We tend to trust charities; many of us donate to charities; we think highly of the work they do and the advice they issue. And why shouldn’t we? After all, a ‘charity’ is ‘an institution or organization set up to provide help, money, etc, to those in need’. Not a hint at anything remotely sinister here – charities are good!

Except, of course, those that are not so good!

By ‘not so good’ I mean charities that misinform the public to a point where they might even endanger our health, well-being and savings. Yes, I am speaking of those charities that promote unproven or disproven alternative therapies – and unfortunately, there are many of those around today.

Our recent letter in the SUNDAY TIMES, tried to alert the public to this problem and to the fact that the UK regulator seems to be failing to do much about it. A Charity Commission spokesman, in turn, replied that his organisation had received the letter and would respond formally to it:

“The Commission is required to register organisations as charities which are established for exclusively charitable purposes for the public benefit,” he said. “Charitable purposes for the advancement of health include conventional methods as well as complementary, alternative or holistic methods which are concerned with healing mind, body and spirit in the alleviation of symptoms and the cure of illness. Those organisations dealing with complementary and alternative medicines must be able to demonstrate that they are capable of promoting health otherwise they will not be for the public benefit.

“The Commission is the registrar and regulator of charities however it is not the authority in the efficacy of any and every non-traditional medical treatment. These are issues of substantial debate with a variety of opinions. Each case is considered on its merits based on the evidence available. To be charitable there needs to be sufficient evidence of the efficacy of the method to be used. The Commission must further be assured that any potential harm that might be said to arise does not outweigh the benefit identified by the method.

“The Commission expects charities to provide information that is factually accurate with legitimate evidence.” 

But is the information provided by all charities factually accurate?

Take, for instance, YES TO LIFE! Have a good look and then decide for yourself.

On their website they state: “We provide support, information and financial assistance to those with cancer seeking to pursue approaches that are currently unavailable on the NHS. We also run a series of educational seminars and workshops which are aimed at the general public who want to know more and practitioners working with people who have cancer.”

The website informs us about many alternative therapies and directly or indirectly promote them for the curative or supportive treatment of cancer. I have chosen 5 of them and copied the respective summaries as published by YES TO LIFE. My main selection criterion was having done some research myself on the modality in question. Here are the 5 cancer treatments which I selected; the text from YES TO LIFE is in bold, and that of my published research is in normal print with a link to the published paper:


Carctol is a relatively inexpensive product, specifically formulated to assist cells with damaged respiration, it is also a powerful antioxidant that targets free radicals, the cause of much cellular damage. It also acts to detoxify the system.

The claim that Carctol is of any benefit to cancer patients is not supported by scientific evidence.


Often given intravenously as part of a programme of Metabolic Therapy, Laetrile is a non-toxic extract of apricot kernels. The claimed mechanism of action that is broken down by enzymes found in cancer cells. Hydrogen cyanide, one of the products of this reaction then has a local toxic effect on the cells.

The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.


Mistletoe therapy was developed as an adjunct to cancer treatment in Switzerland in 1917-20, in the collaboration between Dr I Wegman MD and Dr Rudolf Steiner PhD (1861-1925). Mistletoe extracts are typically administered by subcutaneous injection, often over many years. Mistletoe treatment improves quality of life, supports patients during recommended conventional cancer treatments and some studies show survival benefit. It is safe and has no adverse interactions with conventional cancer treatments.

None of the methodologically stronger trials exhibited efficacy in terms of quality of life, survival or other outcome measures. Rigorous trials of mistletoe extracts fail to demonstrate efficacy of this therapy.


A type of low toxicity chemotherapy derived from a combination of two known cytotoxic drugs that are of little use individually, as the doses required for effective anticancer action are too high to be tolerated. However the combination is effective at far lower doses, with few side effects.

The data from randomised clinical trials suggest Ukrain to have potential as an anticancer drug. However, numerous caveats prevent a positive conclusion, and independent rigorous studies are urgently needed. [To judge the validity of this last treatment, I also recommend reading a previous post of mine.]

Finally, it might be informative to see who the individuals behind YES TO LIFE are. I invite you to have a look at their list of medical advisors which, I think, speaks for itself. It includes, for instance, Dr Michael Dixon of whom we have heard before on this blog, for instance, here, here and here.

Say no more!

While over on my post about the new NICE GUIDELINES on acupuncture for back pain, the acupuncturists’ assassination attempts of my character, competence, integrity and personality are in full swing, I have decided to employ my time more fruitfully and briefly comment on a new piece of acupuncture research.

This new Italian study was to determine the effectiveness of acupuncture for the management of hot flashes in women with breast cancer.

A total of 190 women with breast cancer were randomly assigned to two groups. Random assignment was performed with stratification for hormonal therapy; the allocation ratio was 1:1. Both groups received a booklet with information about climacteric syndrome and its management to be followed for at least 12 weeks. In addition, the acupuncture group received 10 traditional acupuncture treatment sessions involving needling of predefined acupoints.

The primary outcome was hot flash score at the end of treatment (week 12), calculated as the frequency multiplied by the average severity of hot flashes. The secondary outcomes were climacteric symptoms and quality of life, measured by the Greene Climacteric and Menopause Quality of Life scales. Health outcomes were measured for up to 6 months after treatment. Expectation and satisfaction of treatment effect and safety were also evaluated. We used intention-to-treat analyses.

Of the participants, 105 were randomly assigned to enhanced self-care and 85 to acupuncture plus enhanced self-care. Acupuncture plus enhanced self-care was associated with a significantly lower hot flash score than enhanced self-care at the end of treatment (P < .001) and at 3- and 6-month post-treatment follow-up visits (P = .0028 and .001, respectively). Acupuncture was also associated with fewer climacteric symptoms and higher quality of life in the vasomotor, physical, and psychosocial dimensions (P < .05).

The authors concluded that acupuncture in association with enhanced self-care is an effective integrative intervention for managing hot flashes and improving quality of life in women with breast cancer.

This hardly needs a comment, as I have been going on about this study design many times before: the ‘A+B versus B’ design can only produce positive findings. Any such study concluding that ‘acupuncture (or whatever other intervention) is effective’ can therefore not be a legitimate test of a hypothesis and ought to be categorised as pseudo-science. Sadly, this problem seems more the rule than the exception in the realm of acupuncture research. That’s a pity really… because, if there is potential in acupuncture at all, this sort of thing can only distract from it.

I think the JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, its editors and reviewers, should be ashamed of having published such misleading rubbish.

A recent comment to a blog-post about alternative treatments for cancer inspired me to ponder a bit. I think it is noteworthy because it exemplifies so many of the comments I hear in the realm of alternative medicine on an almost daily basis. Here is the comment in question:

“Yes…it appears that the medical establishment have known for years that chemotherapy a lot of the time kills patients faster than if they were untreated…what’s more, it worsens a person’s quality of life in which many die directly of the severe effects on the endocrine, immune system and more…cancers often return in more aggressive forms metastasising with an increased risk of apoptosis. In other words it makes things worse whereas there are many natural remedies which not only do no harm but accumulating evidence points to their capacity to fight cancer…some of it is bullshit whilst some holds some truth!! So turning away from toxic treatments that kill towards natural approaches that are showing more hope with the backing of trials kinda reverses the whole argument of this article.”

The comment first annoyed me a bit, of course, but later it made me think and consider the differences between conspiracy theories, assumptions, opinions, evidence and scientific facts. Let’s tackle each of these in turn.


A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative theory suggesting that two or more persons, or an organization, have conspired to cause or cover up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful.

Part of the above comment bears some of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory: “…the medical establishment have known for years that chemotherapy a lot of the time kills patients faster than if they were untreated…” The assumption here is that the conventional healthcare practitioners are evil enough to knowingly do harm to their patients. Such conspiracy theories abound in the realm of alternative medicine; they include the notions that

  • BIG PHARMA is out to kill us all in order to maximize their profits,
  • the ‘establishment’ is suppressing any information about the benefits of alternative treatments,
  • vaccinations are known to be harmful but nevertheless being forced on to our children,
  • drug regulators are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry,
  • doctors accept bribes for prescribing dangerous drugs
  • etc. etc.

In a previous blog-post, I have discussed the fact that the current popularity of alternative medicine is at least partly driven by the conviction that there is a sinister plot by ‘the establishment’ that prevents people from benefitting from the wonders of alternative treatments. It is therefore hardly surprising that conspiracy theories like the above are voiced regularly on this blog and elsewhere.


An assumption is something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.

The above comment continues stating that “…[chemotherapy] makes things worse whereas there are many natural remedies which not only do no harm but accumulating evidence points to their capacity to fight cancer…” There is not proof for these assertions, yet the author takes them for granted. If one were to look for the known facts, one would find the assumptions to be erroneous: chemotherapy has saved countless lives and there simply are no natural remedies that will cure any form of cancer. In the realm of alternative medicine, this seems to worry few, and assumptions of this or similar nature are being made every day. Sadly the plethora of assumptions or bogus claims eventually endanger public health.


An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.

The above comment continues with the opinion that “…turning away from toxic treatments that kill towards natural approaches that are showing more hope with the backing of trials kinda reverses the whole argument of this article.” In general, alternative medicine is based on opinions of this sort. On this blog, we have plenty of examples for that in the comments section. This is perhaps understandable; evidence is usually in short supply, and therefore it often is swiftly replaced with often emotionally loaded opinions. It is even fair to say that much of alternative medicine is, in truth, opinion-based healthcare.


Evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

One remarkable feature of the above comment is that it is bar of any evidence. In a previous post, I have tried to explain the nature of evidence regarding the efficacy of medical interventions:

The multifactorial nature of any clinical response requires controlling for all the factors that might determine the outcome other than the treatment per se. Ideally, we would need to create a situation or an experiment where two groups of patients are exposed to the full range of factors (e. g. placebo effects, natural history of the condition, regression towards the mean), and the only difference is that one group does receive the treatment, while the other one does not. And this is precisely the model of a controlled clinical trial.

Such studies are designed to minimise all possible sources of bias and confounding. By definition, they have a control group which means that we can, at the end of the treatment period, compare the effects of the treatment in question with those of another intervention, a placebo or no treatment at all.

Many different variations of the controlled trial exist so that the exact design can be adapted to the requirements of the particular treatment and the specific research question at hand. The over-riding principle is, however, always the same: we want to make sure that we can reliably determine whether or not the treatment was the cause of the clinical outcome.

Causality is the key in all of this; and here lies the crucial difference between clinical experience and scientific evidence. What clinician witness in their routine practice can have a myriad of causes; what scientists observe in a well-designed efficacy trial is, in all likelihood, caused by the treatment. The latter is evidence, while the former is not.

Don’t get me wrong; clinical trials are not perfect. They can have many flaws and have rightly been criticised for a myriad of inherent limitations. But it is important to realise that, despite all their short-comings, they are far superior than any other method for determining the efficacy of medical interventions.

There are lots of reasons why a trial can generate an incorrect, i.e. a false positive or a false negative result. We therefore should avoid relying on the findings of a single study. Independent replications are usually required before we can be reasonably sure.

Unfortunately, the findings of these replications do not always confirm the results of the previous study. Whenever we are faced with conflicting results, it is tempting to cherry-pick those studies which seem to confirm our prior belief – tempting but very wrong. In order to arrive at the most reliable conclusion about the efficacy of any treatment, we need to consider the totality of the reliable evidence. This goal is best achieved by conducting a systematic review.

In a systematic review, we assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, try to synthesise the findings and arrive at an overall verdict about the efficacy of the treatment in question. Technically speaking, this process minimises selection and random biases. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses [these are systematic reviews that pool the data of individual studies] therefore constitute, according to a consensus of most experts, the best available evidence for or against the efficacy of any treatment.


Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).

Some facts related to the subject of alternative medicine have already been mentioned:

  • chemotherapy prolongs survival of many cancer patients;
  • no alternative therapy has achieved anything remotely similar.

The comment above that motivated me to write this somewhat long-winded post is devoid of facts. This is just one more feature that makes it so typical of the comments by proponents of alternative medicine we see with such embarrassing regularity.

One of the things about alternative medicine that I find most regrettable is the fact that researchers in this area abuse science for their very own promotional aims. This phenomenon is so very common, in my view, that many of the individuals involved in it are no longer aware of it. Science, they seem to think, is a tool for marketing products or for popularising the idea that alternative medicine is the best thing since sliced bread.

To support this bold statement, I could show you virtually hundreds of articles. But this might bore your socks off, and instead I will focus on just one paper which has just been published and makes my point in an exemplary fashion.

The new clinical investigation was performed to confirm the benefit of complementary medicine in patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant hormone therapy (HT). A total of 1561 patients were treated according to international guidelines. They suffered from arthralgia and mucosal dryness induced by the adjuvant HT. In order to reduce the side-effects, the patients were complementarily treated with a combination of sodium selenite, proteolytic plant enzymes (bromelaine and papain) and Lens culinaris lectin. Outcomes were documented before and four weeks after complementary treatment. Validation was carried-out by scoring from 1 (no side-effects/optimal tolerability) to 6 (extreme side-effects/extremely poor tolerability). A total of 1,165 patients suffering from severe side-effects (symptom scores >3) were enrolled in this investigation.

Overall, 62.6% of patients (729 out of 1,165) suffering from severe arthralgia and 71.7% of patients (520 out of 725) with severe mucosal dryness significantly benefited from the oral combination product. Mean scores of symptoms declined from 4.83 before treatment to 3.23 after four weeks of treatment for arthralgia and from 4.72 before treatment to 2.99 after four weeks of treatment for mucosal dryness, the primary aims of the present investigation. The reduction of side-effects of HT was statistically significant after four weeks.

The authors concluded that this investigation confirms studies suggesting a benefit of complementary treatment with the combination of sodium selenite, proteolytic enzymes and L. culinaris lectin in patients with breast cancer.

Where should I start?

  • This ‘investigation’ was nothing other than a survey.
  • There was no control group, and we therefore cannot tell whether the patients would not have done just a well or even better without taking this supplement.
  • No objective outcome measure was included.
  • What happened to the ~400 patients who were not included in the analyses?
  • Even the authors admit that their aim was “to confirm the benefit of complementary medicine…”, and it goes without saying that, with such an aim in mind, any scientific rigor is not welcome.
Science, I had always assumed, is a means of generating progress. This sort of pseudoscience can only generate the opposite. The sad thing is that, in alternative medicine, pseudoscience of this nature seems to dominate the scene. The victims here are we all: as the false-positive findings accumulate, the overall evidence is being distorted and wrong therapeutic decisions become inevitable.

I just came across this announcement and thought I let the readers of this blog know about it:

Journal of Cancer Therapy Special Issue on Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer

A complementary therapy is treatment that is used along with standard medical treatment.  An alternative therapy is generally used instead of conventional medical treatment. They both are non-traditional methods of diagnosing, preventing, or treating cancer or its symptoms, and usually have not gone through rigorous testing and are not supported by evidence. Some types of therapy may not be completely safe and may even cause harmful side effects.

In this special issue, we intend to invite front-line researchers and authors to submit original research and review articles on exploring Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer. Potential topics include, but are not limited to:

  • Acupuncture
  • Amygdalin
  • Brachytherapy
  • Cyberknife
  • Essiac therapy
  • Herbal remedies
  • Hyperbaric oxygen therapy
  • Ketogenic diet
  • Massage therapy
  • Music therapy
  • Photodynamic therapy
  • Relaxation techniques

I know nothing about this journal; I cannot say that it looks overtly woolly – but the announcement seems a little odd. Some of the treatments listed, for instance, clearly do NOT fall under the umbrella of CAM. And, somehow, I get the feeling that they might be looking for contributions that are in favour of CAM for cancer or promote ‘integrative oncology’ – but I might be entirely wrong here.
Anyway, to make sure they get some critical submissions on the subject, I thought I let all of you know. Perhaps you feel like sending them an article pointing out that AN ALTERNATIVE CANCER CURE IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

When given the diagnosis ‘CANCER’, most people go into some sort of shock. Once they have recovered, they are likely to learn that they now face many months of very aggressive treatments which will reduce their quality of life to almost zero. This, they are told, is no guarantee but will merely increase their chances to survive the cancer.

Understandably, before they make what might be the most important decision of their lives, patients are desperate and tempted to look elsewhere to find out for themselves what their options are. It would be foolish to simply accept what their team of health care professionals have been saying. With decisions as important as this one, it is wise to listen to second and possibly third opinions. Who could argue with this logic?

Most cancer patients then go on the Internet and have a look at what alternatives are on offer. Here they find virtually millions of sites offering information. A person with pancreatic cancer might thus be unfortunate enough to stumble over a site called What Alternative Medicine works best against Pancreatic Cancer? If she does, her life is at risk.

You think I am exaggerating? In this case, let me quote from this website (I made no changes whatsoever, not even corrections of the spelling mistakes):

Just to remind you this particular thread is concerned with alternative treatments for cancer. People here are seeking information about alternative medicine. Now we all know that immunotherapy represents potentially a great leap forward in the treatment of cancer in the mainstream medical community although the stats are still pretty low for repsonse most of which have been done on melanoma patients. Nonetheless impresive compared to the useless toxic treatments peddled by the drug industry over the last 30 years. Interferon being one of the worst treatments inflicted on many a poor cancer patient along with chemo and radiation for which many cancers have little or no response and are extremely toxic. I make no false claims about the work of Dr Kelley or Dr Gonzalez for that matter. For those willing to dig a little and research their work they will find a body of good evidence for their protocol.

You might say that this is an extreme exception of irresponsible, life-threatening misinformation. But I disagree. The Internet is full with sites of this nature. They promote treatments for which there is no good evidence; what is worse, they encourage patients to forego conventional treatments which might save their lives. If anyone then dares to point this out, he will be attacked for being in the pocket of ‘Big Pharma’.

I know, a little insignificant post like mine will change very little, but I also feel strongly that, if I do not keep banging on about this issue, who else will warn patients that misinformation from the Internet and other sources can kill?

Many cancer patients use mistletoe extracts either hoping to cure their cancer or to alleviate its symptoms. The evidence that mistletoe treatment (MT) can achieve either of these goals is mixed but, on the whole, however, it is not positive. Our own systematic review of 2003 concluded that ‘rigorous trials of mistletoe extracts fail to demonstrate efficacy of this therapy’. The more recent Cochrane review concurred: ‘The evidence from RCTs to support the view that the application of mistletoe extracts has impact on survival or leads to an improved ability to fight cancer or to withstand anticancer treatments is weak.’

Patients’ experiences of side effects and the acceptability, tolerability, and perceived benefits of MT have not been assessed critically. The aim of this new article was to systematically review and synthesise the results of qualitative studies of cancer patients’ experiences of using MT.

Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsychLIT, CINAHL, and AMED to identify all qualitative studies of MT. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. A thematic synthesis of the findings was carried out.

One hundred and seventy-three papers were identified; 156 were excluded at initial screening. Seventeen papers were read in full, 14 of which were excluded. Three articles about patients’ experiences of MT alongside conventional treatment were included in the synthesis, either as a monotherapy (two articles) or as part of a package of anthroposophic treatment (one article). Patients reported demonstrable changes to their physical, emotional, and psychosocial well-being following MT, as well as a reduction in chemotherapy side effects. Self-reported side effects from MT were few, and the studies suggest good adherence to the therapy. Self-injection gave patients a sense of empowerment through involvement in their own treatment.

The authors concluded that ‘given the variation in context of MT delivery across the articles, it is not possible to ascribe changes in patients’ quality of life specifically to MT.’

This might be a polite way of saying that there is no good evidence to suggest that MT positively affects patients’ experiences of side effects and the acceptability, tolerability, and perceived benefits.

Mistletoe is, of course, the ‘flagship’ intervention of Rudolf Steiner’s anthroposophical medicine. About a century ago, his idea was simple (or should this be ‘simplistic’?): the mistletoe plant is a parasite that lives off host trees sapping its resources until, eventually, it might even kill its host – just like cancer threatening the life of a human being. It follows, according to the homeopathy-inspired Steiner and the many followers of his cult that mistletoe is an effective cancer therapy.

Despite the weirdness of this concept and the largely negative evidence, MT is hugely popular as a cancer cure, particularly in German-speaking countries. The question I ask myself is this: ISN’T IT TIME THAT THIS NONSENSE STOPS?

Recently I had an unpleasant exchange with an Australian naturopath by the name of Brett Smith. It started by him claiming that ‘chemo’ only kills cancer patients and enriches the pharmaceutical industry. And then it got worse, much worse, and very unpleasant. This got me interested in Mr Smith and prompted me to look him up. Brett Smith describes himself on his website:

Brett is a graduate of Sydney University masters degree program in Herbal Medicine run through it’s acclaimed faculty of pharmacy. He also earned a degree in Health Science from the University of New England making him one of the most qualified Naturopaths in Australia. Brett ran a successful naturopathic clinic in Bondi Junction for 6 years before selling it and founding and writing and researching a book on Type 2 Diabetes.

In a world of chaos and confusion, the one area you have some semblance of control over is your health. One of the issues around this subject that frustrates me is the conflicting information consistently bombarding us. If we can land a pod on Mars why do we still not know the fundamental pathways to human health.

One of the reasons is the big food corporations that have a vested interest in keeping you reaching to the shelves for their dead foods and the one thing I can assure you of, without any doubt, is that dead food makes dead people. If people understood the true power of foods, herbs and the odd supplement in reaching their health potentials we could eradicate many diseases scourging the planet today – heart disease, diabetes, alzheimer’s, thyroid conditions, asthma, the list is seriously endless.

The other part of the problem is us. We choose the “easy” option too many times, generation after generation after generation. What chance do our children have? Always looking for the Magic Pill. Another thing I can assure you of is that the vast majority of pharmaceutical drugs prescribed is completely unnecessary.

Natural therapists risks making the same mistakes as the pharmaceutical medical industry in becoming an elitist therapy guided by profit at expense of the patient.

I’m committed to helping inspire and empower people to optimal health through simple yet highly effective methods. Despite all the white noise, optimum health is open to us all, rich or poor, old or young. In fact, it’s your birth right. Claim it.

I also looked up his ‘health shed’. Amongst other things, it turns out to be a treasure trove of utter nonsense and anti-medical propaganda written by several experts of equally high standing – worth reading, if you have a minute! To give you a flavour, I have chosen a post entitled Which is Greater Threat, Measles or Measles Vaccine?:

Brett Smith N.D

Sometimes in life you just have to put your neck (and your reputation) on the line. I’ve been told on more than one occasion not to run vaccination stories. I’m sorry but I cannot ignore this ‘debate’ right now. Immunisation is a beautiful theory and with the right delivery method and ingredients may have a future, but as it is now we need to stop and have a very close look at this issue. Vaccines are not safe for everyone and vaccine injuries are not rare. Hep B shots on a one day old infant is actually criminal and I will debate any expert anytime, anywhere on that particular subject. Until then hear what Dr Jeffrey Dach has to say on the subject. 

by Jeffrey Dach MD

A recent measles outbreak at Disneyland of at least 70 cases (Jan 2015) has created quite a stir in the media. Five of the cases were fully vaccinated, indicating the measles vaccine confers only temporary immunity. Clearly there is no “failure to vaccinate”, as measles has broken out in highly vaccinated populations. It is obviously a failure of the vaccine. Unlike the vaccine, real measles infection confers life-long immunity. 

Measles in 2008

In 2008, a similar resurgence in measles cases was reported. An increase in reported cases of measles from 42 to 131 prompted a 2008 New York Times editorial warning of re-emergence of “many diseases” if vaccination rates drop. A quote from the New York Times:

“If confidence in all vaccines were to drop precipitously, many diseases would re-emerge and cause far more harm than could possibly result from vaccination.”

Confidence in Vaccines Has Been Lost

Unfortunately, confidence in vaccines has already been lost according to Shona Hilton in her article, ”Who do parents believe about MMR”. According to Shona Hilton, young parents are mistrustful of the media and the pediatricians who have financial incentives to push vaccines.

What is the Evidence for an Autism/ Vaccine Link?

The Hanna Poling Case

In the case of Hannah Poling, the federal vaccine court has agreed to compensate Poling’s family, conceding that her autism was caused by vaccination. The federal court has already paid out more than $1.5 billion for vaccine related injury or death.

Italian Court Conceded MMR Caused Autism

In 2012, the Italian Health Ministry conceded the MMR vaccine caused autism in nine-year-old Valentino Bocca. Exactly how many other cases exist is unknown because court records are usually sealed from public view.

Abnormal MMR Antibody Response in Autistic Kids

An important finding was found in a 2002 report in Biomedical Science by Dr. Singh entitled ” Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.”

The authors found elevated antibody levels to MMR (Measles Mumps Rubells Vaccine) in 60% of autistic children, none in controls. The elevated MMR antibodies in autistic children detected “measles HA protein”, which is unique to the measles subunit of the vaccine. Over 90% of the autistic children with elevated MMR antibodies, also had elevated MBP (myelin basic protein) antibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. The authors state:

“Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.”

“In light of these new findings, we suggest that a considerable proportion of autistic cases may result from an atypical measles infection that does not produce a rash but causes neurological symptoms in some children. The source of this virus could be a variant MV or it could be the MMR vaccine.”

A second paper in 2003 by the same group confirmed these findings: Singh, Vijendra K., and Ryan L. Jensen. ” Elevated Levels of Measles Antibodies in children with Autism.” Pediatric neurology 28.4 (2003): 292-294.

According to Bernadine Healy MD, Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH) in 1991, there is credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association between autism and vaccines. Rather than oppose all vaccinations, Dr Healy suggests modifying the vaccination schedule to make them safer. Left Image Courtesy of Bernadine Healy MD Huffington Post.

How to Make the Vaccine Schedule Safer?

Don Miller MD in this article on Lew Rockwell, provides a safer vaccination schedule. For example, the vaccination schedule can be made safer by waiting until child’s immune system is better developed after age 2, by moving from the combined MMR shot to individual doses, avoiding thimerosol, and avoiding the live vaccines…

Vitamin A and measles

Numerous medical publications have shown health benefits for Vitamin A in treatment of measles.


Clearly, there is a trade off in terms of benefits and risks of vaccines. Rather than deny the adverse effects of vaccines, we should be openly discussing how to make the vaccine schedule safer, as Don Miller MD and Bernadine Healy MD suggest.

If this had been a exceptional excursion into quackery, I would probably not have mentioned it. But Smith’s ‘health shed’ is full of it. Here are just three further examples:

The Truth About Chemotherapy – History, Effects and Natural Alternatives

The Amazing Cancer-Fighting Properties of Pineapple

Amazing Herb Kills 98% Of Cancer Cells In Just 16 Hours

Such dangerous nonsense tends to make me first speechless and then quite angry. This man claims to be one of the best educated naturopaths in Australia. If that is true, what is the rest of the naturopaths like? He wants to ’empower people to optimal health’. In truth, he and many like him are experts on misinformation that potentially could shorten the lives of many patients.

What a question, you might say. And you would be right, it’s a most awkward one, so much so that I cannot answer it for myself.


Here is the story:

Ten years ago, with the help of S Lejeune and an EU grant, my team conducted a Cochrane review of Laertrile. To do the ‘ground work’, we hired an Italian research assistant, S Milazzo, who was supervised mainly by my research fellow Katja Schmidt. Consequently, the review was published under the names of all main contributors: Milazzo, Ernst, Lejeune, Schmidt.

In 2011, an update was due for which the help of Dr Markus Horneber, the head of a German research team investigating alt med in relation to cancer, was recruited. By then, Milazzo and Schmidt had left my unit and, with my consent, Horneber, Milazzo and Schmidt took charge of the review. I was then sent a draft of their update and did a revision of it which consisted mostly in checking the facts and making linguistic changes. The article was then published under the following authorship: Milazzo S, Ernst E, Lejeune S, Boehm K, Horneber M (Katja had married meanwhile, so Boehm and Schmidt are the same person).

A few days ago, I noticed that a further update had been published in 2015. Amazingly, I had not been told, asked to contribute, or informed that my name as co-author had been scrapped. The authors of the new update are simply Milazzo and Horneber (the latter being the senior author). Katja Boehm had apparently indicated that she did no longer want to be involved; I am not sure what happened to Lejeune.

I know Markus Horneber since donkey’s years and had co-authored several other papers with him in the past, so I (admittedly miffed about my discovery) sent him an email and asked him whether he did not consider this behaviour to amount to plagiarism. His reply was, in my view, unhelpful in explaining why I had not been asked to get involved and Horneber asked me to withdraw the allegation of plagiarism (which I had not even made) – or else he would take legal action (this was the moment when I got truly suspicious).

Next, I contacted the responsible editor at the Cochrane Collaboration, not least because Horneber had claimed that she had condoned the disputed change of authorship. Her reply confirmed that “excluding previous authors without giving them a chance to comment is not normal Cochrane policy” and that she did, in fact, not condone the omission of my name from the list of co-authors.

The question that I am asking myself (not for the first time, I am afraid – a similar, arguably worse case has been described in the comments section of this post) is the following: IS THIS A CASE OF PLAGIARISM OR NOT? In the name of honesty, transparency and science, it requires an answer, I think.

Even after contemplating it for several days, I seem to be unable to find a conclusive response. On the one hand, I did clearly not contribute to the latest (2015) update and should therefore not be a co-author. On the other hand, I feel that I should have been asked to contribute, in which case I would certainly have done so and remained a co-author.

For a fuller understanding of this case, I here copy the various sections of the abstracts of the 2011 update (marked OLD) and the 2015 update without my co-authorship (marked NEW):



Laetrile is the name for a semi-synthetic compound which is chemically related to amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside from the kernels of apricots and various other species of the genus Prunus. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous.


Laetrile is the name for a semi-synthetic compound which is chemically related to amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside from the kernels of apricots and various other species of the genus Prunus. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous.



To assess the alleged anti-cancer effect and possible adverse effects of laetrile and amygdalin.


To assess the alleged anti-cancer effect and possible adverse effects of laetrile and amygdalin.



We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (2011, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1951-2011); EMBASE (1980-2011); AMED; Scirus; CancerLit; CINAHL (all from 1982-2011); CAMbase (from 1998-2011); the MetaRegister; the National Research Register; and our own files. We examined reference lists of included studies and review articles and we contacted experts in the field for knowledge of additional studies. We did not impose any restrictions of timer or language.


We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1951-2014); EMBASE (1980-2014); AMED; Scirus; CINAHL (all from 1982-2015); CAMbase (from 1998-2015); the MetaRegister; the National Research Register; and our own files. We examined reference lists of included studies and review articles and we contacted experts in the field for knowledge of additional studies. We did not impose any restrictions of timer or language.



Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.


Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.



We searched eight databases and two registers for studies testing laetrile or amygdalin for the treatment of cancer. Two review authors screened and assessed articles for inclusion criteria.


We searched eight databases and two registers for studies testing laetrile or amygdalin for the treatment of cancer. Two review authors screened and assessed articles for inclusion criteria.



We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review and an additional 6 in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria.


We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review, 6 in the 2011 and none in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria.



The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.


The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.





After the response from the Cochrane editor, I asked Horneber whether he wanted to make a further comment because I was thinking to blog about this. So far, I have not received a reply.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common symptoms reported by cancer patients, and it is a symptom that is often difficult to treat. As always in such a situation, there are lots of alternative therapies on offer. Yet the evidence for most is flimsy, to put it mildly.

But perhaps there is hope? The very first RCT with a 2016 date to be reviewed on this blog investigated the efficacy of the amino acid jelly Inner Power(®) (IP), a semi-solid, orally administrable dietary supplement containing coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine, in controlling CRF in breast cancer patients in Japan.

Breast cancer patients with CRF undergoing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive IP once daily or regular care for 21 days. The primary endpoint was the change in the worst level of fatigue during the past 24 h (Brief Fatigue Inventory [BFI] item 3 score) from day 1 (baseline) to day 22. Secondary endpoints were change in global fatigue score (GFS; the average of all BFI items), anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), quality of life assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Breast Cancer-Specific QLQ (EORTC QLQ-BR23), and adverse events.

Fifty-nine patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 57 were included in the efficacy analysis. Changes in the worst level of fatigue, GFS, and current feeling of fatigue were significantly different between the intervention and control groups, whereas the change in the average feeling of fatigue was not significantly different between groups. HADS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EORTC QLQ-BR23 scores were not significantly different between the two groups. No severe adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that ‘IP may control moderate-severe CRF in breast cancer patients.’

The website of the manufacturer provides the following information on IP:

Inner Power is a functional food that provides various nutrients, such as zinc and copper. Zinc is a nutrient that your body needs to maintain your sense of taste. Zinc is also vital in keeping the skin and mucous membranes healthy and in regulating metabolism of proteins and nucleic acids. Copper helps the body form red blood cells and bones and regulates many enzymes that are found in the body. One pouch of Inner Power each day is the recommended daily serving.

  • Consuming a large amount of the product will not cure any underlying disease or improve your health condition.
  • Do not consume too much of the product because excessive zinc intake may inhibit the absorption of copper.
  • Observe the recommended daily serving of the product. This product should not be given to infants or children.

The recommended daily serving of the product (1 pouch/day) contains 43% of the reference daily intake of zinc and 50% of the reference daily intake of copper. Inner Power is neither categorized as a food for special dietary use nor approved individually by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. You should eat well-balanced meals consisting of staple foods, including a main dish and side dishes.

I cannot say that this inspires me with confidence.

What about the trial itself?

To be honest, I am not impressed. The most obvious flaw is, I think, that there was not the slightest attempt to control for placebo effects. As I pointed out so many times before: with the ‘A+B versus B’ design, one can make any old placebo appear to be effective.

Recent Comments

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

Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.