MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

alternative therapist

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.

The Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) write and maintain the UK Advertising Codes, which are administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. On their website, the CAP recently published an updated advertising code for naturopathy. As we have regularly discussed the fact that the public is being frequently misled in this area, I consider the code important in the context of this blog. I therefore take the liberty of repeating it here – not least in the hope that this helps preventing misinformation in the future [the numbers in square brackets refer to me footnotes below].

START OF QUOTE

What is Naturopathy?

Naturopathy is a holistic [1] approach to healthcare that uses a combination of one or more different disciplines (for example herbal medicine or hydrotherapy) and a healthy lifestyle [2] in order to gain and maintain a healthy body [3].

What claims are likely to be acceptable?

The promotion of a healthy [4] lifestyle is likely to acceptable as are claims that go no further than those commonly accepted for healthy [4] eating, sleeping well, taking exercise and the like.

What claims are likely to be problematic?

The ASA and CAP have not yet been provided with evidence which demonstrates that Naturopathy can be used to treat medical conditions (Rule 12.1).  Therefore, any claims that go beyond accepted claims for a healthy [4] lifestyle are likely to be problematic [5] unless they are supported by a robust body of evidence.  In 2013, the ASA ruled against claims on a marketer’s website which said that Naturopathy could be used to treat acute and chronic illness and disease because the marketer had not provided any evidence in support of their claims (CNM The College of Naturopathic Medicine Ltd, 13 March 2013).

What about serious medical conditions?

Claims to offer treatment on conditions for which medical supervision should be sought [6] are likely to be considered to discourage essential treatment unless that treatment is carried out under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional (Rule 12.2).

END OF QUOTE

Naturopathy has been the subject of my posts before – see for instance here, here, here, here and here. Naturopathy can be dangerous to the point where it can kill the patient – see for instance here and here. Therefore it is important that advertising gets regulated. To make it very clear: the above statement by the CAP is, in my view, a step in the right direction, and I encourage alternative practitioners to look up the equivalent CAP documents for their specific therapy.

Having said that, I still feel the need to make a few comments:

  1. It is misleading to call naturopathy ‘holistic’. This is often factually incorrect and also gives the impression that conventional medicine is not holistic – see also here.
  2. Are we sure that all lifestyles promoted by naturopaths are, in fact, healthy?
  3. Maintaining a healthy body is naturopathy speak for DISEASE PREVENTION. Who decides what is effective prevention? On what evidence? How come many naturopaths are against the most effective means of prevention of all times – vaccination?
  4. Who decides what is ‘healthy’? On what evidence?
  5. Why ‘problematic’? Are they not wrong or bogus or false or fraudulent or criminal?
  6. Are there conditions for which medical supervision should not be sought? Which are they?

Whenever a level-headed person discloses that a specific alternative therapy is not based on good evidence, you can bet your last shirt that a proponent of the said treatment responds by claiming that conventional medicine is not much better.

There are several variations to this theme. Today I want to focus on just one of them, namely the counter-claim that, only a short while ago, conventional medicine was not much better than the said alternative therapy (the implication is that it must be unfair to demand evidence from alternative medicine, while accepting a similar state of affairs in conventional medicine). The argument has recently been formulated by one commentator on this blog as follows:

“Trepanation, leeches for UTI’s, and bloodletting are all historical treatments of medical doctors…It’s hypocritical… to impute mainstream chiropractice to the profession’s beginnings and yet not admit that medicine’s founding and evolution was inbued with consistently scientific rigor.”

Sadly, some people seem to be convinced by such words, and this is why they are being repeated ad nauseam by interested parties. Yet the argument is fallacious for a range of reasons.

  • Firstly, it is based on the classical ‘tu quoque’ fallacy (appeal to hypocrisy).
  • Secondly – unless we happen to be historians – it is not the healthcare of the past that is relevant to our discussions. The question cannot be what this or that group of clinicians used to do; the question is HOW DO THEY TREAT THEIR PATIENTS TODAY?

As soon as we focus on this issue, it is impossible to deny that conventional medicine has made lots of progress and moved light years away from treatments such as trepanation, leeches, bloodletting and many others.

Why?

Why did we make such huge progress?

Because research showed that many of the traditional treatments were ineffective, unsafe and/or implausible (thus demonstrating that hundreds of years of experience – which alternative therapists rate so very highly – is of more than dubious value), and because we consequently developed and tested new therapies and subsequently used those treatments that passed these tests and were proven to do more good than harm.

By contrast, in the last decades, centuries and millennia, homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, paranormal healing etc. did make no (or very little) progress. So much so that Hahnemann, for instance, would pass any exam for  homeopathy today. (If you disagree with this statement, please post a list of those treatments that have been given up by alternative therapists in the last 100 years or so.) Come to think of it, it is a hallmark of alternative medicine that it does not progress in the way conventional medicine does. It is almost completely static, a fact, that renders it akin to a dogma or a cult.

But why? Why is there no real progress in alternative medicine?

Don’t tell me that there is no research, research funding, etc. There are now hundreds of studies of homeopathy or chiropractic, thousands of acupuncture, and dozens of paranormal healing, for instance. The trouble is not the paucity of such research but its findings! The totality of the evidence in each of these areas fails to show that the therapy in question is efficacious.

And there we have, I think, another hallmark of alternative medicine: it is an area where research is only acted upon, if its findings are in line with the preconceptions and aspirations of its proponents.

I find this interesting!

It means, amongst other things, that research into alternative medicine tends not to be used for finding the truth or establishing new knowledge; it is mainly employed for the promotion of the therapy in question, regardless of what the truth about it might be (this would disqualify this exercise from being research and qualify it as PSEUDO-RESEARCH). If the research findings are such that they cannot be used for promotion, they are simply ignored or defamed as inadequate.

The ‘CHRONICLE OF CHIROPRACTIC’ recently reported on the relentless battle within the chiropractic profession about the issue of ‘subluxation’. Here is (slightly abbreviated) what this publication had to say:

START OF QUOTE

Calling subluxation based chiropractors “unacceptable creatures” chiropractic researcher Keith H Charlton DC, MPhil, MPainMed, PhD, FICC, recently stated “. . . that it is no longer scientifically acceptable for any responsible chiropractic clinician to ever use the word subluxation except as theory . . .” Charlton made the comment to members of the Chiropractic Research Alliance a group of subluxation deniers who routinely disparage the concept of subluxation.

Charlton is a well known “Subluxation Denier” and frequently attacks subluxation based chiropractors in his peer reviewed research papers and on Facebook groups. According to Charlton in a paper published in the journal Chiropractic and Osteopathy: “The dogma of subluxation is perhaps the greatest single barrier to professional development for chiropractors. It skews the practice of the art in directions that bring ridicule from the scientific community and uncertainty among the public.”

On January 5, 2017 Charlton further stated: “We need NOW in 2017 and beyond to get rid of the quacks that do us so much harm. They need to be treated personally and professionally as utterly unacceptable creatures to be shunned and opposed at every turn. Time to get going on cleaning out the trash. And that includes all signs, websites, literature, handouts and speech of staff and chiropractors.”

…Charlton has testified against subluxation based chiropractors in regulatory board actions and appears to revel in it.

In his most recent pronouncement Charlton states that he is okay with subluxation as a “regional spine shape distortion” and asserts that this is a CBP subluxation. This contention is common with subluxation deniers who are willing to accept an orthopedic definition of subluxation absent the neurological component.

…Charlton states he uses the following techniques on his website:

  • Applied Kinesiology
  • Diversified
  • Motion Palpation
  • Sacro-Occipital Technique
  • Activator
  • Logan Basic

When this self-declared scientist was confronted with his use of Applied Kinesiology and these other techniques his response was essentially that he is engaging in a “bait and switch” and that he just has those on his website to get patients who are looking for those things. Charlton lists 21 “research papers” on his curriculum vitae though they are all simply commentaries or reviews not original clinical research. The majority of these opinion pieces are attacks on subluxation and the chiropractors who focus on it.

END OF QUOTE

What does this tell us?

  • It seems to me that the ‘anti-subluxation’ movement with in the chiropractic profession is by no means winning the battle against the ‘hard-core subluxationists’.
  • Chiropractors cannot resist the temptation to use ad hominem attacks instead of factual arguments. I suppose this is because the latter are in short supply.
  • The ‘anti-subluxationists’ present themselves as the evidence-based side of the chiropractic spectrum. This impression might well be erroneous. Giving up the myth of subluxation obviously does not necessarily mean abandoning other forms of quackery.

At a recent conference in Montréal (October 2016), the WFC (World Federation of Chiropractic) and the ACC (Association of Chiropractic Colleges) reached a consensus on education. Consequently, recommendations were produced that offer 12 key ‘take away messages’. I take the liberty of reproducing these statements entitled ‘Training Tomorrow’s Spine Care Experts’ (the square brackets were inserted by me and refer to brief comments I made below).

START OF QUOTE

1. Chiropractic educational institutions have a  responsibility to equip students with the skills and  attributes necessary to become future spinal health care experts. This includes a commitment to astute diagnostic ability, a comprehensive knowledge of spine-related disorders [1], appreciation for the contributions of other health professionals and a commitment to collaborative, patient-centered and evidence-informed care [2].

2. Technological advances [3] provide an opportunity for the chiropractic profession to enhance, evolve and standardize core education and practice. This is relevant to the teaching of chiropractic skills, sharing of learning resources and assessment of performance. Emerging technologies that support the development of clinically-competent practitioners should be embedded within chiropractic programs.

3. The teaching and learning of specialized manual assessment and treatment skills should remain a key distinguishing element of chiropractic curricula.

4. Surveys of the public have a demonstrated a desire for consistency in the provision of chiropractic services. Such consistency need not compromise the identities of individual institutions but will cultivate public trust and cultural authority [4].

5. Globally consistent educational and practice standards will facilitate international portability [5] and promote greater health equity in the delivery of spine care.

6. Chiropractic programs should espouse innovation and leadership in the context of ethical [6], sustainable business [7] practices.

7. Chiropractic educational curricula should reflect current evidence [8] and high quality guidelines [9], and be subjected to regular review to ensure that students are prepared to work in collaborative health care environments.

8. The training of tomorrow’ s spine care experts should incorporate current best practices in education.

9. Interdisciplinary collaboration and strategic partnerships present opportunities to position chiropractors as leaders [10] and integral team players in global spine care.

10. Chiropractic educational institutions should champion the integration of evidence informed clinical practice [11], including clinical practice guidelines, in order to optimize patient outcomes. This will in turn foster principles of lifelong learning and willingness to adapt practice methods in the light of emerging evidence [12].

11. Students, faculty, staff and administrators must all contribute to a learning environment that fosters cultural diversity, critical thinking [13], academic responsibility and scholarly activity.

12. Resources should be dedicated to embed and promote educational research activity in all chiropractic institutions.

END OF QUOTE

And here are my brief comments:

[1] Some chiropractors believe that all or most human conditions are ‘spine-related disorders’. We would need a clear statement here whether the WFC/ACC do support or reject this notion and what conditions we are actually talking about.

[2] ‘Evidence-informed’??? I have come across this term before; it is used more and more by quacks of all types. It is clearly not synonymous with ‘evidence-based’, but aims at providing a veneer of respectability by creation an association with EBM. In concrete terms, asthma, for instance, might, in the eyes of some chiropractors, be an evidence-informed indication for chiropractic. In other words, ‘evidence-informed’ is merely a card blanch for promoting all sorts of nonsense.

[3] It would be good to know which technical advances they are thinking of.

[4] Public trust is best cultivated by demonstrating that chiropractic is doing more good than harm; by itself, this point sounds a bit like PR for maximising income. Sorry, I am not sure what they mean by ‘cultural authority’ – chiropractic as a cult?

[5] ‘International portability’ – nice term, but what does it mean?

[6] I get the impression that many chiropractors do not know what is meant by the term ‘ethics’.

[7] But they certainly know much about business!

[8] That is, I think, the most relevant statement in the entire text – see below.

[9] Like those by NICE which no longer recommend chiropractic for back pain? No? They are not ‘high quality’? I see, only those that recommend chiropractic fulfil this criterion!

[10] Chiropractors as leaders? Really? With their (largely ineffective) manipulations as the main contribution to the field? You have to be a chiropractor to find this realistic, I guess.

[11] Again ‘evidence-informed’ instead of ‘evidence-based’ – who are they trying to kid?

[12] The evidence that has been emerging since many years is that chiropractic manipulations fail to generate more good than harm.

[13] In the past, I got the impression that critical thinking and chiropractic are a bit like fire and water.

MY CONCLUSION FROM ALL THIS

What we have here is, in my view, little more than a mixture between politically correct drivel and wishful thinking. If chiropractors truly want chiropractic educational curricula to “reflect current evidence”, they need to teach the following main tenets:

  • Chiropractic manipulations have not been shown to be effective for any of the conditions they are currently used for.
  • Other forms of treatment are invariably preferable.
  • Subluxation, as defined by chiropractors, is a myth.
  • Spine-related disorders, as taught in many chiropractic colleges, are a myth.
  • ‘Evidence-informed’ is a term that has no meaning; the proper word is ‘evidence-based’ – and evidence-based chiropractic is a contradiction in terms.

Finally, chiropractors need to be aware of the fact that any curriculum for future clinicians must include the core elements of critical assessment and medical ethics. The two combined would automatically discontinue the worst excesses of chiropractic abuse, such as the promotion of bogus claims or the financial exploitation of the public.

But, of course, none of this is ever going to happen! Why? Because it would mean teaching students that they need to find a different profession. And this is why I feel that statements like the above are politically correct drivel which can serve only one purpose: to distract everyone from the fundamental problems in that profession.

The ACUPUNCTURE NOW FOUNDATION (ANF) has featured on this blog before. Today I want to re-introduce them because I just came across one of their articles which I found remarkable. In it, they define what many of us have often wondered about: the most important myth about acupuncture.

Is it acupuncture’s current popularity, its long history, its mode of action, its efficacy, its safety?

No, here is the answer directly from the ANF:

The most important myth that needs to be put to rest is the idea promoted by a small group of vocal critics that acupuncture is nothing more than a placebo. Many cite the fact that studies showing acupuncture to be highly effective were of low quality and that several higher quality studies show that, while acupuncture was clinically effective, it usually does not outperform “sham” acupuncture. But those studies are dominated by the first quality issue cited above; studies with higher methodological rigor where the “real” acupuncture was so poorly done as to not be a legitimate comparison. Yet despite the tendency toward poor quality acupuncture in studies with higher methodological standards, a benchmark study was done that showed “real” acupuncture clearly outperforming “sham” acupuncture in four different chronic pain conditions.3 When you add this study together with the fact veterinary acupuncture is used successfully in many different animals, the idea of acupuncture only being placebo must now be considered finally disproven. This is further supported by studies which show that the underlying physiological pathways activated by acupuncture sometimes overlap, but can be clearly differentiated from, those activated by placebo responses.

Disappointed?

Yes, I was too.

The myth, according to the ANF, essentially is that sceptics do not understand the scientific evidence. And these blinkered sceptics even go as far as ignoring the findings from what the ANF consider to be a ‘benchmark study’! Ghosh, that’s nasty of them!!!

But, no – the benchmark study (actually, it was not a ‘study’ but a meta-analysis of studies) has been discussed fully on this blog (and in many other places too). Here is what I wrote in 2012 when it was first published:

An international team of acupuncture trialists published a meta-analysed of individual patient data to determine the analgesic effect of acupuncture compared to sham or non-acupuncture control for the following 4 chronic pain conditions: back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, headache, and shoulder pain. Data from 29 RCTs, with an impressive total of 17 922 patients, were included.

The results of this new evaluation suggest that acupuncture is superior to both sham and no-acupuncture controls for each of these conditions. Patients receiving acupuncture had less pain, with scores that were 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13-0.33), 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.25), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.24) SDs lower than those of sham controls for back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, and chronic headache, respectively; the effect sizes in comparison to no-acupuncture controls were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.58), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.64), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.46) SDs.

Based on these findings, the authors reached the conclusion that “acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable referral option. Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo. However, these differences are relatively modest, suggesting that factors in addition to the specific effects of needling are important contributors to the therapeutic effects of acupuncture”.

… even the enthusiastic authors of this article admit that, when compared to sham, the effect size of real acupuncture is too small to be clinically relevant. Therefore one might argue that this meta-analysis confirms what critics have suggested all along: acupuncture is not a useful treatment for clinical routine.

Unsurprisingly, the authors of the meta-analysis do their very best to play down this aspect. They reason that, for clinical routine, the comparison between acupuncture and non-acupuncture controls is more relevant than the one between acupuncture and sham. But this comparison, of course, includes placebo- and other non-specific effects masquerading as effects of acupuncture – and with this little trick (which, by the way is very popular in alternative medicine), we can, of course, show that even sugar pills are effective.

I do not doubt that context effects are important in patient care; yet I do doubt that we need a placebo treatment for generating such benefit in our patients. If we administer treatments which are effective beyond placebo with kindness, time, compassion and empathy, our patients will benefit from both specific and non-specific effects. In other words, purely generating non-specific effects with acupuncture is far from optimal and certainly not in the interest of our patients. In my view, it cannot be regarded as not good medicine, and the authors’ conclusion referring to a “reasonable referral option” is more than a little surprising in my view.

Acupuncture-fans might argue that, at the very minimum, the new meta-analysis does demonstrate acupuncture to be statistically significantly better than a placebo. Yet I am not convinced that this notion holds water: the small residual effect-size in the comparison of acupuncture with sham might not be the result of a specific effect of acupuncture; it could be (and most likely is) due to residual bias in the analysed studies.

The meta-analysis is strongly driven by the large German trials which, for good reasons, were heavily and frequently criticised when first published. One of the most important potential drawbacks was that many participating patients were almost certainly de-blinded through the significant media coverage of the study while it was being conducted. Moreover, in none of these trials was the therapist blinded (the often-voiced notion that therapist-blinding is impossible is demonstrably false). Thus it is likely that patient-unblinding and the absence of therapist-blinding importantly influenced the clinical outcome of these trials thus generating false positive findings. As the German studies constitute by far the largest volume of patients in the meta-analysis, any of their flaws would strongly impact on the overall result of the meta-analysis.

So, has this new meta-analysis finally solved the decades-old question about the effectiveness of acupuncture? It might not have solved it, but we have certainly moved closer to a solution, particularly if we employ our faculties of critical thinking. In my view, this meta-analysis is the most compelling evidence yet to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of acupuncture for chronic pain.

END OF QUOTE

The ANF-text then goes from bad to worse. First they cite the evidence from veterinary acupuncture as further proof of the efficacy of their therapy. Well, the only systematic review in this are is, I think, by my team; and it concluded that there is no compelling evidence to recommend or reject acupuncture for any condition in domestic animals. Some encouraging data do exist that warrant further investigation in independent rigorous trials.

Lastly, the ANF mentions acupuncture’s mode of action which they seem to understand clearly and fully. Congratulations ANF! In this case, you are much better than the many experts in basic science or neurology who almost unanimously view these ‘explanations’ of how acupuncture might work as highly adventurous hypotheses or speculations.

So, what IS the most important myth about acupuncture? I am not sure and – unlike the ANF – I do not feel that I can speak for the rest of the world, but one of the biggest myths FOR ME is how acupuncture fans constantly manage to mislead the public.

Is acupuncture a pseudoscience? An interesting question! It was used as the title of a recent article. Knowing who authored it, the question unfortunately promised to be rhetorical. Dr Mike Cummings is (or was?) the ‘Medical Director at British Medical Acupuncture Society’ – hardly a source of critical or sceptical thinking about acupuncture, I’d say. The vast majority of his recent publications are in ‘ACUPUNCTURE IN MEDICINE’ and his blog post too is for that journal. Nevertheless, his thoughts might be worth considering, and therefore I present the essence of his post below [the footnotes refer to my comments following Cummings’ article]:

…Wikipedia has branded acupuncture as pseudoscience and its benefits as placebo [1]. ‘Acupuncture’ is clearly is not pseudoscience; however, the way in which it is used or portrayed by some may on occasion meet that definition. Acupuncture is a technique that predates the development of the scientific method [2] … so it is hardly fair to classify this ancient medical technique within that framework [3]. It would be better to use a less pejorative classification within the bracket of history when referring to acupuncture and other ancient East Asian medical techniques [4]. The contemporary use of acupuncture within modern healthcare is another matter entirely, and the fact that it can be associated with pre-scientific medicine does not make it a pseudoscience.

The Wikipedia acupuncture page is extensive and currently runs to 302 references. But how do we judge the quality or reliability of a text or its references? … I would generally look down on blogs, such as this, because they lack … hurdles prior to publication [5]. Open peer review was introduced relatively recently associated with immediate publication. But all this involves researchers and senior academics publishing and reviewing within their own fields of expertise. Wikipedia has a slightly different model built on five pillars. The second of those pillars reads:


Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as “the truth” or “the best view”. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors’ personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.


Experts within a field may be seen to have a certain POV (point of view), and are discouraged from editing pages directly because they cannot have the desired NPOV (neutral POV). This is a rather unique publication model in my experience, although the editing and comments are all visible and traceable, so there is no hiding… apart from the fact that editors are allowed to be entirely anonymous. Have a look at the talk page behind the main acupuncture page on Wikipedia. You may be shocked by the tone of much of the commentary. It certainly does not seem to comply with the fourth of the five pillars, which urges respect and civility, and in my opinion results primarily from the security of anonymity. I object to the latter, but there is always a balance to be found between freedom of expression (enhanced for some by the safety of anonymity) and cyber bullying (almost certainly fuelled in part by anonymity). That balance requires good moderation, and whilst there was some evidence of moderation on the talk page, it was inadequate to my mind… I might move to drop anonymity from Wikipedia if moderation is wanting.

Anyway my impression, for what it’s worth, is that the acupuncture page on Wikipedia is not written from an NPOV, but rather it appears to be controlled by semi professional anti-CAM pseudosceptics [6]. I have come across these characters [6] regularly since I was introduced to the value of needling in military general practice. I have a stereotypical mental image: plain or scary looking bespectacled geeks and science nuts [6], the worst are often particle physicists … Interacting with them is at first intense, but rapidly becomes tedious as they know little of the subject detail [6], fall back on the same rather simplistic arguments [6] and ultimately appear to be motivated by eristic discourse rather than the truth [6].

I am not surprised that they prefer to close the comments, because I imagine that some people might object rather strongly to many of the statements made in this text.

Here are my short comments:

[1] I should perhaps stress that I am not the author of nor a contributor to this Wiki (or any other) page.

[2] Is this an attempt to employ the ‘appeal to tradition’ fallacy?

[3] The Wiki page does by no means classify the ancient history of acupuncture as pseudoscience.

[4] I have always felt that classification of science or medicine according to geography is nonsensical; they should not be classified as Western or Asian but as sound or not, effective or not, etc.

[5] As we have often seen on this blog, the ‘hurdles’ (peer-review) are often laughable, particularly in the realm of alternative medicine.

[6] This article is essentially trying to show that the Wiki page is biased. Yet it ends with a bonanza of insults which essentially reveal the profound bias of the author.

IS ACUPUNCTURE PSEUDOSCIENCE? Cummings’ article promised to address this question. Sadly it did nothing of the sort. It  turned out to be an incompetent rant about a Wiki page. If anything, Cummings contributed to the neutral reader of his text getting convinced that, indeed, acupuncture IS a pseudoscience! At least Wiki used facts, arguments, evidence etc. and it went a lot further in finding a rational answer to this intriguing question.

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