bogus claims
If you are not American, you will ask: Who the Dickens is Aaron Rodgers? I too had to look it up. He is an American football star. And it seems that US football fans are worried about him and his rather brainless idea of homeopathic vaccination.
Yesterday it was confirmed that the ‘Green Bay Packers’ quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, had tested positive for Covid and will thus have to miss at least 10 days of crucial games. Only the unvaccinated players are forced to miss a mandatory 10 games following a positive test — while vaccinated players can return at any point, as long as they provide two negative tests 24 hours apart and are not experiencing symptoms.
Everyone had assumed that Rodgers was vaccinated – after all, he had confirmed it when asked about his vaccination status by a reporter prior to the start of the season. Presumably, he thought so himself when he affirmed, with a straight face, that he was immunized.
But now it has been revealed that Aaron Rodgers was given a homeopathic vaccination for COVID from his personal doctor. When the NFL reviewed his treatment, they did not deem it suitable to appropriately label him as “vaccinated.”
Per NFL.com:
Rodgers received homeopathic treatment from his personal doctor to raise his antibody levels and asked the NFL to review his status. The league pointed Rodgers to the NFL-NFLPA protocols, which do not account for such an exemption for players. So, Rodgers remained subject to a variety of restrictions, including daily testing, mask-wearing and high-risk close contact protocol that would force him to isolate for five days based on interaction with a positive individual, even if he tested negative.
Now, as an unvaccinated player, Aaron Rodgers will have to sit out the next 10 days, at least. That means he won’t play for the Packers this Sunday against the Kansas City Chiefs. The soonest he can return to the team is Saturday, November 13, one day before the Packers’ week 10 matchup with the Seattle Seahawks.
I don’t suppose that Aaron Rodgers is an avid reader of my blog. Pity! Because, if he had followed our discussions, he would have known what to think of homeopathy in general and of homeopathic vaccination in particular:
- HOMEOPATHY = “the complete alternative to vaccination” ?!?!
- Homeopathic vaccines do not evoke antibody responses
- Helios abandons ‘homeopathic vaccines’
- Homeopathic immunisation is dangerous, unethical madness
- Homeopaths should carry public health warnings!
- Is this the crown of the Corona-idiocy? Nosodes In Prevention And Management Of COVID -19
- Recommending homeoprophylaxis is unethical, irresponsible and possibly even criminal
- Let’s be blunt: homeopathy is bogus – but homeoprophylaxis is worse, much worse!
Some people seem to insist on finding out the hard way about homeopathy. Personally, I hope Aaron Rodgers recovers fully from both his COVID infection and his homeopathic fantasies. Oh, I almost forgot: I also want to thank him for his sacrifice; it hopefully leads to a better understanding in the US of the fact that homeopathy is a placebo treatment.
PS
This is what the man himself had to say:
I have reported about Lyma twice before (see here and here). So, why again? I know, it’s just a supplement, but it is still a special case because
- it is being marketed very aggressively,
- it is the “world’s 1st super supplement”,
- we have on this blog a long debate with one of the experts responsible for Lyma.
On 18 March 2019, Paul Clayton, a clinical pharmacologist employed by the firm, stated the following about Lyma: you will realise that all the actives bar one (the ashwagandha) are food derivates / extracts. I take this to mean that, except for ashwagandha, all the ingredients of Lyma ought to be inherently safe. If we accept this for a moment (even though I am not sure that it is entirely correct), it means that ashwagandha determines the safety of Lyma more than any of the other ingredients. Paul Clayton also assured us that Lyma is totally safe, meaning that no serious concerns about ashwagandha’s safety have been reported.
Sadly, this does not seem to be quite true. There have been several reports of liver injury after the consumption of the herbal remedy. Here is another article that is not Medline-listed: Inagaki K, Mori N, Honda Y, Takaki S, Tsuji K, Chayama K. A case of drug-induced liver injury with prolonged severe intrahepatic cholestasis induced by Ashwagandha. Kanzo 2017; 58: 448-54. (20 year old man developed jaundice a month after increasing the dose of ashwagandha [bilirubin 20.7 mg/dL, ALT 94 U/L, Alk P 343 U/L, INR 1.02], jaundice persisting for more than 2 months, but ultimately resolving).
Perhaps the most concerning paper is this latest article:
Background & aims: Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) is widely used in Indian Ayurvedic medicine. Several dietary supplements containing ashwagandha are marketed in the US and Europe, but only one case of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) due to ashwagandha has been published. The aim of this case series was to describe the clinical phenotype of suspected ashwagandha-induced liver injury.
Methods: Five cases of liver injury attributed to ashwagandha-containing supplements were identified; three were collected in Iceland during 2017-2018 and two from the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) in 2016. Other causes for liver injury were excluded. Causality was assessed using the DILIN structured expert opinion causality approach.
Results: Among the five patients, three were males; mean age was 43 years (range 21-62). All patients developed jaundice and symptoms such as nausea, lethargy, pruritus and abdominal discomfort after a latency of 2-12 weeks. Liver injury was cholestatic or mixed (R ratios 1.4-3.3). Pruritus and hyperbilirubinaemia were prolonged (5-20 weeks). No patient developed hepatic failure. Liver tests normalized within 1-5 months in four patients. One patient was lost to follow-up. One biopsy was performed, showing acute cholestatic hepatitis. Chemical analysis confirmed ashwagandha in available supplements; no other toxic compounds were identified. No patient was taking potentially hepatotoxic prescription medications, although four were consuming additional supplements, and in one case, rhodiola was a possible causative agent along with ashwagandha.
Conclusions: These cases illustrate the hepatotoxic potential of ashwagandha. Liver injury is typically cholestatic or mixed with severe jaundice and pruritus, but self-limited with liver tests normalizing in 1-5 months.
In the lengthy exchanges between Paul Clayton and others on my blog – truly worth reading! – Paul assured us all that he is a serious scientist who would not mislead the consumer. At the time, he might not have been aware of the above-mentioned reports (the most recent of the above-mentioned papers was published in April 2020). Today, however, he must know of these concerns. Therefore, we can soon expect some serious measures from him and his employers, the firm that manufactures/sells Lyma.
I wonder what they will do. As far as I can see, it will have to be the voluntary withdrawal of Lyma from the market or, at the very least, the inclusion of a warning in all their materials:
“This product may cause severe liver damage”.
The secret is simple, and it is for sale. The advertising could not be clearer:
“Get ready for some good lovin’ because more blood to your bits means better stimulation to your love organ, which may improve fertility and give you a boost to your libido.”
The supplement that can achieve all this for you is called ‘Nitro Wood‘. It contains the following ingredients:
PINE BARK + BEETROOT + CINNAMON + GRAPE SEED EXTRACT + GARLIC EXTRACT + CAYENNE PEPPER
And these herbal remedies are claimed to have the following effects:
- Promotes Nitric Oxide Production Studies suggest that almost half the cases of sexual dysfunction in men are from lack of nitric oxide. This explosive blend naturally triggers the best kind of nitric oxide production — your own body’s.
- Lowers Blood Pressure Healthy blood vessels significantly lower your risks of heart disease and stroke. This combination of superfood extracts is high in nitrates, which is nature’s way of keeping your blood pressure in check.
Improves Physical Performance You’ll notice a vast improvement in your physical activity and endurance, whether at the gym or in the bedroom. Whatever the playground, you’ll be knocking it out of the park!
And it comes with an authoritative endorsement:
Nitro Wood contains key nutrients that are proven to support healthy blood flow, improving your overall wellness, energy levels and performance in the gym — and in the bedroom (if you know what we mean 😉
Cedars-Sinai Cardiologist Dr. David M. Filsoof, M.D.
And at an ‘auto subscription’ prize of US$ 34.39 for 30 servings, this seems a bargain too good to miss. There is, as far as I can see, just one tiny little snag: I failed to find anything that looks remotely like evidence to suggest that ‘Nitro Wood’ has any effect whatsoever.
So, in case you are disappointed by this product and also prefer something that is ‘super safe’, how about this gadget? 
Doubting your capability in bed? We got you! We are happy to offer you a product that can make you last long in bed while providing the maximum performance! Introducing the 4000ions HardSteel AlphaMaleMagnetic Bracelet
This STYLISH BRACELET is POWERED by a BUILT-IN INFRARED that has a BIO-ACT TECHNOLOGY that DELIVERS the fir (far-infrared) energy into a nano structure that PENETRATES DEEPLY in to the human skin and provides the following benefits: Reduces Inflammation, Strengthens Heart Health, Aids Digestion, Lowers Blood Pressure, Detoxify Body, Relieves Stress and Boosts Immune System.
Please note how almost all the buzz-words of so-called alternative medicine are elegantly put to their strongest advantage:
- bio
- energy
- nano
- detox
- stress
- immune system
The ‘4000ions HardSteel AlphaMaleMagnetic Bracelet’ has the additional advantage of being more economical. It costs just Euro 10.26!
Alas, the gadget has the same drawback as the ‘Nitro Wood’ supplement: there is not a jot of evidence to suggest that it helps anyone else than the manufacturer.
Increased intestinal permeability, also often called leaky gut syndrome, has been popularized by some health practitioners, mainly those of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). There is insufficient evidence to support its existence and the claim that SCAMs are effective treatments of it is unsubstantiated.
This study aims to describe the health-seeking behavior of Australian adults with suspected increased intestinal permeability (IP). A cross-sectional survey was conducted of 589 Australian adults who have been diagnosed with IP or have suspected (undiagnosed) IP.
The majority (56.2%) of participants with suspected IP reported self-diagnosing their condition, with the majority (56.7%) of these participants preferring to be assessed using an accurate method by a general practitioner or naturopath. On average, Australian adults with suspected IP spent 11.1 (95% CI: 9.5, 12.8) years between first suspecting IP and receiving a formal diagnosis. Over the previous 12 months, participants spent an average of $699 on consultation fees, $2176 on dietary supplements for the treatment of IP, and an average of $287 on the assessment of IP. Furthermore, participants who find it difficult to live on their available household income spent significantly more (mean=$2963) on dietary supplements compared to participants who find it easy to live on their available household income ($1918) (p=0.015).
In terms of the preferred method of treating IP, participants ‘strongly prefer’ the use of dietary products (n=392, 82.2%), followed by lifestyle habits (n=357, 76.5%), and dietary supplements (n=324, 68.6%). On the contrary, 82.8% (n=351) of participants ‘slightly prefer’ the use of medications to treat IP, representing the least preferred method of IP treatment.
The authors concluded that the majority of participants experienced a considerable length of time between first suspecting IP and receiving a diagnosis of IP. The out-of-pocket expenditure associated with the management of IP suggests a financial burden for people with suspected IP. The results of this study provide novel patient-centred considerations that can be used to inform a clinical practice guideline for the management of IP.
I would, however, draw a very different conclusion from these data: patients who think they suffer from IP often fall into the hands of SCAM practitioners who assure them to have a non-existing disease and relieve them of their money by treating them with bogus SCAM.
Guest post by Emeritus Professor Alastair MacLennan AO, MB ChB, MD, FRCOG, FRANZCOG
The sale and promotion of a therapeutic drug in most countries require rigorous assessment and licencing by that country’s therapeutic regulatory body. However, a new surgical technique can escape such checks and overview unless the technique is subject to local medical ethics review in the context of a research trial. New medical devices in Australia such as carbon dioxide or Er-YAG lasers can be listed on its therapeutic register without critical review of their efficacy and safety. Thermal injury to the postmenopausal vaginal wall in the hope of rejuvenating it has become a lucrative fad for some surgeons outside formal well-conducted clinical trials.
There are many published studies of this technique but the large majority are small, uncontrolled and observational. The few randomised controlled trials using sham controls show a placebo effect and debatable clinical efficacy with limited follow-up of adverse effects. A review of these therapies in July 2020 published by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence summarised apparent claims for some efficacy in terms of vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, sexual function, and incontinence but noted confounding in the study’s designs such as concurrent breast cancer treatments, local oestrogen therapy and lubricants (!). Most studies had very limited follow up for adverse events but elsewhere the literature has reported burns, infection, increased dyspareunia and scarring. There is no physiological mechanism by which burning atrophic vaginal epithelium will magically rejuvenate it.
A recent well-conducted randomised sham-controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up of Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser for the treatment of vaginal symptoms associated with menopause has been published in JAMA by Li et al has shown no efficacy for this treatment(2).
At 12 months, there was no difference in overall symptom severity based on a 0-100 scale (zero equals no symptoms), with a reduction in symptom severity of 17.2 in the treatment group compared with 26.6 in the sham group.
The treatment had no impact on quality of life. “Sexual activity rates and quality of sex were not significantly different between the groups at baseline or 12 months”. The study compared 46 paired vaginal wall biopsies, taken at baseline and six months into treatment, and no significant histological improvement with laser was evident.
“The annual cost of laser treatment to the individual for management of vaginal menopausal symptoms was reported to be AUD$2,733, and because there is no demonstrable difference versus sham treatment, it cannot be considered to be cost-effective.”
Although one could still call for more quality sham-controlled randomised trials in different circumstances there is no justification for touting this therapy commercially. Complications following this therapy outside of ethical trials could become the next medico-legal mine-field.
Vaginal atrophy in the years after menopause is almost universal and is primarily due to oestrogen deficiency. The efficient solution is local vaginal oestrogen or systemic hormone replacement therapy. However, the misreporting of the Women’s Health Initiative and Million Women’s Study has created exaggerated fear of oestrogen therapies and thus a market for alternative and often unproven therapies (3). The way forward is education and tailoring of hormonal therapies to minimise risk and maximise efficacy and quality of life and not to resort to quackery.
References
1. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg697/documents/overview
2. Li FG, Maheux-Lacroix S, Deans R et al. Effect of Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser vs Sham Treatment on Symptom Severity in Women With Postmenopausal Vaginal Symptoms A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;326:1381-1389.
3. MacLennan AH. Evidence-based review of therapies at the menopause. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2009; 7: 112-123.
Recently, I wrote about the court case of a French naturopath. Last week, the judge has issued his verdict. Miguel Barthéléry was sentenced
to a two-year suspended prison term and to a fine of 5 000 Euros. Two cancer patients had died following his treatments and recommendations. Barthéléry was also found guilty of impersonating a doctor and illegally practising medicine. In addition, he was also banned for life from practising as a healthcare professional.
The Paris criminal court found that Miguel Barthéléry had deliberately created confusion about his qualifications by presenting himself as a doctor on the internet and in text messages to the two victims. The defendant had claimed to have a doctorate and a post-doctorate from the United States. The judgment “has the consequence of dissuading all those who engage in the same abuses, they are now warned that we can not do anything with the health of people,” said the judge.
The case had begun in February 2019 with the complaint of the companion of a man who had died two months earlier of testicular cancer. Diagnosed in 2016, the patient had not consulted a doctor but had preferred to follow a “health plan” drawn up by the naturopath. It was based on fasting and cures, raw food, and essential oils. Later, the family of a Belgian physiotherapist, who died of uterine cancer at the age of 39, joined the legal case. However, according to Code Source, the Parisien podcast, the case is more extensive, with seven further suspicious deaths of Barthéléry’s patients.
Barthéléry’s lawyer said that the decision “raises questions more generally about the appreciation that we now have of alternative therapeutic practices, which now seem, although not prohibited by law, to be subject to condemnation by the courts.”
The ‘International Chiropractors Association’ (ICA) has just issued a statement entitled “International Chiropractors Association Affirms Policy on Health Freedom“. On the background of the fact that US President Biden, issued a series of Executive Orders related to mandating federal employees and federal contractors to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the ICA try to explain their position regarding vaccinations. Here are a few passages from this statement:
…In a world of public health that promotes evidence-based decision making, we see the importance of natural immunity being ignored and replaced with a totalitarian approach of compulsory vaccination. At a time when the Surgeon General says misinformation has become an urgent threat to public health, misinformation is now being used in an attempt to discredit the chiropractic profession, the International Chiropractors Association, and all chiropractic patients who desire to focus on improving health naturally. After enduring 18 months of shutdowns, lockdowns, flattening the curve, masking, limitations of speech on social media; and a cancel culture environment that threatens the basic freedoms our country was founded upon in 1776, ICA will not compromise on the importance of protecting health freedom…
The ICA Policy on Immunization and Vaccination has remained unchanged for almost 50 years and clearly states:
“The International Chiropractors Association recognizes that the use of vaccines is not without risk and questions the wisdom of mass vaccination programs. Chiropractic principles favor the enhancement of natural immunity over artificial immunization.
The ICA supports each individual’s right to select his or her own health care and to be made aware of the possible adverse effects of vaccines upon a human body. In accordance with such principles and based upon the individual’s right to freedom of choice, the ICA is opposed to compulsory programs which infringe upon such rights.
The International Chiropractors Association is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws, providing an elective course of action for all regarding immunization, thereby allowing patients freedom of choice in matters affecting their bodies and health.”
The International Chiropractors Association maintains that all healthcare interventions, including the chiropractic adjustment, are associated with some level of risk and that every individual is entitled to be informed of those risks, no matter how insignificant. All individuals must retain the freedom to accept or reject any healthcare product, procedure, or medication including vaccinations. The International Chiropractors Association therefore strongly opposes the use of medical mandates that violate personal sovereignty, violate the principles of informed consent, and constrain the rights of patients to make their own health care choices…
The ICA encourages the recognition that natural efforts to enhance the innate immune system ability to adapt to novel viruses are grounded in science and rejects the notion that the patients’ freedom to rely on naturally acquired immunity is not based upon unscientific beliefs.
The ICA rejects the premise that the chiropractic profession’s long history of promoting health freedom and supporting conscientious exemptions is based upon unscientific or non-mainstream beliefs…
I find this statement clear as mud and have the following questions:
- Do the ICA recommend vaccinations?
- In particular, do they encourage their members to get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines?
- Do they advise to recommend COVID-19 vaccinations to their patients?
- Or do they think that natural immunity is preferable and advise their members and patients accordingly?
- Do they believe that spinal manipulation enhances natural immunity?
- Do they think that spinal manipulations are an effective alternative to COVID-19 vaccinations?
- Do they believe that scientific evidence trumps dogma or vice versa?
- Which of the two should, according to their conviction, must influence the decision-making processes in healthcare?
- If the ICA object to misinformation about COVID, why do they not stop their members from promoting it?
- What makes them think that information about the possible adverse effects of vaccines upon a human body is unavailable?
- If the ICA recognizes the risks of spinal manipulation, why do they not inform the public about them regularly and objectively?
- If the ICA knows about the importance of informed consent, why do not all of their members adhere to it?
- And finally, why do the ICA insist on the term ‘international’ in the name of their organization, if they purely deal with the US situation?
I do not expect the ICA to give me the answers to these questions. But perhaps their Wiki page goes some way towards answering some of them: “… The ICA supports the efforts of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).[13] The NVIC is known for promoting false and misleading information about vaccines, in particular the discredited claim that vaccines cause autism.
The ICA’s annual conferences have featured anti-vaccination propaganda. In 2018 Guest Speaker Beau Pierce (Pierce co-produced a series entitled Vaccines Revealed) hosted a session entitled Vaccines Revealed.,[14] and Jeff Hays, known for producing the anti-Vaccine propaganda Vaccines Revealed, was invited to host a session the 2017 ICA Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics Annual Conference. In 2016 the widely discredited anti-vaccination propaganda film VAXXED was shown at a conference sponsored by the ICA’s Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics …”
SAY NO MORE!
Therapeutic touch (TT) is a form of paranormal or energy healing developed by Dora Kunz (1904-1999), a psychic and alternative practitioner, in collaboration with Dolores Krieger, a professor of nursing. TT is popular and practised predominantly by US nurses; it is currently being taught in more than 80 colleges and universities in the U.S., and in more than seventy countries. According to one TT-organisation, TT is a holistic, evidence-based therapy that incorporates the intentional and compassionate use of universal energy to promote balance and well-being. It is a consciously directed process of energy exchange during which the practitioner uses the hands as a focus to facilitate the process.
The question is: does TT work beyond a placebo effect?
This review synthesized recent (January 2009–June 2020) investigations on the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic touch (TT) as a therapy in clinical health applications. A rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach was used to review recent TT research adopting PRISMA 2009 guidelines. CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Web of Science, PsychINFO, and Google Scholar were screened between January 2009-March 2020 for studies exploring TT therapies as an intervention. The main outcome measures were for pain, anxiety, sleep, nausea, and functional improvement.
Twenty-one studies covering a range of clinical issues were identified, including 15 randomized controlled trials, four quasi-experimental studies, one chart review study, and one mixed-methods study including 1,302 patients. Eighteen of the studies reported positive outcomes. Only four exhibited a low risk of bias. All others had serious methodological flaws, bias issues, were statistically underpowered, and scored as low-quality studies. Over 70% of the included studies scored the lowest score possible on the GSRS weight of evidence scale. No high-quality evidence was found for any of the benefits claimed.
The authors drew the following conclusions:
After 45 years of study, scientific evidence of the value of TT as a complementary intervention in the management of any condition still remains immature and inconclusive:
- Given the mixed result, lack of replication, overall research quality and significant issues of bias identified, there currently exists no good quality evidence that supports the implementation of TT as an evidence‐based clinical intervention in any context.
- Research over the past decade exhibits the same issues as earlier work, with highly diverse poor quality unreplicated studies mainly published in alternative health media.
- As the nature of human biofield energy remains undemonstrated, and that no quality scientific work has established any clinically significant effect, more plausible explanations of the reported benefits are from wishful thinking and use of an elaborate theatrical placebo.
TT turns out to be a prime example of a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that enthusiastic amateurs, who wanted to prove TT’s effectiveness, have submitted to multiple trials. Thus the literature is littered with positive but unreliable studies. This phenomenon can create the impression – particularly to TT fans – that the treatment works.
This course of events shows in an exemplary fashion that research is not always something that creates progress. In fact, poor research often has the opposite effect. Eventually, a proper scientific analysis is required to put the record straight (the findings of which enthusiasts are unlikely to accept).
In view of all this, and considering the utter implausibility of TT, it seems an unethical waste of resources to continue researching the subject. Similarly, continuing to use TT in clinical settings is unethical and potentially dangerous.
This article from AP News caught my attention. Here it is (I haven’t changed a word):
The flashy postcard, covered with images of syringes, beckoned people to attend Vax-Con ’21 to learn “the uncensored truth” about COVID-19 vaccines.
Participants traveled from around the country to a Wisconsin Dells resort for a sold-out convention that was, in fact, a sea of misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines and the pandemic. The featured speaker was the anti-vaccine activist who appeared in the 2020 movie “Plandemic,” which pushed false COVID-19 stories into the mainstream. One session after another discussed bogus claims about the health dangers of mask wearing and vaccines.
The convention was organized by members of a profession that has become a major purveyor of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic: chiropractors.
At a time when the surgeon general says misinformation has become an urgent threat to public health, an investigation by The Associated Press found a vocal and influential group of chiropractors has been capitalizing on the pandemic by sowing fear and mistrust of vaccines.
They have touted their supplements as alternatives to vaccines, written doctor’s notes to allow patients to get out of mask and immunization mandates, donated large sums of money to anti-vaccine organizations and sold anti-vaccine ads on Facebook and Instagram, the AP discovered. One chiropractor gave thousands of dollars to a Super PAC that hosted an anti-vaccine, pro-Donald Trump rally near the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
They have also been the leading force behind anti-vaccine events like the one in Wisconsin, where hundreds of chiropractors from across the U.S. shelled out $299 or more to attend. The AP found chiropractors were allowed to earn continuing education credits to maintain their licenses in at least 10 states.
On this blog, I have often discussed that chiropractors tend to be anti-vax. It all goes back to their founding father, DD Palmer, who famously wrote:
- Vaccination and inoculation are pathological; chiropractic is physiological,
- and who in 1894, published his views on smallpox vaccination: ‘…the monstrous delusion … fastened on us by the medical profession, enforced by the state boards, and supported by the mass of unthinking people …’
- and who stated in 1896 that keeping tissue healthy is therefore the best prevention against infections; and this is best achieved by magnetic healing.
But that’s long ago! We are not like that anymore! … say the chiros of today.
Do you believe them?
If so, you might want to read this article by Jann Bellamy. Or alternatively, just look at some of my finds from the Internet:
Practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) regularly claim with great pride that they treat the ROOT CAUSES of disease. The claim has at least 4 effects:
- It distracts from the true causes of disease which are often multifactorial.
- It attracts customers to SCAM.
- It implies that conventional medicine is at best symptomatic and thus far inferior to SCAM.
- It encourages the patients of SCAM practitioners to turn their backs on mainstream healthcare.
The notion that SCAM practitioners treat the root causes is based on the practitioners’ understanding of etiology:
- If a traditional acupuncturist, for instance, becomes convinced that all disease is the expression of an imbalance of life-forces, and that needling acupuncture points will re-balance these forces thus restoring health, he must automatically assume that he is treating the root causes of any condition.
- If a chiropractor believes that all diseases are due to ‘subluxations’ of the spine, it must seem logical to him that spinal ‘adjustment’ is synonymous with treating the root cause of whatever complaint his patient is suffering from.
- If a Bowen therapist is convinced that “the Bowen Technique aims to balance the whole person, not just the symptoms“, he is bound to be equally sure that the root cause of “practically any problem can potentially be addressed” by this intervention.
- If a homeopath is convinced that all illness stems from a weakness of the ‘vital force’ and that only homeopathic remedies can revitalize it, they are likely to believe that their remedies tackle the root cause of all diseases.
- Etc., etc.
So, are SCAM practitioners correct when they claim to treat the root causes of disease?
When a root cause has been eliminated, the disease has been eliminated by its root. Treating a root cause, therefore, means that the disease is permanently cured. The above question can therefore be re-phrased as follows:
Is there any SCAM that cures any disease permanently?
I think the answer is NO. (At least, I know none. I would, however, be most grateful if someone could name one together with the evidence)
Even demonstrably effective forms of SCAM are effective only in terms of alleviating the symptoms. The one with the best evidence is probably St John’s wort. It works fine for mild to moderate depression. Yet, it does not cure depression: if we discontinue the treatment, the depression is likely to return.
And what about conventional medicine? Does it offer any permanent cures?
I have been searching and have to admit that I cannot find many either. Here is my list so far of diseases that are potentially curable (meaning they are unlikely to come back once the treatment has stopped and excluding disease prevention) with conventional medicine – and again, I would be really grateful if readers could add to my preliminary list:
- Acute emergencies, like anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, etc.
- Bacterial infections (well most of them)
- Cancer (some), like Hodgkin lymphoma
- Malnutrition like beriberi of iron-deficiency anemia
- Phobias (some)
- Fungal infections (some)
- Poisonings (some)
- Many surgical indications such as appendicitis, gall stones, carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.
Not a long list, I admit (but better than nothing!) – so, please help me to prolong it by adding diseases that I did not mention.
THANKS
