MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

bias

1 2 3 34

On their website, the British Homeopathic Association (BHA) have launched their annual winter appeal. Its theme this year is ‘building a better future for homeopathy’. The appeal is aimed at the following specific goals:

  • Continuously fighting to retain NHS services in the UK by supporting local patients & groups and providing swift media responses employing experts in areas such as media, politics, law and reputation management for ultimate effectiveness. Currently undertaking a legal challenge to NHS England
  • Establishing charitable homeopathic clinics throughout the UK, with clinics currently in Norwich, York, Bath, Edinburgh and looking at developing other clinics in Liverpool, Wales, Oxford and London in 2018.
  • Making further investment to enhance our digital presence and promotion of key messages.
  • Continuoustly improving our website to make it the place for information on homeopathy from finding practitioners to finding the latest Health & Homeopathy online.
  • Investing in research and education to keep homeopathy strong in the long term, increasing the number of healthcare professionals using homeopathy in their everyday practice.
  • Taking homeopathy to the people and growing our community of supporters with public events, local events and national promotion.

I have to say, I find this almost touching in its naivety. I imagine another lobby group, say the cigarette industry, launching a winter appeal: BUILDING A BETTER FUTURE FOR CIGARETTES.

Do I hear you object?

Cigarettes are unhealthy and not a medical treatment!!!

Quite so! Homeopathy is also unhealthy and not a medical treatment, I would argue. Sure, highly dilute homeopathics do not kill you, but homeopathy easily can. We have seen this on this blog many times. Homeopathy kills when it is advocated and consequently used as an alternative therapy for a life-threatening disease; there is no question about it. And there also is no question about the fact that this happens with depressing regularity. If you doubt it, just read some of my previous posts on the subject.

In any case, an appeal by a medical association should not be for its own benefit (homeopathy); it should be for patients (patients tempted to try homeopathy), I would suggest. So, lets design the goals of an appeal for patients along the lines of the above appeal – except our appeal has to actually be in the best interest of vulnerable patients.

Here we go:

  • Continually fighting to stop homeopathy on the NHS. As homeopathy does not generate more good than harm (no ineffective therapy can ever do that), we have a moral, legal and ethical duty to use our scarce resources such that they create the maximum benefit; and this means we cannot use them for homeopathy.
  • Establishing charitable organisations that educate the public about science and evidence. Too many consumers are still falling victim to the pseudo-science of charlatans who mislead people for their own profit.
  • Making further investments to combating the plethora of unethical misinformation by self-interested quacks and organisations many of which even have charitable status.
  • Continually improving websites that truthfully inform the public, politicians, journalists and others about medicine, science and healthcare.
  • Investing in research and education to keep science and evidence-based medicine strong, for the benefit of vulnerable patients and in the interest of progress.
  • Taking the science agenda to the people and growing the community of science-literate supporters on a local, national and international level.

As I had to follow the lines of the BHA, these goals are regrettably not perfect – but I am sure they are a whole lot better than the BHA original!

This is the title of an editorial by Alan Schmukler. You probably remember him; I have featured him before, for instance here, here, and here. This is what was recently on Schmukler’s mind (I have added a few references referring to comments of mine added below):

England’s National Health Service (NHS) is proposing that NHS doctors no longer be permitted to prescribe homeopathic remedies [1]… They claim lack of evidence for effectiveness. Anyone who’s been remotely conscious the last 10 years will see this as a pretext. Homeopathy is practiced by board certified physicians in clinics and hospitals around the world [2]. The massive Swiss review of homeopathy, found it effective, safe and economical, and the Swiss incorporated homeopathy into their national health care system [3]…

The reason given for banning homeopathy and these nutrients is a lie. Why would the NHS ban safe, effective and affordable healing methods? [4] Without these methods, all that is left are prescription drugs. Apparently, someone at the  NHS has an interest in pushing expensive prescription drugs [5], rather than safer and cheaper alternatives. That someone, also wishes to deny people freedom of choice in medicine [6]. I say “someone”, because organizations don’t make decisions, people do. Who is that someone?  In looking for a suspect, we might ask, who is the chief executive of the organization? Who introduced this plan and is promoting it? Who at the NHS has the political clout?  Who was it that recently declared: “Homeopathy is a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds which could better be devoted to treatments that work”.

The quote is from Simon Stevens, NHS England’s chief executive. He got the job in 2014, after ten years as a top executive at UnitedHealth, the largest health insurance company in America. His past work experiences and current activities show that he favors privatization [7]. That would make him an odd choice to run a healthcare system based on socialized medicine. In fact, he has been moving the NHS towards privatization and the corporate, profit based American model. [8] The last thing a privatizer in healthcare would want, are non-proprietary medicines, for which you can’t charge exorbitant fees [9]. Banning homeopathy on the NHS is just one small part of a larger plan to maximize corporate profits by letting corporations own and control the health care system [10].  Before they can do this, they have to eliminate alternative methods of treatment.

Personally, I think Schmukler is wrong – here is why:

1 The current argument is not about what doctors are permitted to do, but about what the NHS should do with our tax money.

2 Argumentum ad populum

3 Oh dear! Anyone who uses this report as evidence must be desperate – see for instance here.

4 Why indeed? Except highly dilute homeopathic remedies are pure placebos.

5 Maybe ‘someone’ merely wants to use effective medications rather than placebos.

6 Freedom of choice is a nonsense, if it is not guided by sound evidence – see here.

7 No, that’s Jeremy Hunt! But in any case privatisation might be more profitable with homeopathy – much higher profit margins without any investment into R&D.

8 No, this is Hunt again!

9 Homeopathic remedies are ideal for making vast profits: no research, no development, no cost for raw material, etc., etc.

10 I am sure Boiron et al would not mind stepping into the gap.

I very much look forward to the next outburst of Alan Schmukler and hope he will manage to think a bit clearer by then.

We have discussed the NHMRC report on homeopathy several times – see, for instance, here, here and here. Perhaps understandably, homeopaths have great difficulties accepting its negative findings, and have complained about it ever since it was published. Now, a very detailed and well-researched analysis has become available of both the report and its criticism. Here I take the liberty to copy and (clumsily) translate its conclusions; if you can read German, I highly recommend studying the full document.

START OF MY TRANSLATION

The criticism of the NHMRC review is very voluminous and highlights many different aspects of the background, the methodology, the execution and the unwanted results from a homeopathic perspective. The very engaging discussions in the general public about this document and its flaws are, however, relatively meaningless: the NHMRC arrives at exactly the same conclusions as the employee of the Homeopathic Research Institute (HRI), Mathie, in his reviews of 2014 and 2017.

In both reviews, Mathie evaluated a total of 107 primary studies and found only 2 trials that could be rated as qualitatively good, that is to say constituting reliable evidence. Mathie did upgrade 2 further studies to the category of reliable evidence, however, this was in violation of the procedures proscribed in the study protocol.

The criticism of the NHMRC review was not able to make a single valid rebuttal. No condition could be identified for which homeopathy is clearly superior to placebo. This is all the more important, as Mathie avoided the mistakes that constituted the most prominent alleged criticisms of the NHMRC report.

  • Since Mathie and most of his co-authors are affiliated with organisations of homeopathy, an anti-homeopathy bias can be excluded.
  • Mathie conducted classic reviews and even differentiated between individualised and non-individualised homeopathy.
  • Mathie did not exclude studies below a certain sample size.

Yet, in both reviews, he draws the same conclusion.

In view of the truly independent replications of an employee of the HRI, we can be sure that there are, in fact, no solid proofs for the effectiveness of homeopathy. The claim of a  strong efficacy, equivalent to conventional medicines, that is made by homeopathy’s advocates is therefore not true.

END OF MY TRANSLATION

And here is the original German text:

Die Kritik an dem Review des NHMRC ist sehr umfangreich und beleuchtet sehr viele verschiedene Facetten über das Umfeld, die Methodik und die Durchführung sowie das aus Sicht der Homöopathen unerwünschte Ergebnis selbst. Die in der Öffentlichkeit sehr engagierte Diskussion um diese Arbeit und ihre möglichen Unzulänglichkeiten sind jedoch relativ bedeutungslos: Das NHMRC kommt zu genau dem gleichen Ergebnis wie Mathie als Mitarbeiter des HRI in seinen in 2014 und 2017 veröffentlichten systematischen Reviews:

Insgesamt hat Mathie in beiden Reviews 107 Einzelstudien untersucht und fand nur zwei Studien, die als qualitativ gut („low risk of bias“), also als zuverlässige Evidenz betrachtet werden können. Mathie hat zwar vier weitere Studien zur zuverlässigen Evidenz aufgewertet, was allerdings im Widerspruch zu den üblichen Vorgehensweisen steht und im Studienprotokoll nicht vorgesehen war.

Die Kritik am Review des NHMRC hat keinen einzigen Punkt fundiert widerlegen können. Man konnte keine Indikation finden, bei der sich die Homöopathie als klar über Placebo hinaus wirksam erwiesen hätte. Diese Punkte sind umso bedeutsamer, weil Mathie die am NHMRC hauptsächlich kritisierten Fehler nicht gemacht hat:

  • Als Mitarbeiter des HRI und mit Autoren, die überwiegend für Homöopathie-affine Organisationen arbeiten, ist eine Voreingenommenheit gegen die Homöopathie auszuschließen.
  • Mathie hat klassische Reviews ausgeführt, sogar getrennt zwischen einzelnen Ausprägungen (individualisierte Homöopathie und nicht-individualisierte Homöopathie).
  • Mathie hat keine Größenbeschränkung der Studien berücksichtigt.

Er kommt aber dennoch zweimal zum gleichen Ergebnis wie das NHMRC.

Angesichts der wirklich als unabhängig anzusehenden Bestätigung der Ergebnisse des NHMRC durch einen Mitarbeiter des Homeopathy Research Institute kann man sicher davon ausgehen, dass es tatsächlich keine belastbaren Wirkungsnachweise für die Homöopathie gibt und dass die von ihren Anhängern behauptete starke, der konventionellen Medizin gleichwertige oder gar überlegene Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie nicht gegeben ist.

I do apologise for my clumsy translation and once again encourage those who can to study the detailed original in full.

My conclusion of this (and indeed of virtually all criticism of homeopathy) is that homeopaths are just as unable to accept criticism as an evangelic believer is going to accept any rational argument against his belief. In other words, regardless of how convincing the evidence, homeopaths will always dismiss it – or, to put it in a nutshell: HOMEOPATHY IS A CULT.

On their  website, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently published a statement on homeopathy which, I think, is important enough to get cited extensively:

… Food and Drug Administration proposed a new, risk-based enforcement approach to drug products labeled as homeopathic. To protect consumers who choose to use homeopathic products, this proposed new approach would update the FDA’s existing policy to better address situations where homeopathic treatments are being marketed for serious diseases and/or conditions but where the products have not been shown to offer clinical benefits. It also covers situations where products labeled as homeopathic contain potentially harmful ingredients or do not meet current good manufacturing practices…

The FDA’s proposed approach prioritizes enforcement and regulatory actions involving unapproved drug products labeled as homeopathic that have the greatest potential to cause risk to patients…  The FDA intends to focus its enforcement authorities on the following kinds of products:

  • products with reported safety concerns;
  • products that contain or claim to contain ingredients associated with potentially significant safety concerns;
  • products for routes of administration other than oral and topical;
  • products intended to be used for the prevention or treatment of serious and/or life-threatening diseases and conditions;
  • products for vulnerable populations; and
  • products that do not meet standards of quality, strength or purity as required under the law.

Examples of products that may be subject to the enforcement priorities in the draft guidance are infant and children’s products labeled to contain ingredients associated with potentially significant safety concerns, such as belladonna and nux vomica; and products marketed for serious conditions, such as cancer and heart disease.

While the FDA considers comments to the draft guidance, the FDA intends to examine how the agency is implementing its current compliance policy. Given the concerns about the proliferation of potentially ineffective and harmful products labeled as homeopathic, the FDA will consider taking additional enforcement and/or regulatory actions, consistent with the current enforcement policies, which also align with the risk-based categories described in the draft guidance, in the interest of protecting the public…

Until relatively recently, homeopathy was a small market for specialized products. Over the last decade, the homeopathic drug market has grown exponentially, resulting in a nearly $3 billion industry that exposes more patients to potential risks associated with the proliferation of unproven, untested products and unsubstantiated health claims. During this time, the FDA has seen a corresponding increase in safety concerns, including serious adverse events, associated with drug products labeled as homeopathic. In addition, the agency has also found an increasing number of poorly manufactured products that contain potentially dangerous amounts of active ingredients that can create additional risks.

In September 2016, the FDA warned against the use of homeopathic teething tablets and gels containing belladonna, a toxic substance that has an unpredictable response in children under two years of age, after the products were associated with serious adverse events, including seizures and deaths, in infants and children. An FDA lab analysis later confirmed that certain homeopathic teething tablets contained elevated and inconsistent levels of belladonna. A similar issue occurred in 2010 when Hyland’s Teething Tablets were found to contain varying amounts of belladonna. An FDA inspection of that product’s manufacturing facility indicated substandard control of the product’s manufacturing.

The FDA has issued warnings related to a number of other homeopathic drug products over the past several years. These include certain homeopathic zinc-containing intranasal products that may cause a loss of sense of smell, homeopathic asthma products that have not been shown to be effective in treating asthma and various homeopathic drug products labeled to contain potentially toxic ingredients, like nux vomica, which contains strychnine (a highly toxic, well-studied poison often used to kill rodents).

“Homeopathic products have not been approved by the FDA for any use and may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness and quality,” said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The draft guidance is an important step forward in the agency’s work to protect patients from unproven and potentially dangerous products.”…

The FDA is not alone in reexamining its approach to homeopathy. In November 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a new enforcement policy explaining that they will hold efficacy and safety claims for over-the-counter homeopathic drugs to the same standard as other products making similar health claims. Notably, the FTC said that companies must have competent and reliable scientific evidence for health-related claims, including claims that a product can treat specific conditions…

END OF QUOTE

US homeopaths were quick to respond, as reported here:

The National Center for Homeopathy’s board of directors stated:

The National Center for Homeopathy supports the FDA’s efforts to ensure safety and good manufacturing practices in the industry. We are committed to working with industry partners to protect consumer access to homeopathic medicines, and we are hopeful that this action will not impede access. Homeopathic medicines are safe, gentle and effective when products are manufactured in accordance with HPUS (Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States) guidelines under CGMPs (Current Good Manufacturing Practices). We welcome the opportunity to educate consumers and healthcare professionals about the unique aspects of homeopathic medicine.

Of course, the unique aspect of homeopathic medicines undoubtedly is that they usually contain no active molecules and therefore do not work. But somehow, I doubt that the NCH was thinking of telling consumers the truth.

The NCH statement is tame in comparison with the NCH’s response to the FDA’s actions during the homeopathic teething investigation last year. Prior to the recall, the FDA issued a warning to consumers, which the NCH dubbed as “arbitrary and capricious.” The NCH went on to say that the FDA’s warning led to “exaggerated fear mongering” in the media and a “public scare” that threatened access to homeopathic products. “[G]roups interested in seeing homeopathy destroyed continue to hammer away at the system—making exaggerated claims that create misunderstandings about and limit consumer access,” the NCH wrote [emphasis theirs].

And this response is tame compared to what a prominent US homeopaths claimed at the time:

“It’s time to hold these people accountable. There are laws in every country against officials taking bribes and malfeasance in office. Write to your legislators and demand that they investigate and bring these criminals to justice. Send them the links to hundreds of homeopathy studies, including disease prevention with homeopathy, at the end of this article.   Tell them that the regulatory agencies are protecting Pharma profits, not the public.

Meanwhile, let us insist that pharmaceutical drugs be labeled honestly, like this:

“This drug was tested by the same company that profits from it, and which company has been fined millions of dollars in the past for lying about test results. This drug does not cure any medical condition, but only suppresses symptoms which may ultimately make the patient sicker. This drug has already  killed or injured X  number of people.”

The outrage is understandable for two reasons, I think:

  1. even homeopaths cannot deny that the days of unchecked claims are counted;
  2. against rage of this sort homeopathic remedies are obviously not working.

A comprehensive review of the evidence relating to acupuncture entitled “The Acupuncture Evidence Project: A Comparative Literature Review” has just been published. The document aims to provide “an updated review of the literature with greater rigour than was possible in the past.” That sounds great! Let’s see just how rigorous the assessment is.

The review was conducted by John McDonald who no stranger to this blog; we have mentioned him here, for instance. To call him an unbiased, experienced, or expert researcher would, in my view, be more than a little optimistic.

The review was financed by the ‘Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association Ltd.’ – call me a pessimist, but I do wonder whether this bodes well for the objectivity of the findings.

The research seems to have been assisted by a range of experts: Professor Caroline Smith, National Institute of Complementary Medicine, Western Sydney University, provided advice regarding evidence levels for assisted reproduction trials; Associate Professor Zhen Zheng, RMIT University identified the evidence levels for postoperative nausea and vomiting and post-operative pain; Dr Suzanne Cochrane, Western Sydney University; Associate Professor Chris Zaslawski, University of Technology Sydney; and Associate Professor Zhen Zheng, RMIT University provided prepublication commentary and advice. I fail to see anyone in this list who is an expert in EBM or who is even mildly critical of acupuncture and the many claims that are being made for it.

The review has not been published in a journal. This means, it has not been peer-reviewed. As we will see shortly, there is reason to doubt that it could pass the peer-review process of any serious journal.

There is an intriguing declaration of conflicts of interest: “Dr John McDonald was a co-author of three of the research papers referenced in this review. Professor Caroline Smith was a co-author of six of the research papers referenced in this review, and Associate Professor Zhen Zheng was co-author of one of the research papers in this review. There were no other conflicts of interest.” Did they all forget to mention that they earn their livelihoods through acupuncture? Or is that not a conflict?

I do love the disclaimer: “The authors and the Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association Ltd (AACMA) give no warranty that the information contained in this publication and within any online updates available on the AACMA website are correct or complete.” I think they have a point here.

But let’s not be petty, let’s look at the actual review and how well it was done!

Systematic reviews must first formulate a precise research question, then disclose the exact methodology, reveal the results and finally discuss them critically. I am afraid, I miss almost all of these essential elements in the document in question.

The methods section includes statements which puzzle me (my comments are in bold):

  • A total of 136 systematic reviews, including 27 Cochrane systematic reviews were included in this review, along with three network meta-analyses, nine reviews of reviews and 20 other reviews. Does that indicate that non-systematic reviews were included too? Yes, it does – but only, if they reported a positive result, I presume.
  • Some of the included systematic reviews included studies which were not randomised controlled trials. In this case, they should have not been included at all, in my view.
  • … evidence from individual randomised controlled trials has been included occasionally where new high quality randomised trials may have changed the conclusions from the most recent systematic review. ‘Occasionally’ is the antithesis of systematic. This discloses the present review as being non-systematic and therefore worthless.
  • Some systematic reviews have not reported an assessment of quality of evidence of included trials, and due to time constraints, this review has not attempted to make such an assessment. Say no more!

It is almost needless to mention that the findings (presented in a host of hardly understandable tables) suggest that acupuncture is of proven or possible effectiveness/efficacy for a very wide array of conditions. It also goes without saying that there is no critical discussion, for instance, of the fact that most of the included evidence originated from China, and that it has been shown over and over again that Chinese acupuncture research never seems to produce negative results.

So, what might we conclude from all this?

I don’t know about you, but for me this new review is nothing but an orgy in deceit and wishful thinking!

Chiropractic is hugely popular, we are often told. The fallacious implication is, of course, that popularity can serve as a surrogate measure for effectiveness. In the United States, chiropractors provided 18.6 million clinical services under Medicare in 2015, and overall spending for chiropractic services was estimated at USD $12.5 billion. Elsewhere, chiropractic seems to be less commonly used, and the global situation has not recently been outlined. The authors of this ‘global overview‘ might fill this gap by summarizing the current literature on the utilization of chiropractic services, reasons for seeking care, patient profiles, and assessment and treatment provided.

Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from database inception to January 2016. Eligible articles

1) were published in English or French (not all that global then!);

2) were case series, descriptive, cross-sectional, or cohort studies;

3) described patients receiving chiropractic services;

4) reported on the following theme(s): utilization rates of chiropractic services; reasons for attending chiropractic care; profiles of chiropractic patients; or, types of chiropractic services provided.

The literature searches retrieved 328 studies (reported in 337 articles) that reported on chiropractic utilization (245 studies), reason for attending chiropractic care (85 studies), patient demographics (130 studies), and assessment and treatment provided (34 studies).

Globally, the median 12-month utilization of chiropractic services was 9.1% (interquartile range (IQR): 6.7%-13.1%) and remained stable between 1980 and 2015. Most patients consulting chiropractors were female (57.0%, IQR: 53.2%-60.0%) with a median age of 43.4 years (IQR: 39.6-48.0), and were employed.

The most common reported reasons for people attending chiropractic care were (median) low back pain (49.7%, IQR: 43.0%-60.2%), neck pain (22.5%, IQR: 16.3%-24.5%), and extremity problems (10.0%, IQR: 4.3%-22.0%). The most common treatment provided by chiropractors included (median) spinal manipulation (79.3%, IQR: 55.4%-91.3%), soft-tissue therapy (35.1%, IQR: 16.5%-52.0%), and formal patient education (31.3%, IQR: 22.6%-65.0%).

The authors concluded that this comprehensive overview on the world-wide state of the chiropractic profession documented trends in the literature over the last four decades. The findings support the diverse nature of chiropractic practice, although common trends emerged.

My interpretation of the data presented is somewhat different from that of the authors. For instance, I fail to share the notion that utilization remained stable over time.

The figure might not be totally conclusive, but I seem to detect a peak in 2005, followed by a decline. Also, as the vast majority of studies originate from the US, I find it difficult to conclude anything about global trends in utilization.

Some of the more remarkable findings of this paper include the fact that 3.1% (IQR: 1.6%-6.1%) of the general population sought chiropractic care for visceral/non-musculoskeletal conditions. Some of the reasons for attending chiropractic care reported by the paediatric population are equally noteworthy: 7% for infections, 5% for asthma, and 5% for stomach problems. Globally, 5% of all consultations were for wellness/maintenance. None of these indications is even remotely evidence-based, of course.

Remarkably, 35% of chiropractors used X-ray diagnostics, and only 31% did a full history of their patients. Spinal manipulation was used by 79%, 31% sold nutritional supplements to their patients, and 10% used applied kinesiology.

In general, this is an informative paper. However, it suffers from a distinct lack of critical input. It seems to skip over almost all areas that might be less than favourable for chiropractors. The reason for this becomes clear, I think, when we read the source of funding for the research: PJHB, AEB, SAM and SDF have received research funding from the Canadian national and provincial chiropractic organizations, either as salary support or for research project funding. JJW received research project funding from the Ontario Chiropractic Association, outside the submitted work. SDF is Deputy Editor-in-Chief for Chiropractic and Manual Therapies; however, he did not have any involvement in the editorial process for this manuscript and was blinded from the editorial system for this paper from submission to decision.

 

Yes, I did promise to report on my participation in the ‘Goldenes Brett’ award which took place in Vienna and Hamburg on 23/11/2017. I had been asked to come to Vienna and do the laudation for the life-time achievement in producing ridiculous nonsense. This year, the award went to the ‘DEUTSCHER ZENTRALVEREIN HOMOEOPATHISCHER AERZTE’ (DZVhÄ), the German Central Society of Homoeopathic Doctors.

In my short speech, I pointed out that this group is a deserving recipient of this prestigious negative award. Founded in 1829, the DZVhÄ  is a lobby-group aimed at promoting homeopathy where and how they can. It is partly responsible for the fact that homeopathy is still highly popular in Germany, and that many German consumers seem to think that homeopathy is an evidence-based therapy.

Cornelia Bajic, the current president of this organisation stated on her website that “Homöopathie hilft bei allen Krankheiten, die keiner chirurgischen oder intensivmedizinischen Behandlung bedürfen“ (homeopathy helps with all diseases which do not need surgical or intensive care), advice that, in my view, has the potential to kill millions.

The DZVhÄ also sponsors the publication of a large range of books such as ‘Was kann die Homoeopathie bei Krebs’ (What can homeopathy do for cancer?). This should be a very short volume consisting of just one page with just one word: NOTHING. But, in fact, it provides all sorts of therapeutic claims that are not supported by evidence and might seriously harm those cancer patients who take it seriously.

But the DZVhÄ does much, much more than just promotion. For instance it organises annual ‘scientific’ conferences – I have mentioned two of them previously here, here and here. In recent years one of its main activity must have been the defamation of certain critics of homeopathy. For instance, they supported Claus Fritzsche in his activities to defame me and others. And recently, they attacked Natalie Grams for her criticism of homeopathy. Only a few days ago, Cornelia Bajic attacked doctor Gram’s new book – embarrassingly, Bajic then had to admit that she had not even read the new book!

The master-stroke of the DZVhÄ , in my opinion, was the fact that they supported the 4 homeopathic doctors who went to Liberia during the Ebola crisis wanting to treat Ebola patients with homeopathy. At the time Bajic stated that “Unsere Erfahrung aus der Behandlung anderer Epidemien in der Geschichte der Medizin lässt den Schluss zu, dass eine homöopathische Behandlung die Sterblichkeitsrate der Ebola-Patienten signifikant verringern könnte” (Our experience with other epidemics in the history of medicine allows the conclusion that homeopathic treatment might significantly reduce the mortality of Ebola patients).

As I said: the DZVhÄ are a well-deserving winner of this award!

 

The fact that many dentists practice dubious alternative therapies receives relatively little attention. In 2016, for instance, Medline listed just 31 papers on the subject of ‘complementary alternative medicine, dentistry’, while there were more than 1800 on ‘complementary alternative medicine’. Similarly, I have discussed this topic just once before on this blog. Clearly, the practice of alternative medicine by dentists begs many questions – perhaps a new paper can answer some of them?

The aims of this study were to “analyse whether dentists offer or recommend complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) remedies in their clinical routine, and how effective these are rated by proponents and opponents. A second aim of this study was to give a profile of the dentists endorsing CAM.

A prospective, explorative, anonymised cross-sectional survey was spread among practicing dentists in Germany via congresses, dental periodicals and online (n=250, 55% male, 45% female; mean age 49.1±11.4years).

Of a set of 31 predefined CAM modalities, the dentists integrated plant extracts from Arnica montana (64%), chamomile (64%), clove (63%), Salvia officinalis (54%), relaxation therapies (62%), homeopathy (57%), osteopathic medicine (50%) and dietetics (50%). The effectiveness of specific treatments was rated significantly higher by CAM proponents than opponents. However, also CAM opponents classified some CAM remedies as highly effective, namely ear acupuncture, osteopathic medicine and clove.

With respect to the characteristic of the proponents, the majority of CAM-endorsing dentists were women. The mean age (50.4±0.9 vs 47.0±0.9years) and number of years of professional experience (24.2±1.0 vs 20.0±1.0years) were significantly higher for CAM proponents than the means for opponents. CAM proponents worked significantly less and their perceived workload was significantly lower. Their self-efficacy expectation (SEE) and work engagement (Utrecht work engagement, UWE) were significantly higher compared to dentists who abandoned these treatment options. The logistic regression model showed an increased association from CAM proponents with the UWES subscale dedication, with years of experience, and that men are less likely to be CAM proponents than women.

The authors concluded that various CAM treatments are recommended by German dentists and requested by their patients, but the scientific evidence for these treatments are often low or at least unclear. CAM proponents are often female, have higher SE and work engagement.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

These conclusion are mostly not based on the data provided.

The researchers seemed to insist on addressing utterly trivial questions.

They failed to engage in even a minimum amount of critical thinking.

If, for instance, dentists are convinced that ear-acupuncture is effective, they are in urgent need of some rigorous education in EBM, I would argue. And if they use a lot of unproven therapies, researchers should ask whether this phenomenon is not to a large extend motivated by their ambition to improve their income.

Holistic dentistry, as it is ironically often called (there is nothing ‘holistic’ about ripping off patients), is largely a con, and dentists who engage in such practices are mostly charlatans … but why does hardly anyone say so?

 

 

There has been a flurry of legal actions against manufacturers of homeopathic products (mostly) in the US. Many of these cases seem to settle out of court which means that we hardly hear about them. Of those that go to court, most are being won by the plaintiffs, but unfortunately some are also lost.

The recent case of Allen v. Hyland’s, Inc. is such an incidence. The US lawyer Robert G Knaier has analysed this case in detail and recently published a paper about it. The article is fascinating and well worth reading in full.

Here I take the liberty to show you a (shorted) section of Knaier’s paper where he asks what went wrong:

… How did a jury decide that Hyland’s did not misrepresent the efficacy of its products? Surely, the court’s instruction that Hyland’s would be liable only if the plaintiffs proved homeopathy “cannot work” contributed to the result. So long as defense experts were able to propose ways that homeopathy might work, the jury was left with the difficult decision—for laypersons, in any event—of rejecting that testimony.

But should the jury ever have been put in the position of having to make that choice? Should the defense experts ever have been allowed to testify? Had the court in Allen granted the plaintiffs’ motions to exclude those experts, the case likely would have ended with a settlement. Without the ability to put on evidence supporting its products, Hyland’s may very well have recognized that it had no realistic chance of prevailing at trial. But the court denied those motions.

In this respect, the court erred. There can be little doubt that expert testimony in support of the efficacy of homeopathy fails tests of admissibility. Consider the Federal Rules of Evidence and the factors that courts should evaluate under Daubert and its progeny. Is testimony that homeopathy is effective “the product of reliable principles and methods”?

In other words, does it have a “reliable foundation”? Is “the reasoning or methodology underlying [it] . . . scientifically valid”?  As explained above, homeopathy’s core principles—provings, like cures like, and the law of minimum dose—are based on little more than Samuel Hahnemann’s late eighteenth-century speculations. They were not developed through, nor have they been validated by, controlled scientific studies… the principles and efficacy of homeopathy have been “tested” and “subjected to peer review and publication” — but they have consistently failed those tests and the scrutiny of that review process… Indeed, the FDA has stated that it simply is “not aware of scientific evidence to support homeopathy as effective.”

Thus, homeopathy’s “rate of error” is known, and far from gaining “general acceptance” in the scientific and medical community, it has gained near-universal condemnation. The defense of homeopathy, in some respects, presents a classic example of “unjustifiably extrapolat[ing] from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion.”  Advocates extrapolate from the efficacy of vaccines that similia similibus currentur has a sound scientific basis, and from the concept of hormesis that providing ultralow doses is well-founded methodology. But as one contemporary skeptic has explained, unlike homeopathic remedies, vaccines actually “contain measurable numbers of antigen molecules,” and “act by well-understood scientific mechanisms”; and hormesis, even in the limited circumstances in which it appears to operate, “describes a response to a low dose, not to no dose.”  As Martin Gardner noted many decades ago, the defense of homeopathy thus begins with plausible-sounding principles, and then “exaggerate[s] them to the point of absurdity.”  In other words, it impermissibly extrapolates to “unfounded conclusion[s].”

Finally, the defense of homeopathy glaringly fails to “account for obvious alternative explanations.” Do people who take homeopathic remedies sometimes feel better? Of course they do. But studies of homeopathy have overwhelmingly concluded that the reason for this is not that homeopathy is actually efficacious, but rather because it is “the ideal placebo.” It is cheap. It has no side effects (unless, as discussed below, it is adulterated). And practitioners spend substantial time with their “patients,” thus encouraging psychosomatic effects.

In the end, advocates of homeopathy may have little to stand on other than that many people—including some “experts” who would gladly be paid to testify—inexplicably seem to believe that it works. But this will not do. That homeopathy has many believers does not validate it as a scientifically sound “field of expertise,” or color it, against nearly 200 years of evidence to the contrary, as one “known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.”  As our Supreme Court perhaps most saliently observed, “general acceptance” of a principle cannot “help show that an expert’s testimony is reliable where the discipline itself lacks reliability.” As the Court explained, general acceptance of “principles of astrology or necromancy,” for example, would not transform those subjects into appropriately reliable subjects of expert testimony.  The Court could easily have added homeopathy to that list.

Thus, in allowing the jury to receive testimony about the principles of homeopathy—not as a matter of historic curiosity, but as a matter of scientific validity—the Allen court arguably abdicated its gatekeeping responsibility to screen out unreliable expert testimony. By permitting “experts” to testify in favor of a field the bases of which defy basic principles of biology, chemistry, and physics — indeed, in some respects “basic logical principles” — the “integrity and fairness of the trial process” was compromised.

END OF QUOTE

I fully agree with Knaier. Allowing the ‘flat earth society’ to present to a court their views about the shape of our planet, while instructing the jury that they must accept them as ‘evidence’ (unless the plaintiff can prove it to be untrue) cannot be the right way forward. In fact, it is a method of preventing progress. Following this logic, I cannot imagine the proponents of any absurdity – however ridiculous – to not be victorious in court.

Knaier’s ultimate conclusion is, I think correct: “Trial courts have robust power and clear responsibility to preclude litigants from introducing irrelevant and unreliable evidence in support of purportedly scientific claims… To the extent that courts continue abdicating their evidentiary gatekeeping role in this way, they may contribute to a waste of time and resources, financial harm to consumers, and risks to public health. But to the extent that litigants and courts strengthen their spines in this regard, take seriously the dangers of unfounded expert testimony, and make genuine efforts to seek and grant its exclusion, they might contribute to the health and well-being of both the courts and those who turn to them for help.”

This is too wonderful (I found it on Twitter where it was posted by ‘Doctors Leonard and Michael Valentine’, chiropractors at Valentine Chiropractic in Fountain Valley, CA.) – I have to show it to you.

This could almost pass without a comment. But for what it’s worth, here are my 7 points:

  1. platitude,
  2. platitude,
  3. no, they do not easily move out of alignment, and if they do, you are severely ill and need urgent treatment but not chiropractic,
  4. subluxations as dreamt up by chiropractors are a myth; they simply do not exist,
  5. it is vital that we don’t disclose this BS, if not chiros need to find new jobs,
  6. chiros pretend to find subluxations because this is their livelihood,
  7. pathetic platitude.

 

1 2 3 34

Gravityscan Badge

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