alternative therapist
This paper is an evaluation of the relationship between chiropractic spinal manipulation and medical malpractice. The legal database VerdictSearch was queried using the terms “chiropractor” OR “spinal manipulation” under the classification of “Medical Malpractice” between 1988 and 2018. Cases with chiropractors as defendants were identified. Relevant medicolegal characteristics were obtained, including legal outcome (plaintiff/defense verdict, settlement), payment amount, nature of plaintiff claim, and type and location of the alleged injury.
Forty-eight cases involving chiropractic management in the US were reported. Of these, 93.8% (n = 45) featured allegations involving spinal manipulation. The defense (practitioner) was victorious in 70.8% (n = 34) of cases, with a plaintiff (patient) victory in 20.8% (n = 10) (mean payment $658,487 ± $697,045) and settlement in 8.3% (n = 4) (mean payment $596,667 ± $402,534).
Over-aggressive manipulation was the most frequent allegation (33.3%; 16 cases). A majority of cases alleged neurological injury of the spine as the reason for litigation (66.7%, 32 cases) with 87.5% (28/32) requiring surgery. C5-C6 disc herniation was the most frequently alleged injury (32.4%, 11/34, 83.3% requiring surgery) followed by C6-C7 herniation (26.5%, 9/34, 88.9% requiring surgery). Claims also alleged 7 cases of stroke (14.6%) and 2 rib fractures (4.2%) from manipulation therapy.
The authors concluded that litigation claims following chiropractic care predominately alleged neurological injury with consequent surgical management. Plaintiffs primarily alleged overaggressive treatment, though a majority of trials ended in defensive verdicts. Ongoing analysis of malpractice provides a unique lens through which to view this complicated topic.
The fact that the majority of trials ended in defensive verdicts does not surprise me. I once served as an expert witness in a trial against a UK chiropractor. Therefore, I know how difficult it is to demonstrate that the chiropractic intervention – and not anything else – caused the problem. Even cases that seem medically clear-cut, often allow reasonable doubt vis a vis the law.
Apologists will be quick and keen to point out that, in the US, there are many more successful cases brought against real doctors (healthcare professionals who have studied medicine). They are, of course, correct. But, at the same time, they miss the point. Real doctors treat real diseases where the outcomes are sadly often not as hoped. Litigation is then common, particularly in a litigious society like the US. Chiropractors predominantly treat symptoms like back troubles that are essentially benign. To create a fair comparison of litigations against doctors and chiros, one would therefore need to account for the type and severity of the conditions. Such a comparison has – to the best of my knowledge – not been done.
What has been done, however – and I did previously report about it – are comparisons between chiros, osteos, and physios (which seems to be a more level playing field). They show that complaints against chiros top the bill.
The pandemic has shown how difficult it can be to pass laws stopping healthcare professionals from giving unsound medical advice has proved challenging. The right to freedom of speech regularly conflicts with the duty to protect the public. How can a government best sail between Scylla and Charybdis? JAMA has just published an interesting paper addressing these issues. Here is an excerpt from the article that might stimulate some discussion:
The government can take several actions, including:
- Imposing sanctions on COVID-19–related practices by licensed professionals that flout substantive laws in connection with providing medical services, even if those medical services include speech. This includes physicians failing to comply with COVID-19–related public health laws applicable to medical offices and health facilities, such as mask wearing, social distancing, and restrictions on elective procedures.
- Sanctioning recommendations by professionals that patients take illegal medications or controlled substances without following legally required procedures. The government can also sanction the marketing by others of prescription medications for unapproved indications. However, “off-label” prescribing by physicians (eg, for hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin) remains lawful as long as a medication is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for any indication and no specific legal conditions on use are in effect.
- Enforcing tort law actions (eg, malpractice, lack of informed consent) in cases of alleged patient injury that result from recommending a potentially dangerous treatment or failing to recommend a necessary treatment.
- Imposing sanctions on individualized medical advice by unlicensed individuals or organizations if giving that advice constitutes the unlawful practice of medicine.
In addition, the government probably can:
- Impose sanctions for false or misleading information offered to obtain a financial or personal benefit, particularly if giving the information constitutes fraud under applicable law. This would encompass physicians who knowingly spread false information to create celebrity or attract patients.
- Threaten disciplinary action by licensing boards against health professionals whose speech to patients conveys incorrect science or substandard medicine.
- Specify the information that may and may not be imparted by private organizations and professionals as part of specific clinical services paid for by government, such as special programs for COVID-19 testing or treatment.
- Reject legal challenges to, and enforce through generally applicable contract or employment laws, any restrictions private health care organizations place on speech by affiliated health professionals, particularly in the absence of special laws conferring “conscience” protections. This would include medical staff membership and privileges, hospital or other employment agreements, and insurance network participation.
- Enforce restrictions on speech adopted by private professional or self-regulatory organizations if the consequences for violations are limited to revoking organizational membership or accreditation.
However, the government probably cannot:
- Compel or limit health professional speech not made in connection with patient care, even if the speech is false or misleading, regardless of its alleged effect on public trust in health professions.
- Sanction speech to the general public rather than to patients, whether or not by health professionals, especially if conveyed with a disclaimer that the speech is “not intended as medical advice.”
- Sanction speech by health professionals to patients conveying political views or skepticism of government policy.
- Enforce restrictions involving information by public universities and public hospitals that legislatures, regulatory agencies, and professional licensing boards would not be constitutionally permitted to impose directly.
- Adopt restrictions on information related to overall clinical services funded by large government health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.
_____________________________
The article was obviously written with MDs in mind and applies only to US law. As we have seen in previous posts and comments, the debate is, however, wider. We should, I think, also have it in relation to practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and medical ethics. Moreover, it should go beyond advice about COVID and be extended to any medical advice given by any type of healthcare practitioner.
The German Heilpraktiker has been the subject of several of my posts. Some claim that it is an example of a well-established and well-regulated profession. Others insist that it is a menace endangering public health in Germany.
Who is right?
One answer might be found by looking at the training the German Heilpraktiker receives.
In Germany, non-medical practitioners (NMPs; or ‘Heilpraktiker’) offer a broad range of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) methods. The aim of this investigation was to characterize schools for NMPs in Germany in terms of basic (medical) training and advanced education.
The researchers found 165 schools for NMPs in a systematic web-based search. As the medical board examination NMPs must take before building a practice exclusively tests their knowledge in conventional medicine, schools hardly include training in SCAM methods. Only a few schools offered education in SCAM methods in their NMP training. Although NMP associations framed requirements for NMP education, 83.0% (137/165) of schools did not meet these requirements.
The authors concluded that patients and physicians should be aware of the lack of training and consequent risks, such as harm to the body, delay of necessary treatment, and interaction with conventional drugs. Disestablishing the profession of NMPs might be a reasonable step.
Other interesting facts disclosed by this investigation include the following:
- There is no mandatory training for NMPs. Some attend schools but many do not and prefer to learn exclusively from books.
- The training programs of the NMP schools comprise an average of 7.4 hours per week of classroom teaching for an average of 27.1 months.
- Course participants thus complete an average of ~600 hours of training. (A degree in medicine takes an average of 12.9 semesters. With a weekly working time of 38.9 hours, this amounts to ~15,000 hours of training excluding internships etc.)
- Three-quarters of all NMP schools do not offer any practical teaching units.
- If training programs do contain practical instruction, it is usually limited to individual weekend workshops in which the measurement of vital data, physical examinations, and injections and infusions are practiced.
- The exam that NMPs have to pass consists of a written test with sixty multiple-choice questions and a 30 to 60-minute interview on case studies.
- The examination covers professional and legal anatomical and physiological basics, methods of anamnesis and diagnosis, the significance of basic laboratory values as well as practice hygiene and disinfection.
- Not included are competence in pharmacology, pathophysiology, biochemistry, microbiology, human genetics and immunology.
- The average 600 hours of training of an NMP is thus ~5% of that of a medical student.
- If an NMP fails the exam, she can repeat it as often as she needs to pass.
- The day after the exam, an NMP can open her own practice and is allowed (with only very few exceptions) to do most of what proper doctors do.
So are NMPs a danger to public health in Germany?
I let you answer this question yourself.
Dr Akbar Khan, MD, represents a novel and exciting avenue through which, in this case, a conventionally- trained family physician has come to embrace a broad array of integrative techniques; he witnessed first hand the immense magnitude of safety and efficacy of the practice … Dr Khan describes with frustration the lack of interest displayed by conventional practitioners for safe and effective solutions simply because they come from the realm of natural medicine. “My greatest concern is helping patients.”
From left to right: Douglas Andrews, Akbar Khan, Silvana Marra and Humaira Khan
From left to right: Douglas Andrews, Akbar Khan, Silvana Marra and Humaira Khan[/caption]
An article in the ‘Toronto Sun’, however, tells a very different story. The doctor was found ‘incompetent’ in the treatment of cancer patients. Akbar Khan told one patient she had leukemia when she did not. He told others they were improving under his alternative remedies while their cancer was actually advancing. One of them was a little boy dying of a brain tumor.
Now the Toronto family doctor has been found guilty by the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal of
- incompetence,
- failure to maintain the standard of practice,
- and conduct that’s disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional
in his care of a total of 12 patients between 2012 and 2017. “Whether it was ‘snake oil,’ ‘witches’ brew’ or otherwise, whatever it was that Dr. Khan was offering his patients, it was not what he claimed,” concluded the tribunal in its decision. “In doing so, Dr. Khan set aside his obligations as a physician to uphold the College’s CAM and consent policies, and in doing so, he failed his patients.”
Khan is the founder of the Medicor Cancer Centres, which offer “unique non-toxic approaches to cancer treatment.” He treated terminally-ill patients with the unproven treatments that he called “SAFE Chemotherapy” billed as “lifesaving” and more effective than conventional chemo.
There was insufficient science and evidence to support the conclusion that “SAFE chemotherapy” works, or that it can help people in the way that Dr. Khan claims it can, and he should not have used it,” the tribunal found. Yet, Khan never told his patients it wasn’t working. According to the college’s summary: “Therapy stopped only when his patients either could not afford it any longer, their condition had deteriorated to such a degree that they could not tolerate it, they were so ill that they were admitted to hospital, or they died.”
According to the tribunal, Khan’s patients paid (US)$4,200 for one cycle of “SAFE chemotherapy”, and they received between five to 24 cycles of it. One of the most heartbreaking cases involved Khan’s treatment of a six-year-old boy with brain cancer. In 2017, his parents rejected treating him with lifesaving chemo and radiation and transferred his care to Khan, who prescribed Dichloroacetate (DCA) — which is a medication usually used for metabolic disorders, and not a proven cancer treatment. When a follow-up MRI showed their son’s tumor had grown and progressed to his spine, Khan told them it must be wrong and “his current therapy is actually working very well!” The boy died in 2018.
In another disturbing case, Khan used an “unapproved” test to diagnose a 59-year-old woman with acute leukemia — and informed her by email. He treated the devastated woman with honokol, a biological extract from magnolia bark, and Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN) — both of which are “not informed by evidence and science,” and “not the appropriate treatment for this patient’s presumed cancer.” Khan referred her to an oncologist who performed a bone marrow biopsy and then gave her the good news: “You do not have cancer. You’ve never had cancer. Go home and enjoy your life.” Yet, Khan insisted the oncologist was wrong. “We were frankly shocked that instead of reassuring Ms. B that her ordeal of worrying that she had leukemia could come to a close, Dr. Khan insisted to Ms. B that indeed, she did still have leukemia and urged her to keep taking LDN ‘to keep this under control,’” the tribunal wrote. “In short, Dr. Khan gave Ms. B a diagnosis that she did not have, for which he sold her a remedy that she did not need, which — as per evidence and science — turned out to be no remedy at all.”Khan’s response to the newspaper: “Since the legal process is still ongoing with the CPSO, I know my lawyer Marie Henein would not like me to comment at this time. Perhaps in the near future, I will be able to share with you another side to the story. If so, I will contact you.”
A penalty hearing has yet to be scheduled.
In case you are interested, here is a short CV of Dr. Khan:
| 2019 | FAAO – Fellow of the American Academy of Ozone Therapy |
| 2018 | Certified medical ozone therapy doctor (general ozone therapy, basic ProlozoneTM therapy and advanced ProlozoneTM therapy), certified by the American Academy of Ozone Therapy |
| 2018 | IMD, Integrative Medical Doctor (Board of Integrative Medicine) DHS, Doctor of Humanitarian Service (Board of Integrative Medicine) |
| 1994 | CCFP, Certificant of the College of Family Physicians of Canada (University of Toronto). |
| 1992 | MD, Doctor of Medicine (University of Toronto). |
Neurosurgeons from the Philippines recently presented the case of a 36-year-old woman who presented with severe bifrontal and postural headache associated with dizziness, vomiting, and double vision. A cranial computed tomography scan showed an acute subdural hematoma (SDH) at the interhemispheric area. Pain medications were given which afforded minimal relief.
The headaches occurred 2 weeks after the patient had received a cervical chiropractic manipulation (CM). Cranial and cervical magnetic resonance imaging revealed findings supportive of intracranial hypotension and neck trauma. The patient improved with conservative management.
The authors found 12 articles of SIH and CM after a systematic review of the literature. Eleven patients (90.9%) initially presented with orthostatic headaches. Eight patients (66.7%) were initially treated conservatively but only 5 (62.5%) had a complete recovery. Recovery was achieved within 14 days from the start of supportive therapy. Among the 3 patients who failed conservative treatment, 2 underwent non-directed epidural blood patch, and one required neurosurgical intervention.
The authors concluded that this report highlights that a thorough history is warranted in patients with new-onset headaches. A history of CM must be actively sought. The limited evidence from the case reports showed that patients with SIH and SDH but with normal neurologic examination and minor spinal pathology can be managed conservatively for less than 2 weeks. This review showed that conservative treatment in a closely monitored environment may be an appropriate first-line treatment.
As the authors rightly state, their case report does not stand alone. There are many more. In 2014, an Australian chiropractor published this review:
Background: Intracranial hypotension (IH) is caused by a leakage of cerebrospinal fluid (often from a tear in the dura) which commonly produces an orthostatic headache. It has been reported to occur after trivial cervical spine trauma including spinal manipulation. Some authors have recommended specifically questioning patients regarding any chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy (CSMT). Therefore, it is important to review the literature regarding chiropractic and IH.
Objective: To identify key factors that may increase the possibility of IH after CSMT.
Method: A systematic search of the Medline, Embase, Mantis and PubMed databases (from 1991 to 2011) was conducted for studies using the keywords chiropractic and IH. Each paper was reviewed to examine any description of the key factors for IH, the relationship or characteristics of treatment, and the significance of CSMT to IH. In addition, other items that were assessed included the presence of any risk factors, neck pain and headache.
Results: The search of the databases identified 39 papers that fulfilled initial search criteria, from which only eight case reports were relevant for review (after removal of duplicate papers or papers excluded after the abstract was reviewed). The key factors for IH (identified from the existing literature) were recent trauma, connective tissue disorders, or otherwise cases were reported as spontaneous. A detailed critique of these cases demonstrated that five of eight cases (63%) had non-chiropractic SMT (i.e. SMT technique typically used by medical practitioners). In addition, most cases (88%) had minimal or no discussion of the onset of the presenting symptoms prior to SMT and whether the onset may have indicated any contraindications to SMT. No case reports included information on recent trauma, changes in headache patterns or connective tissue disorders.
Discussion: Even though type of SMT often indicates that a chiropractor was not the practitioner that delivered the treatment, chiropractic is specifically cited as either the cause of IH or an important factor. There are so much missing data in the case reports that one cannot determine whether the practitioner was negligent (in clinical history taking) or whether the SMT procedure itself was poorly administered.
The new case report can, of course, be criticized for being not conclusive and for not allowing to firmly establish the cause of the adverse event. This is to a large extent due to the nature of case reports. Essentially, they provide a ‘signal’, and once the signal is loud enough, we need to act. In this case, action would mean to prohibit the intervention that is under suspicion and initiate conclusive research to prove or disprove a causal relationship.
This is how it’s done in most areas of healthcare … except, of course in so-called alternative medicine(SCAM). Here we do not even have the most basic tool to get to the bottom of the problem, namely a transparent post-marketing surveillance system that monitors the frequency of adverse events.
And whose responsibility is it to put such a system in place?
I let you guess.
Guest post by Catherine de Jong
On the 22nd of February 2022, a criminal court in the Netherlands ruled in a case brought by a 33-year-old man who suffered a double-sided vascular dissection of his vertebral arteries during a chiropractic neck manipulation.
What happened?
On the 26th of January 2016, the man visited a chiropractor because he wanted treatment for his headache. The chiropractor treated him with manipulations of his neck. The first treatment was uneventful but apparently not effective. The man went back for a second time. Immediately after the second treatment, the patient felt a tingling sensation that started in his toes and spread all over his body. Then he lost consciousness. He was resuscitated by the chiropractor and transported to a hospital. Several days later he woke up in the ICU of the university hospital (Free University, now Amsterdam UMC). He was paralyzed and unable to speak. He stayed in the ICU for 5 weeks. After a long stay in a rehabilitation center, he is now at home. He is disabled and incapacitated for life.
Court battles
The professional liability insurance of the chiropractor recognized that the treatment of the chiropractor had caused the disability and paid for damages. The patient was thus able to buy a new wheelchair-adapted house.
Health Inspection investigated the case. They noticed that the chiropractor could not show that there was informed consent for the neck manipulation treatment, but otherwise saw no need for action.
Six days after the accident the man applied to the criminal court. The case was dropped because, according to the judge, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt was impossible.
In rare occasions, vertebral artery dissection (VAD) does occur spontaneously in people without trauma or a chiropractor manipulating their neck. The list of causes for VAD show, besides severe trauma to the head and neck (traffic accidents) also chiropractic treatment, and rare connective tissue diseases like Marfan syndrome. A spontaneous dissection is very rare.
It took several attempts to persuade the criminal court to start the case and the investigation into what had happened in the chiropractor’s office. Now the verdict has been given, and it was a disappointing one.
The chiropractor was acquitted. The defense of the chiropractor argued, as expected, that two pre-existent spontaneous dissections might have caused the headache and that, therefore, the manipulation of the neck would have played at most a secondary role.
It is this defense strategy, which is invariably followed in the numerous court cases in the US. Chiropractors in particular give credence to this argumentation.
The defense of the patient was a professor of neurology. He considered a causal link between manipulation to the neck and the double-sided VAD to be proven.
In the judgment, the judge refers 14 times to the ‘professional standard’ of the Dutch Chiropractors Association, apparently without realizing that this professional standard was devised by the chiropractors themselves and that it differs considerably from the guidelines of neurologists or orthopedics. In 2016, the Dutch Health Inspection disallowed neck manipulation, but chiropractors do not care.
The verdict of the judge can be found here: ECLI:EN:RBNHO:2022:1401
Chiropractic is a profession that is not recognized in the Netherlands. Enough has been written (also on this website) about the strange belief of chiropractors that a wrong position of the vertebrae (“subluxations”) is responsible for 95% of all health problems and that detecting and correcting them can relieve symptoms and improve overall health. There is no scientific evidence that chiropractic subluxations exist or that their alleged “detection” or “correction” provides any health benefit. In the Netherlands, there are about 300 practicing chiropractors. Most are educated in the UK or the USA. The training that those chiropractors receive is not recognized in the Netherlands.
Most chiropractic treatments do little harm, but that does not apply to neck manipulation. When manipulating the neck, the outstretched head is subjected to powerful stretches and rotations. This treatment can in rare cases cause damage to the arteries, which carry blood to the brain. In this case, a double-sided cervical arterial dissection can lead to strokes and cerebral infarctions. How often this occurs (where is the central complication registration of chiropractors?) is unknown, but given that the effectiveness of this treatment has never been demonstrated and that therefore its risk/benefit ratio is negative, any complication is unacceptable.
How big is the chance that a 33-year-old man walks into a chiropractor’s office with a headache and comes out with a SPONTANEOUS double-sided vertebral artery dissection that leaves him wheelchair-bound and invalid for the rest of his life? I hope some clever statisticians will tell me.
PS
Most newspaper reports of this case are in Dutch, but here is one in English
Yes, today is WORLD CANCER DAY. A good time to remind us that SCAM providers are often a serious risk to cancer patients. Here is a very recent case in point:
It has been reported that a naturopath from Laval in Quebec who describes herself as a “cancer specialist” notably by offering coffee enemas, has been found guilty of the illegal practice of medicine. The Court of Quebec ruled that Annie Juneau, owner of the Vitacru Group, led people to believe that she had “medical knowledge and [that she was] was able to diagnose a health deficiency”. The fine for the offense can vary between $2,500 and $62,000 and which remains to be determined.
The College of Physicians of Quebec (CMQ) conducted an investigation where an agent claiming to be looking for information on colon therapy under an assumed name consulted the therapist. The naturopath charged a little over $300 for the visit and the purchase of prescribed natural products. During the consultation, the naturopath, Annie Juneau, claimed that “we are brainwashed by the medical community”. She introduced herself as a “cancer specialist” and explained that she could even treat patients suffering from advanced stage 4 cancer.
The website of the naturopath praised the merits of the coffee enema, a practice believed to date back to ancient Egypt, stating that “cancer patients deprived of its benefits are unable to detoxify at the speed that optimal healing requires.” ON the Internet and in person, Annie Juneau illegally led a reasonable person to believe that she could perform acts reserved for doctors, the court ruled. In her defense, the naturopath argued that her website contained disclaimers stating that she does not offer medical advice and that she clearly identifies herself as a naturopath. However, the court ruled that such disclaimers are not sufficient protection of the public.
___________________________
This case is the latest in a long row of naturopaths (and other SCAM practitioners) risking the lives of cancer patients. Here are a few recent ones that we have discussed on this blog:
The ‘Society of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy’ (Gesellschaft der Mediziner und Wissenschaftler für Gesundheit, Freiheit und Demokratie e.V. MWGFD) recently held a press coference where they presented its 10-point plan for a Corona phase-out concept. Here are their 10 demands (my translation):
- Immediate cessation of COVID vaccinations and in particular compulsory COVID vaccination.
- End all non-evidence-based non-pharmaceutical measures (NPI’s), such as lockdowns, school closures, mandatory masks in public spaces, isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, stand-off rules, as well as RT-PCR and rapid antigen testing of people without symptoms of disease, and immediately open sports venues, restaurants, churches and cultural institutions to all without access conditions
- Pandemic management must be sensibly controlled on the basis of science and evidence, including correct testing of the genuinely ill and correct recording of the epidemic situation. Since this has been neglected for two years, we demand the resignation of the previous advisory experts.
- Drawing up easily applicable concepts for the prevention and early treatment of COVID-19 and also for the inpatient and, if necessary, intensive medical treatment of severe courses.
- The dominance of one single logic, namely the virological logic, must be ended. Other aspects, such as economic, social, psychological, educational and holistic medical considerations must be included.
- Reassuring the population about sufficient medical care for all
- The media should provide wide-ranging comprehensive information, according to the ethical guidelines for journalists formulated in the Press Code, without creating fear and panic.
- Provide programmes to treat the physical and psychological trauma caused by the operations, especially for children and adolescents
- Ending the care crisis through appropriate measures
- Separation of powers, justice and freedom
Who would put their name to such complete idiocy?
You may well ask!
The members of the MWGFD are:
- Prof. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi, Facharzt für Mikrobiologie und Infektionsepidemiologie, ehem. Direktor des Instituts für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Hygiene der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
- Dr. med. Thomas Binder, Kardiologe, Vorstand Aletheia – Medizin und Wissenschaft für Verhältnismässigkeit, Wettingen, Schweiz
- Prof. Dr. med. Arne Burkhardt, Facharzt für Pathologie, Reutlingen
- Prof. Dr.-Ing. Aris Christidis, ehem. Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, Giessen Fachbereich Mathematik, Naturwissenschaften und Informatik
- Andreas Diemer, Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin und Naturheilverfahren, Diplom- Physiker, Musiker, Leiter der Akademie Lebenskunst und Gesundheit, Gernsbach
- Dr. med. univ. Dr. phil. Christian Fiala, Facharzt für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin, Tropenmedizin, Wien
- Dr. med. Heinrich Fiechtner, Hämatologe und Internistischer Onkologe, Stuttgart
- Daniela Folkinger, Psychologische Beraterin, Lehrerin, Thurmansbang
- Dr. med. Margareta Griesz-Brisson, Neurologin, London und Müllheim, BW
- Prof. Dr. med. Dr. phil. Martin Haditsch, Facharzt für Mikrobiologie, Virologie und Infektionsepidemiologie, Hannover
- Dr. Dr. Renate Holzeisen, Rechtsanwältin, Bozen
- Prof. Dr. rer. hum. biol. Ulrike Kämmerer, Humanbiologin, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg
- Prof. Dr. Christian Kreiß, Volkswirtschaftler, Hochschule Aalen
- Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner, Pädagogische Psychologie, Universität Regensburg
- Prof. Dr. med. Walter Lang, Pathologe, Hannover
- Werner Möller, Intensivpfleger und Atmungstherapeut, Stuttgart, Gründer der Initiative „Pflege für Aufklärung“
- Prof. Dr. Werner Müller, Rechnungswesen, Controlling, Steuern, Fachbereich Wirtschaft der Hochschule Mainz
- Cornelia Reichl, Heilpraktikerin, Passau
- Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Karina Reiß, Mikrobiologie, Quincke-Forschungszentrum der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
- Dr. med. Konstantina Rösch, Allgemeinärztin, Graz
- Prof. Dr. phil. Franz Ruppert, Psychotraumatologie, psychologische Psychotherapie, Psychologie, Katholische Stiftungshochschule München
- Heiko Schöning, Arzt, Hamburg
- Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Dr. rer. nat. M. Sc. Christian Schubert, Klinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck.
- Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab, Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Verfahrens- und Unternehmensrecht, Universität Bielefeld
- Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Sönnichsen, Abteilung für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin, Medizinische Universität Wien, bis Januar 2021 Vorsitzender des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin,
- Priv. Doz. Dr. med. Josef Thoma, HNO-Arzt, Berlin.
- Prof. Dr. Hans-Werner Vohr, Immunologie und Immuntoxikologie, Universität Düsseldorf.
- Prof. Dr. Dr. Daniel von Wachter, Professor für Philosophie an der Internationalen Akademie für Philosophie im Fürstentum Liechtenstein
- Prof. Dr. Harald Walach, klinischer Psychologe, Gesundheits-wissenschaftler, Leiter des Change Health Science Instituts, Berlin
- Dr. med. Ronald Weikl, Facharzt für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Praktischer Arzt, Naturheilverfahren, Passau
- Ernst Wolff, Autor, Finanzexperte und freier Journalist, Berlin
As we see, the ‘Society of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy’ does not just contain physicians and scientists but also – contrary to its name – simple non-academic loons. And, of course, an important member – the main reason for today blogging about it – it includes SCAM practitioners and – most importantly – Prof Harald Walach who has featured so regularly on this blog.
There has been much discussion recently about the best way to persuade anti-vaxxers to change their minds. As they seem completely resistant to the scientific consensus, this has so far not been an easy task. Many experts tell us that we foremost must not ridicule them. I think the ’10 demands’ show that this is also not necessary because they are so very efficient in doing that themselves.
In (some parts of) India, lay-homeopaths, i.e. homeopaths who have not been to medical school, are now allowed to administer conventional medicines. It stands to reason that this law must create problems.
It has been reported on 22/1/2022 that a ‘doctor of homeopathy’ has been arrested for allegedly administering the wrong injection to a man, which led to his death, in Madhya Pradesh’s Khandwa district, India.
Deepak Vishwakarma, who runs a clinic in Sindhi Colony, was arrested on Friday under the relevant provisions of the IPC and MP Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, the city superintendent of police, Lalit Gathre said.
The doctor’s clinic was sealed after a complaint was lodged against him for administering a wrong injection to a trader, who died two days after taking the jab, the official stated.
During the probe, the police found that Vishwakarma, a practitioner of homeopathy, had given allopathy medicines to his patient Deepak Aartani, according to Ishwar Singh Chouhan of Moghat Road police station.
Another source reported that the patient had an infection and died two days after he was allegedly administered a wrong injection by the doctor. The paper added: This is really tragic and the fact that a doctor’s mistake cost a human life is something that just cannot be acceptable. One hopes proper steps are taken the guilty are punished. It remains to be seen what action is taken as the investigation is still underway.
A third source has this additional information: A cop Ishwar Singh Chauhan told that during the investigation it came to the fore that Deepak Vishwakarma holds a homeopathy degree and had given allopathy medicines to his patient Deepak Artani, due to which the patient contracted an infection and died.
So, the details of this tragedy are scant, too scant to be conclusive. What nevertheless seems to be clear to me is that it is a thoroughly bad idea to allow people who are not medically trained to administer medicines that they do not understand.
Shiatsu is a (mostly) manual therapy that was popularised by Japanese Tokujiro Namikoshi (1905–2000). It developed out of the Chinese massage therapy, ‘tui na’. The word shiatsu means finger pressure in Japanese; however, a range of devices is also being promoted for shiatsu. The evidence that shiatsu is effective for any condition is close to non-existent.
This study aimed to investigate the effect of Shiatsu massage on agitation in mechanically ventilated patients.
A total of 68 mechanically ventilated patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in the intervention group received three 5-minute periods of Shiatsu massage with a 2-minute break between them, while patients in the control group only received a touch on the area considered for the message. Data were collected before and after the intervention using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and then analyzed.
The results showed that the level of agitation significantly decreased in the intervention group compared to the control group (p=.001).
The authors concluded that the application of shiatsu massage seems to be effective in managing agitation in mechanically ventilated patients. Further studies with greater sample size and longer follow-up period are needed to confirm the current findings.
It is good to see that, as far as I know for the first time, an attempt was made to control for placebo and other non-specific effects in a trial of shiatsu. However, in itself, the attempt is not convincing. What we need to know is whether the attempt was successful or not. Were the patients fully blinded and unable to tell the difference between verum and sham? From reading not just the abstract but the full paper, I do not get the impression that patients were successfully blinded. This means that the results might be entirely due to the effect of deblinding.
