
In the book itself, the authors claim that chiropractic is effective for a multitude of conditions, including asthma and colic (in fact, the authors try to give the impression that chiropractic is a veritable panacea), and that there is sound evidence for all these indications from hundreds, if not thousands of studies. The authors make it very clear – even on the book cover – that chiropractic is not an adjunct to conventional healthcare but an alternative to it; an idea, of course, that goes back to the founding fathers of chiropractic. As if this were not enough, the book also promotes diagnostic techniques such as applied kinesiology.
Some commentators on this blog have argued that the chiropractic profession is in the midst of giving up much of the nonsense upon it was originally based and to which it has clung on for more than hundred years. This book, written by 9 US authors of the new generation of chiropractors, seems to demonstrate the opposite.
On Amazon, the book currently has one single customer review: Value information and an easy read! I am a strong believer of chiropractic and this makes it easy for me to share this info with my friends !
This comment is apt because it makes clear that chiropractic is a belief system. We must not expect rational thoughts or facts from what, in effect, is a religion for many. I can understand this in a way: belief can be a cosy shelter from the truth; it does not require much thinking; it hardly needs any learning, no changing of minds, etc. However, belief can never be a basis for good healthcare. In my view, ‘Beyond The Back’ provides a perfect example of that.
HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES CANNOT POSSIBLY PLACEBOS BECAUSE THEY WORK IN ANIMALS!
How often have we heard this argument?
And how often have we pointed out that it is wrong on more than one level?
On this blog alone, we have done so here, here, here and here, for instance. But homeopaths and their followers seem to be strangely immune to facts. Presumably, they will therefore also ignore a recent paper that re-confirms what has already been said so often.
This new systematic review assessed the efficacy of homeopathy in cattle, pigs and poultry. Only peer-reviewed publications dealing with homeopathic remedies, which could possibly replace or prevent the use of antibiotics in the case of infective diseases or growth promotion in livestock were included. Search results revealed a total number of 52 trials performed within 48 publications fulfilling the predefined criteria. Twenty-eight trials were in favour of homeopathy, with 26 trials showing a significantly higher efficacy in comparison to a control group, whereas 22 showed no medicinal effect. Cure rates for the treatments with antibiotics, homeopathy or placebo varied to a high degree, while the remedy used did not seem to make a big difference. No study had been repeated under comparable conditions. Consequently, the use of homeopathy cannot claim to have sufficient prognostic validity where efficacy is concerned. When striving for high therapeutic success in treatment, the potential of homeopathy in replacing or reducing antibiotics can only be validated if evidence of efficacy is confirmed by randomised controlled trials under modified conditions.
I think this, together with the previous systematic reviews on the subject, speaks for itself, and there is little to add – except perhaps the bravely outspoken letter by Oliver Kamm in THE TIMES which alludes to the above named paper:
START OF QUOTE
Using highly diluted substances to cure ailments is a better idea than the medieval practices of bloodletting by leeches or administering hemlock as an anaesthetic. That’s the best you can say for homeopathy: it isn’t outright dangerous. As medicine, however, it’s junk. Study after study has confirmed that homeopathic remedies are inert and no more effective than either a placebo or just allowing an illness to run its course.
Over 200 years, homeopaths have failed to substantiate their claims. It may seem bizarre that anyone in the 21st century could take seriously the notion of homeopathic treatments for animals. But that is to reckon without the Prince of Wales and his lifetime enthusiasm for zaniness on science, medicine, aesthetics and linguistics. He once gave a speech declaring himself proud for having been “accused once of being the enemy of the Enlightenment”. A few months ago he stunned a conference of scientists and public officials by disclosing that he uses only homeopathic remedies when treating his cattle and sheep on his country estate at Highgrove.
Prince Charles’s knowledge of science may be a joke but his contributions to public debate aren’t funny. They bestow prestige on atavistic superstitions that have no place in modern healthcare and animal welfare. NHS guidelines are clear there “is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition”. Likewise in veterinary medicine. Out of more than 20,000 vets licensed in the UK, around 50 practise homeopathy. That is 50 too many. The same is true of the roughly 500 farmers who employ homeopathy. They can’t even claim a placebo effect as the animals are unaware of their purported medical treatment.
Yet the quacks are undaunted. The British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons even claims success in curing dogs of cancer through homeopathy. This is nonsense — and if it persuades farmers and pet owners to forgo evidence-based treatments, it’s also wanton cruelty. It’s past time to shut these people down.”
END OF QUOTE
This meta-analysis was performed “to ascertain the effectiveness of oral aloe vera consumption on the reduction of fasting blood glucose (FBG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).”
PubMed, CINAHL, Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, and Natural Standard databases were searched. The searches were limited to clinical trials or observational studies conducted in humans and published in English. Studies of aloe vera’s effect on FBG, HbA1c, homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), fasting serum insulin, fructosamine, and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in prediabetic and diabetic populations were examined.
Nine studies were included in the FBG parameter (n = 283); 5 of these studies included HbA1c data (n = 89). Aloe vera decreased FBG by 46.6 mg/dL (p < 0.0001) and HbA1c by 1.05% (p = 0.004). Significant reductions of both endpoints were maintained in all subgroup analyses. Additionally, the data suggested that patients with an FBG ≥200 mg/dL may see a greater benefit. A mean FBG reduction of 109.9 mg/dL was observed in this population (p ≤ 0.0001). There was evidence of publication bias with FBG but not with HbA1c.
The authors concluded that the results of this meta-analysis support the use of oral aloe vera for significantly reducing both FBG (46.6 mg/dL) and HbA1c (1.05%) in prediabetic and diabetic patients. However, given the current overall quality and relative scarcity of data, further clinical studies that are more robust and better controlled are warranted to confirm and further explore these findings.
Oh no, the results do not support the use of aloe vera at all!!
Because this ‘meta-analysis’ is of unacceptably poor quality. Here are just some of the flaws that render it totally useless, particularly for issuing advice such as above:
- The authors included uncontrolled observational studies which make no attempt to control for non-specific effects.
- In several studies, the use of concomitant anti-diabetic medications was allowed; therefore it is not possible to establish cause and effect by aloe vera.
- The search strategy was woefully inadequate; for instance non-English publications were not considered.
- There was no assessment of the scientific rigor of the included studies; this totally invalidates the reliably of the conclusions.
- The included studies used preparations of widely different aloe vera preparations, and there is no way of knowing the does of the active ingredients.
Diabetes is a serious condition that affects millions worldwide. If some of these patients are sufficiently gullible to follow the conclusions of this paper, they might be dead within a matter of days. This makes this article one of the most dangerous papers that I have seen in the ‘peer-reviewed’ literature of alternative medicine.
Who publishes such utter and irresponsible rubbish?
You may well ask.
The journal has been discussed on this blog before for the junk that regularly appears in its pages, and so has its editor in chief. The authors (and the reviewers) are not known to me, but one thing is for sure: they don’t know the first thing about conducting a decent systematic review/meta-analysis.
Actually, the exact quote was slightly different: “What we’re dealing with here is the big lie, being perpetrated by corrupt government officials on the payroll of Pharma” (the bold lettering is from the original). It comes from the pen of Alan V. Schmukler who has featured on this blog before (see also here).
Strong words indeed! But not as strong as those of the title of his new article: BRING THE CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE. What were they directed against? They were in protest against the recent rulings of the British Advertising Standards Authority and the American FCT out-lawing the advertising of bogus claims for homeopathy.
Alan V Schmukler continues his article as follows: “It’s time to hold these people accountable. There are laws in every country against officials taking bribes and malfeasance in office. Write to your legislators and demand that they investigate and bring these criminals to justice. Send them the links to hundreds of homeopathy studies, including disease prevention with homeopathy, at the end of this article. Tell them that the regulatory agencies are protecting Pharma profits, not the public.
Meanwhile, let us insist that pharmaceutical drugs be labeled honestly, like this:
“This drug was tested by the same company that profits from it, and which company has been fined millions of dollars in the past for lying about test results. This drug does not cure any medical condition, but only suppresses symptoms which may ultimately make the patient sicker. This drug has already killed or injured X number of people.”
There are not many homeopaths who can render me speechless; I have been used to a lot. But this man almost did. Almost!
After recovering my self-control, all I want to say to this is: THANK YOU ALAN V SCMUKLER! Not only have you made me laugh harder than when I last watched ‘Faulty Towers’, but, more importantly, you have shown us how deluded some (or could this be ‘all’?) of the leading homeopaths really are.
Alan, if you read this, perhaps you want to have a look a this post.