alternative medicine
Just as I read that the right-wing preacher Lance Wallnau once claimed he had cured Rush Limbaugh of his lung cancer – Limbaugh died yesterday of that cancer – I found this paper in the bizarre journal ‘EXPLORE’ reporting a much more successful (or should I say ‘tall’?) tale of healing by prayer.
This case report describes an 18-year-old female who lost the majority of her central vision over the course of three months in 1959. Medical records from 1960 indicate visual acuities (VA) of less than 20/400 for both eyes corresponding to legal blindness. On fundus examination of the eye, there were dense yellowish-white areas of atrophy in each fovea and the individual was diagnosed with juvenile macular degeneration (JMD).
In 1971, another examination recorded her uncorrected VA as finger counting on the right and hand motion on the left. She was diagnosed with macular degeneration (MD) and declared legally blind. In 1972, having been blind for over 12 years, the patient reportedly regained her vision instantaneously after receiving proximal-intercessory-prayer (PIP). Subsequent medical records document repeated substantial improvement; including uncorrected VA of 20/100 in each eye in 1974 and corrected VAs of 20/30 to 20/40 were recorded from 2001 to 2017.
To date, her eyesight has remained intact for forty-seven years, according to the authors of this paper.
The course of these events is summarised in the graph below.
And here is what the patients was reported stating:
“What people need to understand is ‘I was blind’, totally blind and attended the School for the Blind. I read Braille and walked with a white cane. Never had I seen my husband or daughters face. I was blind when my husband prayed for me- then just like that- in a moment, after years of darkness I could see perfectly! It was miraculous! My daughter’s picture was on the dresser. I could see what my little girl and husband looked like, I could see the floor, the steps. Within seconds, my life had drastically changed. I could see, I could see!”
This report originates from the GLOBAL MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Their website claims that our mission is to investigate the effects of prayer in the resolution of conditions where the prognosis is typically poor, even with medical intervention. We are also developing randomized, controlled clinical trials of healing prayer effects.
Three questions came to my mind while reading all this:
- Are RCTs in prayer really needed? The believers already ‘know’ and will not trust the findings of the research, if they are not positive.
- Who do they try to convince the public with a case report that dates back 47 years?
- What do they think of Carl Sagan’s bon mot, ‘EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE’?
The drop in cases and deaths due to COVID-19 infections in India has been attributed to India’s national policy of using homeopathy. Early in the epidemic, the national “Ministry of AYUSH, recommended the use of Arsenic album 30 as preventive medicine against COVID-19. Its prophylactic use has been advised in states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Maharashtra. The ‘OFFICIAL HOMEOPATHY RESOURCE’ is now claiming that homeopathy is the cause of the observed outcome:
And now the results of that policy and use are clear, even though skeptics and other scientists in the conventional paradigm are mystified as to why the drop is so dramatic. They know nothing about homeopathy and its history of successfully treating epidemics.
India has a population of 1 billion, 300 million people. Relative to this massive population the number of cases per day and especially the number of deaths per day are now exceptionally low. According to the Daily Mail:
“Scientists are trying to work out why coronavirus cases in India are falling when at one point it looked like the country might overtake the US as the worst-hit nation.
In September the country was reporting some 100,00 new cases per day, but that went into decline in October and is now sitting at around 10,000 per day – leaving experts struggling to explain why.”
END OF QUOTE
According to my sources, the number of daily new cases in India rose steadily to reach its maximum of almost 100000 new cases per day in mid-September. Thereafter, the figure fell in almost the same fashion as they had previously risen.
Currently, they have reached a plateau of about 13000 cases per day, and around 100 patients per day are reported to dies of COVID-19 every day. There are several possible contributors to these relatively positive outcomes:
- India has administered the Covid-19 vaccine to about 10 million people in one month since launching the world’s largest vaccination program on Jan. 16. However, this timing cannot explain the fall of cases before mid-January.
- The Indian government has attributed the dip in cases partly to mask-wearing, which is mandatory in public in India and violations can draw hefty fines.
- Large areas of India have reached herd immunity.
- Some of the various non-homeopathic remedies that have been recommended by the Ministry of AYUSH might be effective.
- There might be a host of other factors that I don’t know about.
- The figures coming out of India may not be reliable.
- The homeopathic remedy Arsenic album 30 might indeed be an effective preventative.
Which of these explanations are valid?
Most likely, it is not one but several working together. However, the hypothesis that homeopathy has anything to do with the course of the pandemic in India seems most unlikely. Apart from the fact that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are implausible and have not been shown to be effective, the timing of events is clearly against this explanation: if I am correctly informed, the homeopathic remedies were dished out months before the decline in cases started. In fact, simply going by the timing, one would need to assume that homeopathy led to the enormous increase before the remarkable drop.
Of course, it would be interesting to see the results of the homeopathy trials that allegedly started in India about 8 months ago. They could bring us closer to the truth. But somehow, I am not holding my breath.
The fact that the NHS England has stopped reimbursing homeopathy in 2018 is probably quite well known. France followed more recently, and then Germany too reported trouble for homeopaths on various levels. About two years ago, the manufacturer of homeopathic products, Hevert (Germany), threatened legal action against several German critics of homeopathy for expressing the fact that highly diluted homeopathic remedies do not work beyond placebo. Crucially, the medical associations of many regions in Germany have – one after the next – discontinued their training in and recognition of homeopathy.
Now similar difficulties are being felt also by Austrian homeopaths. In 2019, the Vienna medical school closed its course on homeopathy because students had filed a complaint about its unethical content. And recently, it was reported by the Austrian ‘Initiative für Wissenschaftliche Medizin‘ that at a secret webinar run by lobbyists in Vienna things were reported to no longer going well for homeopathy. Faced with such problems, the lobbyist, Dr. Jens Behnke, recommended in the above-mentioned secret webinar an alliance of all so-called alternative medicine (SCAM):
“…..and if we do not form this broad alliance now, in order to make appropriate professional PR and lobbying … then everything will fall apart….”
Now a union of pseudomedicine and politics is being forged with the aim of stopping the decline of quackery and paving the way for pseudomedicine in Austria. A resolution has been tabled in the Austrian parliament with the following demands:
- Institutionalising of the field of “Complementary Medicine” as “Integrative Medicine” in the academic education at all medical schools.
- Appropriate support for and funding of complementary medicine research, especially in the university sector.
- Establishment of a broad range of complementary medicine in the hospital sector, in outpatient but also inpatient healthcare.
- Promotion of active knowledge transfer in the area of integrative and complementary medicine within the Austrian medical profession.
- Securing of complementary diplomas by the Austrian Medical Association.
The motion was introduced by the Freedom Party (FPÖ, the Austrian far-right party) on 21.12.2020, forwarded to the Health Committee for consultation, and is now scheduled for consultation there. The application was introduced by the FPÖ-Nationalratsabgeordnete Mag. Gerhard Kaniak (Chairman of the Health Committee of Parliament, pharmacist), Peter Wurm (entrepreneur), Dr. Dagmar Belakowitsch (physician), and “other deputies”. It is supported by members of the “Initiative Complementary Medicine at Austrian Universities” of the Austrian Society for Homeopathic Medicine. The list of signatories of the motion reads like the “Who’s Who” of pseudo-medicine procedures in Austria – foremost homeopathy, but also anthroposophic medicine, ozone therapy, functional myo-diagnostics (= kinesiology), Ayurvedic medicine, orthomolecular medicine, TCM, etc. It almost goes without saying that it also includes Prof Michael Frass (a prominent member of THE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME), who regular readers of my blog would have met several times before.
__________________________
Instead of a comment (other than I sincerely wish that reason prevails in Austria and the motion is going to be defeated), I think I will quote the concluding phrases from my memoir (which incidentally also covers my most turbulent time in Vienna):
When science is abused, hijacked, or distorted in order to serve political or ideological belief systems, ethical standards will inevitably slip. The resulting pseudoscience is a deceit perpetrated on the weak and the vulnerable. We owe it to ourselves, and to those who come after us, to stand up for the truth, no matter how much trouble this might bring.
I am pleased to report that our ‘resident homeopathic doctor’ from Germany, Dr. Heinrich Huemmer, posted a review of my new book on Amazon. As his comments are in German, I translated them which was not easy because they are confusing and confused. Now that it’s done, I cannot resist the temptation to show them to you (the references were inserted by me, and refer to my comments below):
First of all, the author, who as a scientist [1] once had a thoroughly positive attitude towards homeopathy [and in a meta-analysis even attested to it significantly positive results in a certain clinical picture [2]], explains the principles and procedures in homeopathy in a clear and objective manner.
In explaining the principle of potentization, however, Ernst’s one-dimensional and completely unscientific matter-bound, quasi-medieval understanding of science shines through for the first time. With the assertion, “both the dilution and the similarity rule contradict the laws of nature” he clearly reveals his unscientific thinking, whereby he could have easily relativized this by an inserted differentiation “presently, known laws of nature”. [3]
And not even the following sentence “…we understand very well that it can function only if the known laws of nature would be invalid” is agreed by critically thinking natural scientists. [3]
Also the assertion: “The totality of this evidence does not show that homeopathic remedies would be no more than placebo”, is countered by a well-known – belonging to the skeptic movement – expert of the homeopathic study situation with the remark: “Furthermore, you should read my statements and those of the INH more carefully again: Our statement is that there is no robust/reliable/convincing evidence for efficacy beyond placebo. ALSO NOT “NONE” but “none conclusive”, which yes makes a difference in absolute numbers. Just like “no beer” is different than “not a good beer”. ” [4]
Since patients usually turn to homeopathy only when so-called scientific medicine negates their illnesses and accordingly has nothing to offer them [5], Ernst’s reference to the fact that patients could “endanger their health” is to be seen as a cheap attempt at discrediting. [6] The reference that this assessment comes from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council is not without a particularly piquant note, since this NHMRC may have to be held responsible for a particularly infamous attempt at scientific fraud to the disadvantage of homeopathy. [7]
Also, the alleged “fact” that “[positive] experiences […] are the result of a long, empathetic, sympathetic encounter with a homoeopath…” can be disproved by immediate – also diagnostically verified – cures, which occurred immediately without a long admission or which failed to appear even after several intensive anamneses under most sympathetic admission against all expectations…..[8]
Finally Ernst’s argument “the benefit-cost-argument of homeopathy is not positive” is an absolute air number, because the saving of 1 €/patient and year (in case of abolition of the homeopathy-reimbursement) would not even allow a free new glasses-nose-pad…. [9]
________________________
- I am not sure where Homeopathy Heinrich Huemmer (HHH) got the claim from that I, as a scientist, once had a thoroughly positive attitude towards homeopathy. This is not even remotely true! As a very young clinician (40 years ago), I once was quite impressed by homeopathy, never as a scientist (for full details, see my memoir). What HHH seems to display here is his very own misunderstanding about science and scientists: if they are for real (i.e. not pseudoscientists like many of those who research homeopathy), scientists try not to let their personal attitudes get in the way of good science.
- I presume that HHH refers here to this meta-analysis: Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. I fear that HHH has yet to learn how to read a scientific paper. Our conclusions were: There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. However, several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. These results should form the basis of a randomized controlled trial to resolve the issue.
- This made me laugh! Does HHH think that only the handful of homeopathic loons who claim that homeopathy has a scientific basis in the unknown laws of nature are truly scientific? And all the rest are unscientific?
- I doubt that anyone can understand this passage, perhaps not even HHH. My conclusion that “the totality of this evidence does not show that homeopathic remedies are more than placebo” merely expresses what even most homeopaths would admit and is unquestionably correct.
- This statement is untrue in more than one way. Firstly, responsible clinicians never tell a patient that they have nothing more to offer, simply because this is never the case – there is always something a good clinician can do for his/her patient, even if it is just in terms of palliation or moral support. Secondly, we know that German patients opt to use homeopathy for all sorts of reasons, including as first-line therapy and not as a last resort.
- In the book, I refer (and reference the source) to the phenomenon that many homeopaths discourage their patients from vaccination. Unfortunately, this is no ‘cheap attempt’, it is the sad reality. HHH does not even try to dispute it.
- HHH does not like the NHMRC report. Fair enough! But he omits to mention that, in the book, I list a total of 4 further official verdicts. Does HHH assume they are all fraudulent? Is there perhaps a worldwide conspiracy against homeopathy?
- We all know that HHH is enormously proud of his only publication to which he refers here (on this blog, he must have mentioned it a dozen times). However, in the book, I refer to an RCT for making my point. Which is more convincing, a case report or an RCT?
- Here HHH simply demonstrates that he has not understood the concept of cost-effectiveness.
So, what we have here is a near-perfect depiction of a homeopath’s way of thinking. But there is worse in HHH’s comment< I fear.
My book (of 224 pages) scrutinizes – as even its title states – not one but 40 types of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM); 20 of the most effective and 20 of the most dangerous SCAMs. In addition, it covers (in ~ 50 pages) many general topics (like ‘WHAT IS EVIDENCE? or WHY IS SCAM SO POPULAR?). It includes over 200 references to published papers. Yet, HHH reviews and judges the book by commenting exclusively on the meager 5 pages dedicated to homeopathy!
If that does not exemplify the limitations of the homeopathic mind, please tell me what does.
THANK YOU, HHH, FOR MAKING THIS SO CLEAR TO US!
There are skeptics who keep claiming that there is no research in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). And there are plenty of SCAM enthusiasts who claim that there is an abundance of good research in SCAM.
Who is right and who is wrong?
I submit that both camps are incorrect.
To demonstrate the volume of SCAM research I looked into Medline to find the number of papers published in 2020 for the SCAMs listed below:
- acupuncture 2 752
- anthroposophic medicine 29
- aromatherapy 173
- Ayurvedic medicine 183
- chiropractic 426
- dietary supplement 5 739
- essential oil 2 439
- herbal medicine 5 081
- homeopathy 154
- iridology 0
- Kampo medicine 132
- massage 824
- meditation 780
- mind-body therapies 968
- music therapy 539
- naturopathy 68
- osteopathic manipulation 71
- Pilates 97
- qigong 97
- reiki 133
- tai chi 397
- Traditional Chinese Medicine 15 277
- yoga 698
I think the list proves anyone wrong who claims there is no (or very little) research into SCAM.
As to the enthusiasts who claim that there is plenty of good evidence, I am afraid, I disagree with them too. The above-quoted numbers are perhaps impressive to some SCAM proponents, but they are not large. To make my point more clearly, let me show you the 2020 volumes for a few topics in conventional medicine:
- psychiatry 668,492
- biologicals 300,679
- chemotherapy 109,869
- radiotherapy 17,964
- rehabilitation 21,751
- rehabilitation medicine 21,751
- surgery 256,958
I think we can agree that these figures make the SCAM numbers look pitifully small.
But the more important point is, I think, not the quantity but the quality of the SCAM research. As this whole blog is about the often dismal rigor of SCAM research, I do surely not need to produce further evidence to convince you that it is poor, often even very poor.
So, both camps tend to be incorrect when they speak about SCAM research. The truth is that there is quite a lot, but sadly reliable studies are like gold dust.
But actually, when I started writing this post and doing all these Medline searches to produce the above-listed volumes of SCAM research, I was thinking of a different subject entirely. I wanted to see which areas of SCAM were research-active and which are not. This is why I chose terms for my list that do not overlap with others (yet we need to realize that the figures are not precise due to misclassification and other factors). And in this respect, the list is interesting too, I find.
It identifies the SCAMs that are remarkably research-inactive:
- anthroposophic medicine
- iridology
- naturopathy
- osteopathy
- Pilates
- qigong
Perhaps more interesting are the areas that show a relatively high research activity:
- acupuncture
- dietary supplements
- essential oils
- herbal medicine
- massage
- meditation
- mind-body therapies
- TCM
- yoga
This, in turn, suggests two things:
- It is not true that only commercial interests drive research activity.
- The Chinese (TCM and acupuncture) are pushing the ferociously hard to conquer SCAM research.
The last point is worrying, in my view, because we know from several independent studies that Chinese studies are often the flimsiest and least reliable of all the SCAM literature. As I have suggested recently, the unreliability of SCAM research might one day be its undoing: This self-destructive course of SCAM might be applauded by some skeptics. However, if you believe (as I do) that there are a few good things to be found in SCAM, this development can only be regrettable. I fear that the growing dominance of Chinese research will help to speed up this process.
Yes, I have just published a new book! Its title is ‘Alternativmedizin – was hilft, was schadet: Die 20 besten, die 20 bedenklichsten Methoden’ (Alternative medicine – treatments that help and treatments that harm: The 20 best and the 20 most worrying methods). Yes, it is in German, and somehow I doubt that there will be an English version of it. Therefore I take the liberty of translating a short section for those who do not read German. 
But first, let me tell you about the book’s concept.
Some people who read this blog seem to have the impression that I am dead against so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – my friend Dana Ullman, for instance, is convinced of it. This, however, is not quite correct (Dana rarely is). The truth is that I am
- FOR evidence-based medicine,
- FOR a level playing field in all areas of healthcare,
- FOR critically evaluating all options.
This also means, of course, that I am against misleading consumers about the value of SCAM. And therefore I am FOR any SCAM that demonstrably does more good than harm.
This attitude should have been clear from all my books. However, it seems to be difficult to understand for those who are on the more fanatical end of the SCAM spectrum. And because it is not that obvious, I decided to write a book that analyses (understandably yet analytically [including ~300 references of the original science]) the evidence for 20 SCAMs that are supported by reasonably sound evidence together with 20 for which this is not the case. My hope is that, with this approach, I might reach more consumers who are in favour of SCAM.
There is a risk, of course. Chances are that, instead of reaching more people from the pro-camp, I will merely offend both the sceptics as well as the enthusiasts.
We shall see.
Anyway, here is the promised bit that I translated for you. It is the postscript of the book, and I hope it gives you a flavour of what it is all about. Here we go:
In the first chapter of the book, I promised that I would neither uncritically hype alternative medicine nor unfairly condemn it. I have taken great pains to keep this promise.
Have I succeeded?
I fear there will be many who answer this question in the negative. And I can’t even blame my critics! Who likes to be criticized for something in which he deeply believes? Who likes to hear that his prejudices against everything called alternative medicine are wrong and counter-productive? Who doesn’t mind an ugly fact that destroys his beautiful theory? Both the dogmatic naysayers and the naive believers will be dissatisfied with my book (or at least parts of).
That’s a shame, but ultimately it is irrelevant. My point was not to take the word of one camp or another in the endless trench warfare that is alternative medicine. My main concern was to present the evidence as up-to-date, understandable, and objective as possible, and to serve those who are seriously interested in facts.
The book is thus not for dogged trench warriors; rather, it is aimed at ordinary consumers with an interest in their health. After all, the vast majority of the population is not among the unteachables of one camp or the other. Most people don’t want ideology, they want effective medicine. And most of them are baffled by the unmanageable variety of alternative medicine on offer, the grandiose promises of healing, and the vehement emotions that it all triggers.
In the area of alternative medicine, there is undoubtedly a lot of nonsense, charlatanry, and danger. But there are also some things that demonstrably do more good than harm. In order to separate the wheat from the chaff, consumers don’t need creeds. What they need above all is reliable evidence!
You can read about this evidence in my book. How you then deal with it is solely your decision. I do not want to tell anyone what to do with my presentation of the facts. But I know that the abundance of misinformation in the field of alternative medicine causes great damage and that the consumer and reader of my book, deserve better than to be led up the garden path.
If this book helps readers to make wise treatment decisions, my efforts will have been worthwhile. And if they get half as much pleasure from reading it as I did from writing it, my goal has been achieved.
THE END
(If by any chance you do read German and are in the position to publish a book review, please let me know and I will see that you get a free review copy of my book)
The objective of this review (entitled ‘Systematic Review on the Use of Homeopathy in Dentistry:
Critical Analysis of Clinical Trials‘) was to map the literature on homeopathy in dentistry and to evaluate the effectiveness of using homeopathy in dental practice through the critical analysis of clinical studies.
The search for scientific articles in any language, year, and place of publication was made in the databases of Public Medline (PUBMED), Web of Science, Cochrane, and Virtual Health Library; the articles selected were later classified according to the type of study. Gray literature was accessed through Google Scholar. Clinical trials were analyzed for methodological quality. Two trained reviewers accomplished the entire process independently.
Of the 281 studies retrieved by means of the search, 44 met the eligibility criteria. The included papers were:
- literature reviews (56.8%),
- clinical trials (34.1%),
- cross-sectional studies (6.8%),
- laboratory research (6.8%),
- longitudinal observational studies (4.5%).
The clinical trials were published from 1965 to 2019, using homeopathy in several dental specialties:
- Endodontics,
- Periodontics,
- Orofacial Pain,
- Surgery,
- Pediatric Dentistry,
- Stomatology,
- dental anxiety.
Qualitative failures, in all criteria investigated, and positive influences of the individual prescriptions on the results of treatments reported were observed.
The authors concluded that there is still a scarcity of studies about homeopathy and dentistry. The clinical trials selected showed positive effects on oral health; however, when they were critically evaluated, it was possible to recognize qualitative failures, mainly relative to double-blinding. It is necessary to encourage research on the subject, using standardized methodological procedures, to obtain better evaluation of the clinical applicability.
According to the authors, their review adhered to the PRISMA guideline of systematic reviews. This is, however, not the case. The authors correctly point out that the primary studies had many flaws: methodological failures were observed in the clinical trials, mainly related to double-blinding (66.7%). Significant failures were also observed in similarity (61.1%), randomization (27.8%), description of losses and exclusions (27.8%), and exclusion criteria (27.8%). They do not seem to realize that flaws of this nature and frequency should prevent positive conclusions.
So, what does this paper actually demonstrate? In my view, it shows that:
- the peer-review process at the JACM continues to be a joke;
- poor quality trials run by enthusiasts tend to produce false-positive results;
- in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), people get away with publishing even the most obvious falsehoods.
This week, it was reported that a UK bookkeeper has pleaded guilty to abusing his position at In-Light Ltd. by making unauthorized bank transfers to Stroud Accounting Solutions Ltd. The fraud amounted to the sizable sum of £67,000.
In-Light Limited is the holding company for the School of Homeopathy, The School of Health, and Yondercott Press. It offers alternative medicine courses, seminars, books, and webinars focusing on nutrition, homeopathy, herbal medicine, yoga, Indian and Chinese Medicine.
On Twitter, the news of these events prompted several comments, e.g.:
Bookkeeper stole stolen funds, then?
That is typical of a skeptic! Nothing but vicious negativity!!!
Instead of displaying such sarcasm and Schadenfreude, we should empathize, I feel. If not with In-Light Ltd., then with the poor bookkeeper. As another, more compassionate Tweet pointed out, the man is surely innocent:
It started out as 7 pence, but he dropped it in his water bottle and shook it and now look what happened…
This, I think, should have been the line of the bookkeeper’s defense counsel. “My client did nothing wrong at all; he accidentally dropped a penny of In-Light Ltd. that was lying around the office into a water bottle. The bottle then got inadvertently shaken and the water/money mixture thus got potentised. Before my client could do anything to avert the disaster, the money had become the sizable sum of £ 67 000 which my client dutifully put on his bank account for safe-keeping. We, therefore, plead not guilty, your honour”
What, you think the owners of In-Light Ltd. would not have believed this story?
But if they believe in homeopathy, they have no choice. If you believe in homeopathy, you believe anything.
And the judge? Well, the judge has to accept that homeopathy is a fact. And a fact for more than 200 years! Thus, potentisation is real. If all else failed, the defense counsel could call expert witnesses …
Prince Charles, for instance.
Tuina is a massage therapy that originates from Traditional Chinese Medicine. Many of the techniques used in tuina resemble those of a western massage like gliding, kneading, vibration, tapping, friction, pulling, rolling, pressing, and shaking. Tuina involves a range of manipulations usually performed by the therapist’s finger, hand, elbow, knee, or foot. They are applied to muscle or soft tissue at specific locations of the body.
The aim of Tuina is to enhance the flow of the ‘vital energy’ or ‘chi’, that is alleged to control our health. Proponents of the therapy recommend Tuina for a range of conditions, including paediatric ones. Paediatric Tuina has been widely used in children with acute diarrhea in China. However, due to a lack of high-quality clinical evidence, the benefit of Tuina is not clear.
This study aimed to assess the effect of paediatric Tuina compared with sham Tuina as add-on therapy in addition to usual care for 0-6-year-old children with acute diarrhea.
Eighty-six participants aged 0-6 years with acute diarrhea were randomized to receive Tuina plus usual care (n = 43) or sham Tuina plus usual care (n = 43). The primary outcomes were days of diarrhea from baseline and times of diarrhea on day 3. Secondary outcomes included a global change rating (GCR) and the number of days when the stool characteristics returned to normal. Adverse events were assessed.
Tuina treatment in the intervention group was performed on the surface of the children’s body using moderate pressure (Fig. 1a). Tuina treatment in the control group was different: the therapist used one hand to hold the child’s hand or put one hand on the child’s body, while the other hand performed manipulations on the therapist’s own hand instead of the child’s hand or body (Fig. (Fig.11b).
Tuina was associated with a reduction in times of diarrhea on day 3 compared with sham Tuina in both ITT and per-protocol analyses. However, the results were not significant when adjusted for social-demographic and clinical characteristics. No significant difference was found between groups in days of diarrhea, global change rating, or number of days when the stool characteristics returned to normal.
The authors concluded that in children aged 0-6 years with acute diarrhea, pediatric Tuina showed significant effects in terms of reducing times of diarrhea compared with sham Tuina. Studies with larger sample sizes and adjusted trial designs are warranted to further evaluate the effect of pediatric Tuina therapy.
This study was well-reported and has interesting features, such as the attempt to use a placebo control and blinding (whether blinding was successful is a different matter and was not tested in the trial). It is, therefore, all the more surprising that the essentially negative result is turned into a positive one. After adjustment, the differences disappear (a fact which the authors hardly mention in the paper), which means they are not due to the treatment but to group differences and confounding. This, in turn, means that the study shows not the effectiveness but the ineffectiveness of Tuina.
The purpose of this survey (the authors call it a ‘study’) was to evaluate the patient-perceived benefit of yoga for symptoms commonly experienced by breast cancer survivors.
A total of 1,049 breast cancer survivors who had self-reported use of yoga on a follow-up survey, in an ongoing prospective Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry (MCBDR), received an additional mailed yoga-focused survey asking about the impact of yoga on a variety of symptoms. Differences between pre-and post- scores were assessed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.
802/1,049 (76%) of women who were approached to participate, consented and returned the survey. 507/802 (63%) reported use of yoga during and/or after their cancer diagnosis. The vast majority of respondents (89.4%) reported some symptomatic benefit from yoga. The most common symptoms that prompted the use of yoga were breast/chest wall pain, lymphedema, and anxiety. Only 9% of patients reported that they had been referred to yoga by a medical professional. While the greatest symptom improvement was reported with breast/chest wall pain and anxiety, significant improvement was also perceived in joint pain, muscle pain, fatigue, headache, quality of life, hot flashes, nausea/vomiting, depression, insomnia, lymphedema, and peripheral neuropathy, (all p-values <0.004).
The authors concluded that data supporting the use of yoga for symptom management after cancer are limited and typically focus on mental health. In this study, users of yoga often reported physical benefits as well as mental health benefits. Further prospective studies investigating the efficacy of yoga in survivorship are warranted.
I have little doubt that yoga is helpful during palliative and supportive cancer care (but all the more doubts that this new paper will further the reputation of research in this area). In fact, contrary to what the conclusions state, there is quite good evidence for this assumption:
- A 2009 systematic review included 10 clinical trials. Its authors concluded that although some positive results were noted, variability across studies and methodological drawbacks limit the extent to which yoga can be deemed effective for managing cancer-related symptoms.
- A 2017 systematic review with 25 clinical trials concluded that among adults undergoing cancer treatment, evidence supports recommending yoga for improving psychological outcomes, with potential for also improving physical symptoms. Evidence is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of yoga in pediatric oncology.
- A 2017 Cochrane review included 24 studies and found that moderate-quality evidence supports the recommendation of yoga as a supportive intervention for improving health-related quality of life and reducing fatigue and sleep disturbances when compared with no therapy, as well as for reducing depression, anxiety and fatigue, when compared with psychosocial/educational interventions. Very low-quality evidence suggests that yoga might be as effective as other exercise interventions and might be used as an alternative to other exercise programmes.[3]
So, why publish a paper like the one above?
Search me!
To be able to add one more publication to the authors’ lists?
And why would the journal editor go along with this nonsense?
Search me again!
No, hold on: Global Advances in Health and Medicine, the journal that carried the survey, is published in association with Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health.
Yes, that explains a lot.
As I have pointed out several times before, surveys of this nature are like going into a Mac Donald’s and asking the customers whether they like Hamburgers. You might then also find that “the vast majority of respondents (89.4%) reported”… blah, blah, blah.
The title of the paper is ‘Real-World Experiences With Yoga on Cancer-Related Symptoms in Women With Breast Cancer‘.
PS
NOTE TO MYSELF: never touch a paper with ‘real-world experience’ in the title.
