MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

alternative therapist

The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has lost all credibility after suing Simon Singh for drawing the public’s attention to the fact that they were ‘happily promoting bogus treatments’. Now, it seems, they are trying to re-establish themselves with regular, often bogus or dubious pronouncements about back pain. It looks as though they have learnt nothing. A recent article in THE INDEPENDENT is a good example of this ambition, I think:

START OF QUOTE

Skinny jeans and coats with big fluffy hoods can contribute to painful back problems, chiropractors have warned.

Nearly three-quarters of women have experienced back pain, according to a survey by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA), who said fashionable clothing including backless shoes, oversized bags and heavy statement jewellery were partly to blame.

Wearing very tight jeans can restrict mobility and force other muscles to strain as they try to compensate for the resulting change in posture, chiropractor Rishi Loatey told The Independent.

“If they’re incredibly tight, you won’t be able to walk as you normally would,” he said.

“You’ve got a natural gait, or stride, that you would take, and the knee, hip and lower back all move to minimise the pressure coming up through the joints.

“However, if one of those areas isn’t moving as it should be, it’s going to cause more pressure elsewhere.”

While 73 per cent of women from a sample of more than 2,000 said they have had back pain, more than a quarter – 28 per cent – said they were aware their clothing affects their posture and back and neck pain, but did not take this into account when choosing what to wear.

Lower back pain is the most common cause of disability worldwide, with 9.4 per cent of people suffering from it, according to a previous study.

High heels, which cause muscles in the back of the leg and the calf to tighten and pull on the pelvis differently, have long been culprits of back pain.

A number of high-profile campaigns against “sexist” dress codes requiring women to wear high heels at work have made reference to this fact.

But backless shoes, flimsy ballet pumps and some soft boots can also damage your back if they are worn too often, said Mr Loatey.

“If you imagine the back of a shoe, the bit that goes round the back is supposed to be quite firm, so it grips the rear foot,” he said. “If you don’t have that, then your foot is more mobile in the shoe.”

“If they’re not the right size, they’re a bit loose or they don’t have the bit at the back, you’re almost gripping the shoe as you walk, which again changes the way you walk,” said Mr Loatey, adding that ideally shoes should be laced up at the front to make sure the foot is held firmly.

A third of women surveyed by the BCA were unaware that their clothing choices could harm their backs and necks.

Mr Loatey said people should try and wear clothes that allow them to move more freely. Heavy hoods and over-shoulder bags can both restrict movement.

They should also consider limiting the amount of time they spent wearing high heels or backless shoes and consider travelling to work or social events in trainers or other well-supported shoes instead, he said.

END OF QUOTE

This piece strikes me as pure promotion of chiropractic – health journalism at its worse, I’d say. What is more objectionable than the promotion, it is full of half truths, ‘alternative facts’ and pure invention. Let me list a few statements that I find particularly doggy:

  1. “Skinny jeans and coats with big fluffy hoods can contribute to painful back problems.” Do they have any evidence for this? I don’t know of any!
  2. “…fashionable clothing including backless shoes, oversized bags and heavy statement jewellery were partly to blame [for back problems].” Idem!
  3. “Wearing very tight jeans can restrict mobility and force other muscles to strain…” Idem!
  4. “…it’s going to cause more pressure elsewhere.” Idem!
  5. 28% of women said “they were aware their clothing affects their posture and back and neck pain, but did not take this into account when choosing what to wear.” To make the findings from a survey look like scientific evidence for cause and effect is at best misleading, at worst dishonest.
  6. “…according to a previous study“. It turns out that this previous study was of occupational back pain which has nothing to do with tight jeans etc.
  7. “High heels, which cause muscles in the back of the leg and the calf to tighten and pull on the pelvis differently, have long been culprits of back pain.” A link to the evidence would be nice – if there is any.
  8. “But backless shoes, flimsy ballet pumps and some soft boots can also damage your back – if they are worn too often…” Evidence needed – if there is any.
  9. “Mr Loatey said people should try and wear clothes that allow them to move more freely. Heavy hoods and over-shoulder bags can both restrict movement.” Concrete recommendations require concrete evidence or a link to it.
  10. Women “should also consider limiting the amount of time they spent wearing high heels or backless shoes and consider travelling to work or social events in trainers or other well-supported shoes instead.” Idem.

At this point congratulations are in order, I feel.

Firstly to THE INDEPENDENT for publishing one of the most inadequate health-related article which I have seen in recent months.

Secondly to the BCA for their stubborn determination to ‘happily promoting bogus’ notions. Instead of getting their act together when found out to advertise quackery in 2008, they sued Simon Singh (unsuccessfully, I hasten to add). Instead of cutting out the nonsense once and for all, they now promote populist ‘alternative facts’ about the causes of back pain. Instead of behaving like a professional organisation that promotes high standards and solid evidence, they continue to do the opposite.

One cannot but be impressed with so much intransigence.

Dana Ullman is an indefatigable promotor of bogus claims and an unwitting contributor of hilarity. Therefore he has become a regular feature of this blog (see for instance here, here and here). His latest laughable assertion is that lead and other poisonings can be successfully treated with homeopathy.

Just to make sure: lead poisoning is no joke. The greatest risk is to brain development in babies, where irreversible damage can occur. Higher levels can damage the kidneys and nervous system in both children and adults. Very high lead levels may cause seizures, unconsciousness and death.

In view of this, Ullman’s claim is surprising, to say the least. In order to persuade the unsuspecting public of his notion, Ullman first cites a review of basic research on homeopathy and toxins published in Human and Experimental Toxicology. “Of forty high-quality studies, 27 showed positive results from homeopathic treatment”, Ullman states.

Now, now, now Dana!

Has your mom not taught you that telling porkies is forbidden?

Or did you perhaps miss this line in the article’s abstract? “The quality of evidence in these studies was low with only 43% achieving one half of the maximum possible quality score and only 31% reported in a fashion that permitted re-evaluation of the data. Very few studies were independently replicated using comparable models.”

Hardly ‘high quality studies’, wouldn’t you agree?

But this review was of pre-clinical studies; what about the much more important clinical evidence?

Here Ullman cites one trial where a potentized homeopathic remedy, Arsenicum Album 30C, was administered to  55 people who were entered into a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. According to Ullman, the homeopathically treated group “experienced higher excretion of arsenic in their urine for the first eleven days, compared to those given a placebo.”

Na, na, na, Dana, this is getting serious!!!

Another porky – and not even a little one.

The authors of this study clearly stated that, at the end of the 11-day RCT, there was no significant difference between the homeopathy and the placebo group: “The differences in the concentration between the two groups (drug versus placebo) were generally a little higher during the first week, but subsequently the differences were not so palpable, particularly at the 11th day.” And for those who are a bit slow on the uptake, they even included a graph that makes it abundantly clear.

The only other clinical study cited by Ullman in support of his surprising claim is a double-blind randomized trial which was conducted with 131 workers who suffered lead poisoning at the Ajax battery plant in Bauru, São Paulo State, Brazil. Subjects were prescribed homeopathic doses of lead (Plumbum metallicum 15C) or placebo which they took orally for 35 days. The results of this RCT show that homeopathy is not better than placebo.

So, we seem to have all of two RCTs on the subject (I did a quick Medline-search and also found no further RCTs), and both are negative.

Anyone who is not given to compulsive porky-telling would, I guess, conclude from this evidence that people suffering from lead poisoning should urgently see conventional experts and avoid homeopaths at all costs – not so Dana Ullman who boldly concludes his article with these words:

“As an adjunct to conventional medical treatment, professional homeopathic care is recommended for people who have been exposed (or think they have been exposed) to toxic substances… Even if you do not have a professional homeopath in your town, many homeopathic practitioners “see” their patients via Skype or do consultations over the telephone. Unlike acupuncturists, who put needles in you, or chiropractors, who adjust your spine, homeopaths are not “hands-on”: they simply need to conduct a detailed interview… If your symptoms are serious or potentially serious, it is important to see a professional homeopath and/or physician. While a homeopath will commonly prescribe a safe homeopathic dose of the toxic substance to which one was exposed, the homeopath may instead decide that a different substance more closely matches the patient’s unique symptoms…”

It takes a lot these days to make me speechless but there, Dana, you almost succeeded!

The British Homeopathic Association (BHA) is a registered charity founded in 1902. Their objectives are “to promote and develop the study and practice of homeopathy and to advance education and research in the theory and practice of homeopathy…” and their priority is “to ensure that homeopathy is available to all…” The BHA believes that “homeopathy should be fully integrated into the healthcare system and available as a treatment choice for everyone…”

This does not bode well, in my view. Specifically, it does not seem as though we can expect unbiased information from the BHA. Yet, from a charity we certainly do not expect a packet of outright lies – so, let’s have a look.

The BHA have a website (thank you Greg for reminding me of this source; I have long known about it and used it often for lectures when wanting to highlight the state of homeopathic thinking) where they provide “THE EVIDENCE FOR HOMEOPATHY“. I find the data presented there truly remarkable, so much so that I present a crucial section from it below:

START OF QUOTE

The widely accepted method of proving whether or not a medical intervention works is called a randomised controlled trial (RCT). One group of patients, the control group, receive placebo (a “dummy” pill) or standard treatment, and another group of patients receive the medicine being tested. The trial becomes double-blinded when neither the patient nor the practitioner knows which treatment the patient is getting. RCTs are often referred to as the “gold standard” of clinical research.

Up to the end of 2014, a total of 104 papers reporting good-quality placebo-controlled RCTs in homeopathy (on 61 different medical conditions) have been published in peer-reviewed journals. 41% of these RCTs have reported a balance of positive evidence, 5% a balance of negative evidence, and 54% have not been conclusively positive or negative. For full details of all these RCTs and more in-depth information on the research in general, visit the research section of the Faculty of Homeopathy’s website. Also, see 2-page evidence summary with full references.

END OF QUOTE

Impressive!

But is it true?

Let’s have a closer look at the percentage figures: according to the BHA

  • 41% of all RCT are positive,
  • 5% are negative,
  • 54% are inconclusive.

These numbers are hugely important because they are being cited regularly across the globe as one of the most convincing bit of evidence to date in support of homeopathy. If they were true, many more RCT would be positive than negative. They would, in fact, constitute a strong indicator suggesting that homeopathic remedies are more than placebos.

One does not need to look far to find that these figures are clearly not correct! To disclose the ‘mistake’, we do not even need to study any of the 104 RCTs in question, we only need to straighten out the BHA’s ‘accounting error’ and ask: what on earth is an ‘inconclusive’ RCT?

A positive RCT obviously is one where homeopathy generated better outcomes than the placebo; similarly a negative RCT is one where the opposite was the case; in other words, where the placebo generated better outcomes than homeopathy. But what is an ‘inconclusive’ RCT? It turns out that, according to the BHA, it is one where there was no significant difference between the results obtained with placebo and homeopathy.

WHAT???

Yes, you understood correctly!

Outside homeopathy such RCTs are categorised as negative studies – they fail to show that homeopathy out-performs placebo and therefore confirm the null-hypothesis. An RCT is a test of the null-hypothesis (the experimental treatment is not better than the control) and can only confirm or reject this hypothesis. Certainly finding that the experimental treatment is not better than the control is not inconclusive bit a confirmation of the null-hypothesis. In other words it is a negative result.

So, let’s look at the little BHA – statistic again, and this time let’s do the accounting properly:

  • 41% of all RCTs are positive,
  • 59% are negative.

This means that, according to this very simplistic method, the majority of RCTs is negative. I say ‘very simplistic’ because, for a proper analysis of the trial evidence, we need to account, of course, for the quality of each trial. If the quality of the positive RCTs is, on average, less rigorous than that of the negative RCTs, the overall result would become yet more clearly negative. Most assessments of homeopathy that consider this essential factor do, in fact, confirm that this is the case.

Once all this has been analysed properly, we still have to account for factors like publication bias. Negative trials get often not published and therefore the overall picture gets easily distorted and generates a false-positive image. At the end of a sound evaluation along these lines, the result would fail to show that homeopathy differs from placebo.

Regardless of all these necessary and important considerations, the BHA website then tells us that the RCT method is problematic when it comes to testing homeopathy: “The RCT model of measuring efficacy of a drug poses some challenges for homeopathic research. In homeopathy, treatment is usually tailored to the individual. A homeopathic prescription is based not only on the symptoms of disease in the patient but also on a host of other factors that are particular to that patient, including lifestyle, emotional health, personality, eating habits and medical history. The “efficacy” of an individualised homeopathic intervention is thus a complex blend of the prescribed medicine together with the other facets of the in-depth consultation and integrated health advice provided by the practitioner; under these circumstances, the specific effect of the homeopathic medicine itself may be difficult to quantify with precision in RCTs.”

What are they trying to say here?

I am not sure.

Are they perhaps claiming that, even if an independent scientist disclosed their ‘accounting error’ and demonstrated that, in fact, the RCT evidence fails to support homeopathy, the BHA would still argue that homeopathy works?

I think so!

It looks to me that the BHA is engaged in the currently popular British past-time: THEY WANT THE CAKE AND EAT IT.

All this is more than a little disturbing, and I think it begs several questions:

  • Is this type of behaviour in keeping with the charitable status of the BHA?
  • Does it really ‘promote and develop the study and practice of homeopathy and to advance education and research’?
  • Is it not rather unethical to mislead the public in such a gross and dishonest fashion?
  • Is it not fraudulent to insist on false accounting?

I would be interested to get your views on this.

Homeopathy is never far from my mind, it seems. and this is reflected by the many posts on the subject that I continue to publish. Homeopaths get more than a little irritated by what they see as my ‘obsession’ with their beloved therapy. They thus try anything – yes, I mean anything – to undermine my credibility. One very popular way of doing this is to claim that I am sitting in the ‘ivory tower’ of academia and have no real inkling of the life on the ‘coal face’ of healthcare.

Because this is an argument that I find difficult to counter – I have indeed not routinely seen patients for over 20 years! – I was immensely pleased to read this article by an Australian GP. I take the liberty of quoting a section from it below:

START OF QUOTE

…An intricate web of lies protects the pernicious practice of homeopathy in Australia. Homeopathy is one of the most widespread disciplines of alternative medicines, with an estimated one million Australian consumers. It’s very popular. It also doesn’t work. At all. No better than a sugar pill, anyway. Turns out, vials of homeopathic remedies are chemically indistinguishable from water. Numerous international investigations and a scientific review of over 1800 studies by the National Medical Health Research Council could not be clearer: there is zero evidence that homeopathy is an effective treatment for medical conditions.

And yet the practice of homeopathy in Australia goes largely unchecked. The industry is overwhelmingly self-regulated by its own board, lending it an undue air of legitimacy. Meanwhile homeopaths advertise their ability to treat everything from autism to haemorrhoids with near impunity. Most obscenely, homeopathic therapies attract rebates under private health insurance policies that are funded by public taxes.

The justifications for allowing homeopathy are convoluted. One of the most common defences is that if the remedies truly are ineffective vials of water, then they are harmless. This is perhaps the most toxic myth about these therapies. Giving people a false cure for real symptoms is dangerous, because it delays correct diagnosis and treatment.

As a general practitioner I have observed the consequences of this in practice, seeing patients of homeopaths with conditions ranging from undiagnosed autoimmune disorders to mistreated blood pressure. These experiences mirror more notorious incidents – one West Australian coronial inquest in 2005 revealed a case where a homeopath treated rectal cancer, leading to the patient’s death. In 2009, a nine-month-old child with severe eczema was treated by her homeopath father who was later found guilty of manslaughter by denying her conventional medical care.

These are the kind of horror stories that prompt bureaucracies into symbolic action. Enter the Victorian Health Complaints Commission: a brand new watchdog unveiled last week to reign in, as Premier Daniel Andrews called them, “dodgy health providers”. The idea is that “health service providers” in Victoria, whether officially registered or not, will have to follow a general code of conduct. Included in this category are all homeopaths, and practitioners of other completely debunked practices such as reiki and iridology. The idea seems good on paper. The new code demands practitioners are truthful about their treatments, and act in the patient’s best interest. But here’s the catch – the commission will only take action on complaints lodged against individual practitioners.

This system is clearly geared towards only chasing a handful of rogue practitioners. But the problem isn’t a few rogue practitioners – it’s entirely rogue industries. The discipline of homeopathy, by its very nature, is untruthful.

Perhaps we can begin by following the lead of the United States, where the Federal Trade Council has ruled that homeopathic medicine labels must state that there is no scientific evidence backing homeopathic health claims. You have to admit, it’s bold stuff. It leaves our ACCC looking quite impotent. Real change requires the kind of courage that is in short supply.

That’s what it comes down to – cowardice. Homeopathy, along with an array of debunked complementary and alternative health disciplines, are tolerated by authorities to avoid an inconvenient confrontation. They let it slide to avoid upsetting delusional practitioners, misinformed customers, and anyone profiting from the practice. The presence of disproved medicines has insidiously embedded itself so deeply into our culture that curtailing a false cure is a huge political risk. So the status quo prevails, lest we rock the boat. Never mind that it’s heading straight down a waterfall.

END OF QUOTE

This clearly is a deeply felt and well-expressed article. It reiterates what we have regularly been trying to get across on this blog. But it is much better than anything I could ever contribute to the subject; it comes from someone who encounters the ‘pernicious practice of homeopathy’ on a regular basis and who knows about the harm it can do.

All I need to add is this: WELL DONE DOCTOR VYOM  SHARMA!

We use too many opioids; some experts even speak of an epidemic of opioid over-use. This is a serious problem not least because opioids are addictive and have other serious adverse-effects. But what can be done about it? Currently many experts are trying to answer this very questions.

It must be clear to any observer of the ‘alternative medicine scene’ that charlatans of all types would sooner or later try to jump on the ‘opioid band-waggon’.  And indeed exactly this has already happened!

In particular, chiropractors have been busy in this respect. For instance, Alison Dantas, CEO, Canadian Chiropractic Association (CCA) has been quoted in a press-release by the CCA stating that “Chiropractic services are an important alternative to opioid prescribing… We are committed to working collaboratively to develop referral tools and guidelines for prescribing professions that can help to prioritize non-pharmacological approaches for pain management and reduce the pressure to prescribe… We are looking to build an understanding of how to better integrate care that is already available in communities across Canada… Integrating chiropractors into interprofessional care teams has been shown to reduce the use of pharmacotherapies and improve overall health outcomes. This effort is even more important now because the new draft Canadian prescribing guidelines strongly discourage first use of opioids.”

I find it hard to call this by any other name than ‘CHIROPRACTIC MEGALOMANIA’.

Do chiropractors really believe that their spinal manipulations can serve as an ‘alternative to opioid prescribing’?

Do they not know that there is considerable doubt over the efficacy of chiropractic manipulation for back pain?

Do they not know that, for all other indications, the evidence is even worse or non-existent?

Do they really think they are in a position to ‘develop referral tools and guidelines for prescribing professions’?

Do they forget that their profession has never had prescribing rights, understands almost nothing about pharmacology, and is staunchly against drugs of all kinds?

Do they really believe there is good evidence showing that ‘integrating chiropractors into interprofessional care teams… reduce(s) the use of pharmacotherapies and improve overall health outcomes’?

Personally, I cannot imagine so.

Personally, I fear that, if they do believe all this, they suffer from megalomania.

Personally, I think, however, that their posturing is little more than yet another attempt to increase their cash-flow.

Personally, I get the impression that they rate their income too far above public health.

 

Yes, homeopaths are incredibly fond of the notion that homeopathy has been proven to work in numerous population studies of outbreaks of infectious diseases. The argument is bound to come up in any discussion with a ‘well-informed’ homeopathy fan. Therefore, it might be worth addressing it once and for all.

This website offers a fairly good summary of what homeopaths consider to be convincing evidence. It also provides links to the original articles which is valuable for all who want to study them in full detail. I will therefore present the crucial passage here unchanged.

START OF QUOTE

By the end of year 2014, there have been 19 papers published on Epidemiological studies on 7 epidemic diseases (scarlet fever, typhus fever, Cholera, Dengue, meningococcal, influenza and Leptospirosis) in 11 peer-reviewed (beyond year 1893) journals in evidence of Homeopathy including 2 Randomised Controlled Trials.

1. Samuel Hahnemann, “The Cure and prevention of scarlet fever”, Zeitschrift für Praktischen Medizin (Journal of Practical Medicine), 1801, Republished in Lesser Writings. B.Jain Publishing, New Delhi

Preventive use of homeopathy was first applied in 1799 during an epidemic of scarlet fever in Königslütter, Germany, when Dr. Hahnemann prescribed a single dose of Belladonna, as the remedy of the genus epidemicus to susceptible children in the town with more than 95% success rate. In this paper, he also specified how the Belladonna has to be potentised to 1/24,000,000 dilution. His recommended dose of Belladonna was 0.0416 nanograms to be repeated every 72 hrs. This is the first recorded nano dose of medicine used in treatment of any disease [6]. It was another 125 years before Gladys Henry and George Frederick developed a vaccine for scarlet fever in 1924.

2. Samuel Hahnemann, “Scarlet fever and Purpura miliaris, two different diseases”, Zeitschrift für Praktischen Medizin, vol. 24, part. 1, 1806

3. Samuel Hahnemann, “Observations on scarlet fever”, Allgemeine Reichanzeiger (General Reich Gazette), No. 160, Germany, 1808

4. Samuel Hahnemann, “Reply to a question about the prophylactic for scarlet fever”, Zeitschrift für Praktischen Medizin, vol. 27, part. 4, p. 152-156, 1808

5. Samuel Hahnemann, “Treatment of typhus & fever at present prevailing”, Allgemeine Reichanzeiger, No. 6, Jan. 1814.

6. Hufeland, Prophylactic powers of Belladonna against Scarlet Fever , The Lancet, 1829
The proper use of belladonna has, in most cases, prevented infection. Numerous observations have shown that, by the general use of belladonna, epidemics of scarlet fever have actually been arrested. In those few instances where the use of belladonna was insufficient to prevent infection, the disease has been invariably slight. The Prussian (German Empire) Government ordered the use of the prophylactic during all scarlet fever epidemics

7. Samuel Hahnemann, “Cure and prevention of Asiatic cholera”, Archiv für die homöopathische Heilkunst (Archives for the Homoeopathic Healing Art), Vol. 11, part 1, 1831.
Cuprum 30c once every week as preventive medicine

8. Samuel Hahnemann, “On the contagiousness of cholera”. British Homoeopathic Journal, Vol. 7, 1849

9. Samuel Hahnemann, “Appeal to Thinking Philanthropists Respecting the Mode of Propagation of the Asiatic Cholera”, 20 pages, 1831. Republished in British Homoeopathic Journal, Oct 1849.

He said, “On board ships – in those confined spaces, filled with mouldy watery vapours, the cholera-miasm finds a favourable element for its multiplication, and grows into an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures, so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists millions of those miasmatic animated beings, which, at first developed on the broad marshy banks or the tepid Ganges– on board these ships, I say, this concentrated aggravated miasm kills several of the crew …” [7].
It was another 59 years (1890) before Koch saw these organisms, and later on orthodox medicine gave them the name ‘germs’

10. Charles Woodhull Eaton, The Facts about Variolinum, Transactions of the American Institute of Homoeopathy, 1907
2806 patients were treated prophylactically with Variolinum 30 (a nosode) for prevention of smallpox in Iowa. Of the 547 patients definitely exposed, only 14 developed the disease. Efficacy rate of 97.5%

11. Taylor Smith A, Poliomyelitis and prophylaxis British Homoeopathic Journal, 1950
In 1950 during an epidemic of poliomyelitis, Dr Taylor Smith of Johannesburg, South Africa protected 82 people with homoeopathic Lathyrus sativus. Of the 82 so immunised, 12 came into direct contact with disease. None were infected.

12. Oscillococcinum 200c in the treatment of influenza during epidemic in France from 1984-1987, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (1989)
A DBRPCT, Oscillococcinum 200c taken twice daily for 5 days significantly increased the rate of cure within two days (n=487, 237 treated and 241 on placebo), absence of symptoms at 48 hours, relative risk estimate significantly favour homeopathy (p=0.048), no pain and no fever (p=0.048), recovery rate (headache, stiffness, articular pain, shivering reduction) at 48 hours better in homeopathy group (p=0.032)

13. Bernard Leary, Cholera 1854 Update, British Homoeopathic Journal, 1994
Sir William Wilde, the well-known allopathic doctor of Dublin, which in his work entitled “Austria and its Institutions”, wrote: “Upon comparing the report of the treatment of Cholera in the Homeopathic hospital testified to by two allopathic medical inspectors appointed by Government with that of the treatment of the same disease in the other hospitals of Vienna during the same period the epidemic of 1836, it appeared that while two-thirds of the cases treated by Dr. Fleischmann the physician of the Homeopathic hospital, recovered, two-thirds of those treated by the ordinary methods in the other hospitals died.”

14. Meningococcinum – its protective effect against meningococcal disease, Homeopathy Links, 2001 (2001)
A total of 65,826 people between the ages of 0–20 were immunised homeopathically to protect against meningococcal disease while 23,532 were not. Over a year period, 4 out of 65,826 protected homeopathically developed meningococcal infection. 20 out of 23,532 not protected developed meningococcal infection. Based on the infection rate in the unprotected group, 58 cases of infection could have been expected in the homeopathically protected group. Instead, there were only four cases of meningococcal infection. Statistical analysis showed that homeopathic immunisation offered 95% protection in the first six months and 91% protection over the year against meningococcal disease. [8]

15. Contribution of homeopathy to the control of an outbreak of dengue epidemic in Macaé, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 2007-8 , International Journal of High Dilution Research, 2008
In a campaign ‘Homeopathy campaign against dengue’ by Brazilian Govt, “156,000 doses of homeopathic remedy were freely distributed in April and May 2007 to asymptomatic patients and 129 doses to symptomatic patients treated in outpatient clinics, according to the notion of genus epidemicus . The remedy used was a homeopathic complex against dengue containing Phosphorus 30c, Crotalus horridus 30c and Eupatorium perfoliatum 30c. The incidence of the disease in the first three months of 2008 fell 93% by comparison to the corresponding period in 2007, whereas in the rest of the State of Rio de Janeiro there was an increase of 128%.”

16. Marino R. Eupatorium perfoliatum 30c for the Dengue Epidemics in Brazil in 2007. International Journal of High Dilution Research, 2008
In May 2001, prophylactic use of Eupatorium perfoliatum 30c single dose was given during a dengue outbreak to 40% of residents in the most highly affected neighbourhood which resulted in significant decrease in dengue incidence by 81.5% (p<0.0001) when compared with those neighbourhoods that did not receive homeopathic prophylaxis.

17. Bracho et. al. Application of 200C potency of bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control in Cuba 2007-8 (2010)
Conducted by the Finlay Institute, a vaccines producer in Cuba gave 2.308562 million (70% of the target population above the age of 1 year) people in Cuba given two doses (1 dose=5 drops) of 200C potency of a nosode prepared from Leptospirosis bacteria, each (7-9 days apart), for protection against Leptospirosis (fever+jaundice+ inflammation in kidney+enlargement of spleen) with 84% decrease in disease incidence and only 10 reported cases. Dramatic decrease in morbidity within two weeks and zero morbidity of hospitalised patients, non-treated (8.8 millions) area saw an increase in number of cases from 309 cases in 2007 to 376 in 2008 representing a 21% increase. The cost of homeopathic immunization =1/15th of conventional vaccine.

18. Effect of individualized homoeopathic treatment in influenza like illness, Indian Journal of Research in Homeopathy (2013)
A multicenter, single blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to evaluate the effect of homoeopathic medicines in the treatment of Influenza like illness and to compare the efficacy of LM (50 millisimal) potency vis-à-vis centesimal (C) potency. In LM group (n=152), C group (n=147) or placebo (n=148) group. The study revealed the significant effect of individualized homoeopathic treatment in the patients suffering from ILI with no marked difference between LM and Centesimal groups. The medicines which were commonly prescribed were: Arsenic album, Bryonia alba, Rhus tox., Belladonna, Nux vomica, Sepia, Phosphorus, Gelsemium, Sulphur, Natrum mur. and Aconitum napellus. [9]

19. Reevaluation of the Effectiveness of Homoeoprophylaxis Against Leptospirosis in Cuba in 2007-8, Journal of Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (2014)
The results support the previous conclusions that homoeoprophylaxis can be used to effectively immunize people against targeted infectious diseases such as leptospirosis.

References
[1] Iman Navab, Lives saved by Homeopathy in Epidemics and Pandemics, https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/epidemics-and-pandemics/

[2] Reshu Agarwal, Natural History of Disease and Homeopathy at different levels of Intervention, http://www.homeorizon.com/homeopathic-articles/homeopathic-philosophy/disease-history

[3] Homoeopathy- Science of Gentle Healing, Deptt. of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt, of India, 2013, http://www.ccrhindia.org/Dossier/content/page22.html

[4] Conversation with David Little, http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/conversations-with-david-little/

[5] Nancy Malik, Principles of Homeopathy Explained, 2015, https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/homeopathy-explained/

[6] Nancy Malik, Recent Advances in Nanoparticle Research in Homeopathy, Homeopathy 4 Everyone, Vol.12, Issue 6, 18 June 2015, http://hpathy.com/scientific-research/recent-advances-in-nanoparticle-research-in-homeopathy/

[7] Samuel Hahnemann, “Appeal to Thinking Philanthropists Respecting the Mode of Propagation of the Asiatic Cholera”, 20 pages, 1831, Translated by R E Dudgeon, M.D. in The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann, 1851, B Jain Publishers, reproduced edition, 2002, p. 758

[8] Fran Sheffield, Homeoprophylaxis: Human Records, Studies and Trials, 2014, http://homeopathyplus.com/Homeoprophylaxis-Human-Records-Studies-Trials.pdf

[9] Homoeopathy in Flu-like Illness- Factsheet, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Deptt. of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt, of India, 2015, http://ccrhindia.org/pdf/swineflu.pdf

END OF QUOTE

Whenever I read articles of this nature, I get a little embarrassed. It seems obvious to me that the authors of such reviews have done some ‘research’ and believe strongly in the correctness in what they write. It embarrasses me to see how such people, full of good will, can be so naïve, ignorant and wrong. They clearly fail to understand several crucial issues. To me. this seems like someone such as me lecturing others about car mechanics, quantum physics or kite flying. I have no idea about these subjects, and therefore it would be idiotic to lecture others about them. But homeopaths tend to be different! And this is when my embarrassment quickly turns into anger: articles like the above spread nonsense and misguide people about important issues. THEY ARE DANGEROUS! There is little room for embarrassment and plenty of room for criticism. So, let’s criticise the notions advanced above.

In my recent book, I briefly touched upon epidemics in relation to homeopathy:

Epidemics are outbreaks of disease occurring at the same time in one geographical area and affecting large number of people. In homeopathy, epidemics are important because, in its early days, they seemed to provide evidence for the notion that homeopathy is effective. The results of homeopathic treatment seemed often better than those obtained by conventional means. Today we know that this was not necessarily due to the effects of homeopathy per se, but might have been a false impression caused by bias and confounding.

This tells us the main reason why the much-treasured epidemiological evidence of homeopaths is far from compelling. The review above does not mention these caveats at all. But it is lousy also for a whole host of other reasons, for instance:

  • The text contains several errors (which I find too petty to correct here).
  • The list of studies is the result of cherry-picking the evidence.
  • It confuses what epidemiological studies are; RCTs are certainly not epidemiological studies, for instance.
  • It also omits some of the most important epidemiological studies suggesting homeopathy works.
  • It cites texts that are clearly not epidemiological studies.
  • Several studies are on prevention of illness rather than on treatment.
  • Some studies do not even employ homeopathy at all.

In the typical epidemiological case/control study, one large group of patients [A] is retrospectively compared to another group [B]. By large, I mean with a sample size of thousands of patients. In our case, group A has been treated homeopathically, while group B received the treatments available at the time. It is true that several of such reports seemed to suggest that homeopathy works. But this does by no means prove anything; the result might have been due to a range of circumstances, for instance:

  • group A might have been less ill than group B,
  • group A might have been richer and therefore better nourished,
  • group A might have benefitted from better hygiene in the homeopathic hospital,
  • group A might have received better care, e. g. hydration,
  • group B might have received treatments that made the situation not better but worse.

Because these are RETROSPECTIVE studies, there is no way to account for these and many other factors that might have influenced the outcome. This means that epidemiological studies of this nature can generate interesting results which, in turn, need testing in properly controlled studies where these confounding factors are adequately controlled for. Without such tests, they are next to worthless for recommendations regarding clinical practice.

As it happens, the above author also included two RCT in the review (these are NOT epidemiological studies, as I already mentioned). Let’s have a quick look at them.

The first RCT is flawed for a range of reasons and has been criticised many times before. Even its authors state that “the result cannot be explained given our present state of knowledge, but it calls for further rigorously designed clinical studies.” More importantly, the current Cochrane review of Oscillococcinum, the remedy used in this study, concluded: “There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness.”

The second RCT is equally flawed; for instance, its results could be due to the concomitant use of paracetamol, and it seems as though the study was not double blind. The findings of this RCT have so far not been confirmed by an independent replication.

What puzzles me most with these regularly voiced notions about the ‘epidemiological evidence’ for homeopathy is not the deplorable ineptitude of those who promote them, but it is this: do homeopaths really believe that conventional medics and scientists would ignore such evidence, if it were sound or even just encouraging? This assumes that all healthcare professionals (except homeopaths) are corrupt and cynical enough not to follow up leads with the potential to change medicine for ever. It assumes that we would supress knowledge that could save the lives of millions for the sole reason that we are against homeopathy or bribed by ‘BIG PHARMA’.

Surely, this shows more clearly than anything else how deluded homeopaths really are!!!

 

Nobody really likes to be criticised; it can be painful. Painful but often necessary! Criticism produces progress. Criticism is therefore important. So, let’s think about criticism for a moment.

Obviously I am not talking of criticism such as ‘YOU ARE AN IDIOT’. In fact, that’s not criticism at all; it’s an insult. I am also not thinking about criticism like ‘YOUR ARGUMENT IS IDIOTIC’. I prefer to focus on criticism that is constructive, well-argued and based on evidence.

In healthcare, there is plenty of that type of criticism – luckily, I hasten to add. Its aim is to improve healthcare of the future. We need criticism to make progress. Without it, things come to a standstill or regress. This is why all the major medical journals are full of it, and many medical conferences are entirely or partly focussed on such aspects . For instance, frequently-cited papers in the BMJ, Lancet, NEJM, etc. point out that:

  • much of the current medical research is unreliable,
  • many therapies in current use have severe adverse effects,
  • patients frequently do not get the optimal treatment in a timely fashion,
  • modern medicine is too often inhumane.

The hope is that by disclosing these and many other deficits, appropriate actions can be found and taken to improve the situation and make progress. This process is hardly ever straight forward. All too often it is slow, inadequate and impeded by logistic and other obstacles. Therefore, it is crucial that constructive criticism continues to be voiced. Many clinicians, researchers and other experts have dedicated their lives to this very task.

Now, let’s look at the realm of alternative medicine.

There is certainly not less to criticise here than in conventional medicine. So, are all the journals of alternative medicine full of criticism of alternative medicine? Are there regular conferences focussed on criticism? Are alternative practitioners keen to hear about the weaknesses of their beliefs, practice, etc.?

The short answer is, no!

Yet, advocates of alternative medicine are, of course, not adverse to voicing criticism. In fact, they criticise almost non stop – at least this is the impression I get from reading their comments on this blog and from continually discussing with them since 1993.

But there is a fundamental difference: they criticise (often rightly) conventional medicine, and they criticise those (sometimes rightly) who criticise alternative medicine. When it comes to criticising their own practices, however, there is an almost deafening silence.

In my view, these differences between alternative and conventional medicine are far from trivial. In conventional medicine:

  • There is a long tradition of criticism.
  • Criticism is published and discussed prominently.
  • Criticism is usually well-accepted.
  • Criticism is often taken on board and appropriate action follows.
  • Criticism thus can and often does lead to progress.

By contrast, in alternative medicine almost nothing of the above ever happens. Criticism is directed almost exclusively towards those who are outside the realm. Criticism from the inside is as good as non-existent.

The consequences of this situation are easy to see for everyone, and they can be dramatic:

  • The journals of alternative medicine publish nothing that could be perceived to be negative for the practice of alternative medicine.
  • Self-critical thinking has no tradition and has remained an almost alien concept.
  • The very few people from the ‘inside’ who dare to criticise alternative practices are ousted and/or declared to be incompetent or worse.
  • No action is taken to initiate change.
  • The assumptions of alternative medicine remain unaltered for centuries.
  • Progress is all but absent.

It is time that the world of alternative medicine finally understands that constructive criticism is a necessary step towards progress!

I am sure this  FDA press-release will interest many readers (we reported about this case before):

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that its laboratory analysis found inconsistent amounts of belladonna, a toxic substance, in certain homeopathic teething tablets, sometimes far exceeding the amount claimed on the label. The agency is warning consumers that homeopathic teething tablets containing belladonna pose an unnecessary risk to infants and children and urges consumers not to use these products.

In light of these findings, the FDA contacted Standard Homeopathic Company in Los Angeles, the manufacturer of Hyland’s homeopathic teething products, regarding a recall of its homeopathic teething tablet products labeled as containing belladonna, in order to protect consumers from inconsistent levels of belladonna. At this time, the company has not agreed to conduct a recall. The FDA recommends that consumers stop using these products marketed by Hyland’s immediately and dispose of any in their possession. In November 2016, Raritan Pharmaceuticals (East Brunswick, New Jersey) recalled three belladonna-containing homeopathic products, two of which were marketed by CVS.

“The body’s response to belladonna in children under two years of age is unpredictable and puts them at unnecessary risk,” said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. ”We recommend that parents and caregivers not give these homeopathic teething tablets to children and seek advice from their health care professional for safe alternatives.”

Homeopathic teething products have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safety or effectiveness. The agency is unaware of any proven health benefit of the products, which are labeled to relieve teething symptoms in children. In September 2016, the FDA warned against the use of these products after receiving adverse event reports.

Consumers should seek medical care immediately if their child experiences seizures, difficulty breathing, lethargy, excessive sleepiness, muscle weakness, skin flushing, constipation, difficulty urinating, or agitation after using homeopathic teething products.

The FDA encourages health care professionals and consumers to report adverse events or quality problems experienced with the use of homeopathic teething products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program:

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The Agency is also responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

END OF PRESS RELEASE

Well, this will be irritating to many homeopathy-fans, not least to our friend Dana Ullman. He likes to publish articles alleging that the US authorities have recently taken to being ever so unfair to the homeopathic industry. I commented recently on his paper entitled “Extreme Bias in FTC’s Ruling on Homeopathic Medicine” where he displays the well-known biases and ignorance of his trade in exemplary fashion, including the often firm anti-vaccination stance of homeopaths. Dana can also not resist claiming that ‘the Swiss government’s “Health Technology Assessment” on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date’ and – how could it be otherwise? – is sufficient proof that homeopathy works.

In case you believe in what Ullman says, you ought to read the intriguing evidence about Ullman after being called as an expert witness in an US class action. On this occasion, the judge stated:

The Defendant presented the testimony of Gregory Dana Ullman who is a homeopathic practitioner. He outlined the theory of homeopathic treatment and presented his opinion as to the value and effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy. He posted on Twitter that he views conventional medicine as witchcraft. He opined that conventional medical science cannot be trusted.
[…]
Mr. Ullman’s testimony was unhelpful in understanding the purported efficacy of the ingredients of SnoreStop to reduce the symptoms of snoring. Although he is familiar with the theory of homeopathic treatment, his opinions regarding its effectiveness was unsupported and biased. The Court gave no weight to his testimony.(Rosendez v. Green Pharmaceuticals)

Say no more!

Mike Cummings recently stated on this blog “I’m not into blog banter.” Is he perhaps referring to some ‘alternative facts’? The truth seems to be that he blogs happily, regularly and – I am sad to say – disgracefully. This is a quote from his new post about the discussions regarding an acupuncture trial which was in the press a few days ago, (and also has been discussed on this blog):

START OF QUOTE

So there has been a big response to this paper press released by BMJ on behalf of the journal Acupuncture in Medicine. The response has been influenced by the usual characters – retired professors who are professional bloggers and vocal critics of anything in the realm of complementary medicine. They thrive on oiling up and flexing their EBM muscles for a baying mob of fellow sceptics (see my ‘stereotypical mental image’ here). Their target in this instant is a relatively small trial on acupuncture for infantile colic.[1] Deserving of being press released by virtue of being the largest to date in the field, but by no means because it gave a definitive answer to the question of the efficacy of acupuncture in the condition. We need to wait for an SR where the data from the 4 trials to date can be combined. On this occasion I had the pleasure of joining a short segment on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 led by John Humphreys. My protagonist was the ever-amusing David Colquhoun (DC), who spent his short air-time complaining that the journal was even allowed to be published in the first place. You can learn all about DC care of Wikipedia – he seems to have a surprisingly long write up for someone whose profession career was devoted to single ion channels, perhaps because a significant section of the page is devoted to his activities as a quack-busting blogger. So why would BBC Radio 4 invite a retired basic scientist and professional sceptic blogger to be interviewed alongside one of the journal editors – a clinician with expertise in acupuncture (WMA)? At no point was it made manifest that only one of the two had ever been in a position to try to help parents with a baby that they think cries excessively. Of course there are a lot of potential causes of excessive crying, but I am sure DC would agree that it is unlikely to be attributable to a single ion channel…

END OF QUOTE

I encourage everyone to read Cummings post in full; it’s full of surprises. Here I just want to comment very briefly why I find his post disgraceful (the Cummings quotes are in bold followed by my comments):

….usual characters….. Disrespectful to the point of being derogatory, in my view

….retired professors….. Not true, non-retired professionals commented as well

….professional bloggers…. Meaning people who earn their income by blogging? Certainly not true!

….vocal critics of anything in the realm of complementary medicine…. Critic not of ‘anything’ but merely of things that are false or misleading like the trial in question

….a baying mob of fellow sceptics…. Unquestionably meant to be insulting and arguably libelous

….Deserving of being press released by virtue of being the largest to date in the field…. Large is not necessarily a virtue that merits a press-release, particularly, if it is not matched with quality

….We need to wait for an SR where the data from the 4 trials to date can be combined…. More than doubtful that we ‘need to wait’. The 4 trials in question are all very weak and therefore cannot provide a firm answer via a systematic review

….the ever-amusing David Colquhoun…. Derogatory to the extreme

….why would BBC Radio 4 invite a retired basic scientist and professional sceptic blogger…. The answer could be because he understands science and has vast experience exposing false claims

….only one of the two had ever been in a position to try to help parents with a baby that they think cries excessively…. This does not necessarily mean that such a person understands science, and Cummings might even be an example for this

….is unlikely to be attributable to a single ion channel…. Even Cummings’ attempts at humour are quite appalling.

 

The comments of Dr Mike Cummings MB ChB Dip Med Ac, I am afraid, befit an ill-educated acupuncturist who feels personally hurt because his views have been challenged and who is not quite bright enough to have a rational discussion about his favourite subject, particularly with someone who has a superior grasp of the issues at hand (which are clearly not ‘how to stick a needle in a baby’). However, Cummings is not a simple acupuncturist; he happens to be a member of the medical profession, a medical director of the British Medical Acupuncture Society and (as he seems keen to point out) a journal editor. With these credentials, he should, in my view, be able to argue a bit more intelligently, truthfully and a lot more gracefully.

Sad, really!

One could almost think he wants to give acupuncture a bad name!!!

Why has homeopathy such a bad name?

Why have the most ardent defenders of homeopathy become the laughing stock of the science community?

Why is there, after >200 years., still no proof of homeopathy’s efficacy?

Why is there not more research into homeopathy?

Why is there not more money in homeopathy?

Why is there so much opposition to homeopathy?

Nothing to do, of course, with the fact that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. No, no, no! It is because BIG PHARMA is doing everything they can to supress homeopathy!!! They have no choice: if the good news about homeopathy would go any further, they would go bankrupt.

On this blog, we have heard such ludicrous notions regularly. Homeopaths seem to believe that, according homeopathy’s ‘like cures like’ principle, their ‘alternative facts’ can be converted into real facts.

The homeopathic industry tries very hard to keep the image of the poor little victim, while, in fact, it is not really much different from the pharmaceutical industry. This is, of course, what we have been pointing out repeatedly on this blog; yet somehow the message does not seem to get across to many homeopaths. Perhaps this excellent comment by Thomas Mohr (I don’t know who he is) might be more successful:

“…homeopathic companies work exactly like any other pharmaceutical company to the point that homeopathic companies can patent homeopathic drugs and do that. The reason why this is not extensively used in the field of homeopathy is not the impossibility, but the necessity to provide at least feasible examples of efficacy with the patent application – which fails in most cases.

If one looks at the balance of Boiron, one of the largest manufacturers of homeopathic drugs one notes that the profit is comparable, if not higher than any pharmaceutical company (e.g. Pfitzer, etc.) but research costs are one tenth. That means that homeopathic companies have a far lower risk to benefit ratio while yielding the same profit. The same time pharmaceutical companies have a high failure rate (e.g. substances screened to drugs marketable) whereas the failure rate of homeopathic companies is almost zero. I.o.W. investing into homeopathic companies is far safer than into pharmaceutical companies. No company would try to destroy a low risk : benefit concurrent. A company would try to purchase it. Why is that not done with homeopathic companies ? Because the market is very limited due to the ineffectiveness of the drugs.

The comment was prompted by an article of Dana Ullman entitled “Extreme Bias in FTC’s Ruling on Homeopathic Medicine” where he, yet again, displays his well-known biases and ignorance. There you can, if you want, read all the misconceptions and stupidities about homeopathy you ever need to know about. They include the firm anti-vaccination stance of deluded homeopaths, and the fact that Dana can never resist claiming that ‘the Swiss government’s “Health Technology Assessment” on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date’ and – how could it be otherwise? – is sufficient proof that homeopathy works.

Personally, I also find certain temptations too difficult to resist – like citing the intriguing evidence on Ullman being called as an expert witness in a class action against a homeopathy vendor for misleading marketing claims. On this occasion, the judge stated:

The Defendant presented the testimony of Gregory Dana Ullman who is a homeopathic practitioner. He outlined the theory of homeopathic treatment and presented his opinion as to the value and effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy. He posted on Twitter that he views conventional medicine as witchcraft. He opined that conventional medical science cannot be trusted.
[…]
Mr. Ullman’s testimony was unhelpful in understanding the purported efficacy of the ingredients of SnoreStop to reduce the symptoms of snoring. Although he is familiar with the theory of homeopathic treatment, his opinions regarding its effectiveness was unsupported and biased. The Court gave no weight to his testimony.(Rosendez v. Green Pharmaceuticals)

Ullman is a rich source of ‘alternative facts’. For the ral facts about homeopathy, however, I should direct you elsewhere (for instance, here) and, if I may, to my latest book.

 

 

*** another thing I cannot not resist is to use this new term (recently coined by the Trump team) to describe outright lies.

Recent Comments

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


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories