children
I have been warning the public about the indirect dangers of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for a very long time. It is now 25 years ago, for instance, that I published an article in the ‘European Journal of Pediatrics’ entitled “The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine“. Here is the discussion section of this paper:
… certain groupings within COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE (CM) may advise their patients against immunisation. Within these groupings, there is, of course, a considerable diversity of attitudes towards immunisation. Therefore
generalisations are difficult and more detailed investigations are required to clarify the issue.
The question arises whether the level of advice against immunisation as it exists today represents a real or only a potential risk. One study from the U.K. demonstrates homoeopathy to be the most prevalent reason for non-compliance with immunisation [30]. The problem may not be confined to naturopathy, chiropractic and homoeopathy. Books relating to CM in general [e.g. 19] also strongly advise against immunisation: “Vaccination may provoke the illness which it is supposed to prevent. People who are vaccinated can transmit the illness, even if they are not ill themselves. The vaccine can make the person more susceptible to the illness … The vaccinated child is a contaminated child”.
At present, our data is insufficient to de®ne which proportion of which complementary practitioners share this
attitude. The origin of this stance against vaccination is largely unknown. For instance, there is nothing in Hahnemann’s writings against immunisation [14]. It may therefore stem from a general antipathy toward modern medicine which seems to be prevalent within CM [7, 19, 23]. A more specific reason is that immunisation is viewed as detrimental, burdened with long-term side effects. It is also felt that it is not fully effective and unnecessary because
better methods of protection exist within CM [16].
Anti-immunisation activists are often unable to argue their case rationally, yet they place advertisements in the daily press warning about immunisation. In Britain, one tragic case has recently been publicised. A physician advised parents against measles vaccination for their child who was suspected of suffering from convulsions. Five years later, the child suffered severe brain damage after contracting measles. The doctor was sued by the parents and found guilty of negligence and ordered to pay £825,000 in damages [1].
In medicine we must, of course, always be vigilant about the risks of our interventions. Each form of immunisation should therefore be continuously scrutinised for its possible risks and benefits. Most forms of immunisation are clearly not entirely free of risk [e.g. 22] – in fact, no effective intervention will ever be entirely risk-free. Therefore the risks have to be discounted against the benefits. It follows that any blanket rejection of immunisation, in general, must be misleading. It endangers not only the individual patient but (if prevalent) also the herd immunity of the community at large. Such unreflected rejection of immunisation, in general, will inevitably do more harm than good.
It is concluded that the advice of some, by no means all complementary practitioners in relation to immunisation represents an area for concern, which requires further research. Complementary practitioners and patients alike should be educated about the risks and benefits of immunisation. Paediatricians should be informed about the present negative attitude of some complementary practitioners and discuss the issue openly with their patients.
_____________________________
I suspect that, had we heeded my caution, researched the subject more thoroughly, and taken appropriate action, the current pandemic might have produced fewer and less vocal anti-vaxxers, and fewer patients might have died.
I recently looked at the list of best-sellers in homeopathy on Amazon. To my surprise, there were several books that were specifically focused on the homeopathic treatment of children. Since we had, several years ago, published a systematic review of this subject, these books interested me. Here is what Amazon tells us about them:
Homeopathic remedies are increasingly being used to treat common childhood ailments. They are safe, have no side effects or allergic reactions, are inexpensive and, above all, effective. In this guide, Dana Ullman explains what homeopathy is, how it works and how you can use it correctly to enhance your child’s health. He recommends remedies for more than 75 physical and emotional conditions, including: allergies, grief, anxiety, headaches, asthma, measles, bedwetting, nappy rash, bites and stings, shock, burns, sunburn, colic, teething, coughs and colds and travel sickness
Without doubt, this is the most comprehensive book on homeopathic pediatrics. Included is a complete guide to the correct use of homeopathy, recommended remedies for the treatment of more than seventy-five common physical, emotional, and behavioral conditions, and valuable information on the essential medicines that all parents should have in their home medicine kits
Tricia Allen, a qualified homeopath, offers a host of practical advice on how to treat illness using natural, homeopathic remedies. Homeopathy differs from conventional medicine in that it does not only alleviate the individual symptoms of an illness, but treats the underlying state to ensure that the disease does not return, something which rarely occurs when using traditional remedies. This guide gives you advice on; what homeopathy is and how to use it; each stage of childhood and how to deal with the complaints that occur at that time of a child’s development; the most common childhood illnesses, how to take your own steps to treating them, which homeopathic remedies to use and when to seek medical help and first aid.
The Homeopathic Treatment of Children is indispensible at giving both a clear overall impression of the various major constitutional types, and also a detailed outline for reference at the end of each chapter. Not only does Paul Herscu draw from various sources (repertories and materia medica), he also adds indispensable original information from his successful practice.
______________________________
The fact that such books exist is perhaps not all that surprising. Yet, I do find the fact that they are among the best-selling books on homeopathy surprising – or to be more precise, I find it concerning.
Why?
Simple: children cannot give informed consent to the treatments they receive. Thus, consent is given for them by their parents or (I suspect often) not at all. This renders homeopathic treatment of children more problematic than that of fully competent adults.
Homeopathy has not been shown to be effective for any pediatric condition. I know Dana Ullman disagrees and claims it works for children’s allergies, grief, anxiety, headaches, asthma, measles, bedwetting, nappy rash, bites and stings, shock, burns, sunburn, colic, teething, coughs and colds, and travel sickness. Yet, these claims are not based on anything faintly resembling sound evidence! Our above-mentioned systematic review reached the following conclusion: “The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition.”
And what follows from this state of affairs?
I am afraid it is this:
Treating sick children with homeopathy amounts to child abuse.
The purpose of this study was to examine the trends in the expenditure and utilization of chiropractic care in a representative sample of children and adolescents in the United States (US) aged <18 years.
The researchers evaluated serial cross-sectional data (2007-2016) from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Weighted descriptive statistics were conducted to derive national estimates of expenditure and utilization, and linear regression was used to determine trends over time. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of chiropractic users were also reported.
A statistically significant increasing trend was observed for the number of children receiving chiropractic care (P <.05) and chiropractic utilization rate (P < .05). Increases in chiropractic expenditure and the number of chiropractic visits were also observed over time but were not statistically significant (P > .05). The mean annual number of visits was 6.4 visits, with a mean expenditure of $71.49 US dollars (USD) per visit and $454.08 USD per child. Children and adolescent chiropractic users in the United States were primarily 14 to 17 years old (39.6%-61.6%), White (71.5%-76.9%), male (50.6%-51.3%), and privately insured (56.7%-60.8%). Chiropractic visits in this population primarily involved low back conditions (52.4%), spinal curvature (14.0%), and head and neck complaints (12.8%).
The authors concluded that the number of children visiting a chiropractor and percent utilization showed a statistically significant, increasing trend from 2007 to 2016; however, total expenditure and the number of chiropractic visits did not significantly differ during this period. These findings provide novel insight into the patterns of chiropractic utilization in this understudied age group.
Why are these numbers increasing?
Is it because of increasing and sound evidence showing that chiropractors do more good than harm to kids?
No!
A recent systematic review of the evidence for effectiveness and harms of specific spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) techniques for infants, and children suggests the opposite.
Its authors searched electronic databases up to December 2017. Controlled studies, describing primary SMT treatment in infants (<1 year) and children/adolescents (1–18 years), were included to determine effectiveness. Controlled and observational studies and case reports were included to examine harms. One author screened titles and abstracts and two authors independently screened the full text of potentially eligible studies for inclusion. Two authors assessed the risk of bias in included studies and the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE methodology. Data were described according to PRISMA guidelines and CONSORT and TIDieR checklists. If appropriate, a random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
Of the 1,236 identified papers, 26 studies were eligible. In all but 3 studies, the therapists were chiropractors. Infants and children/adolescents were treated for various (non-)musculoskeletal indications, hypothesized to be related to spinal joint dysfunction. Studies examining the same population, indication, and treatment comparison were scarce. Due to very low-quality evidence, it is uncertain whether gentle, low-velocity mobilizations reduce complaints in infants with colic or torticollis, and whether high-velocity, low-amplitude manipulations reduce complaints in children/adolescents with autism, asthma, nocturnal enuresis, headache or idiopathic scoliosis. Five case reports described severe harms after HVLA manipulations in 4 infants and one child. Mild, transient harms were reported after gentle spinal mobilizations in infants and children and could be interpreted as a side effect of treatment.
The authors concluded that, based on GRADE methodology, we found the evidence was of very low quality; this prevented us from drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of specific SMT techniques in infants, children and adolescents. Outcomes in the included studies were mostly parent or patient-reported; studies did not report on intermediate outcomes to assess the effectiveness of SMT techniques in relation to the hypothesized spinal dysfunction. Severe harms were relatively scarce, poorly described and likely to be associated with underlying missed pathology. Gentle, low-velocity spinal mobilizations seem to be a safe treatment technique in infants, children and adolescents. We encourage future research to describe effectiveness and safety of specific SMT techniques instead of SMT as a general treatment approach.
But chiros do more than just SMT, I hear some say.
Yes, they do!
But they nevertheless manipulate virtually every patient, and the additional treatments they use are merely borrowed from other disciplines.
So, why are the numbers increasing then?
I suggest this as a main reason:
chiropractors are systematically misleading the public about the value of their trade.
I have previously reported that a Canadian naturopath, Jason Klop, is under investigation for selling fecal Microbiota transplants to treat autistic children. Now, there is a new twist in this story.
On Twitter, J.N. Stea summarized it nicely:
This naturopath is fighting a judge so that he can charge parents about $15,000 to give his nephew’s poop to children as a treatment for autism. His lawyer argues that he should be allowed to since naturopathy isn’t scientific anyway.
Klop’s lawyer defends the naturopath against an investigation into his business of selling fecal microbiota transplants to families of autistic children. The College of Naturopathic Physicians (CoN) had banned Klop for selling, advertising, and manufacturing pills made from human feces claiming that Klop has been engaging in conduct not acceptable for a naturopathic physician. Klop’s lawyer, Jason Gratl, argued this was difficult to prove in a field that has a few restrictions and some ambiguous boundaries.
“What does it take to be a naturopath and do something that is not appropriate in a field so wide-ranging and open to interpretation?” the lawyer, Gratl, asked the court suggesting that the lack of scientific evidence supporting the use of fecal Microbiota Transplants (FMT) to treat autism is not necessarily relevant in this instance.
“Naturopaths can rely on science in certain aspects, but they are not bound to science,” Gratl said. He explained that naturopathic practices could be based on anecdotes and historical knowledge. Later, he pointed out that the field also includes homeopathy, which, some believe, involves magical thinking. It is definitely not scientific in its core.” After describing the case as a “tragedy”, Gratl called the allegations against his client “entirely unverfounded and scurrilous.”
I suspect it is nothing new to most readers, yet I find it gratifying to hear from a lawyer that naturopathy
- is not science,
- relies on anecdote instead of evidence,
- and involves magical thinking.
I do think, however, that despite all this, naturopaths should not be allowed to do any odd nonsense that comes to their minds and fills their bank accounts quickly.
The Anglo-European College of Chiropractic (AECC) has been promoting pediatric chiropractic for some time, and I have posted about the subject before (see, for instance, here). Now the AECC has gone one decisive step further. On the website, the AECC announced an MSc ‘Musculoskeletal Paediatric Health‘:
The MSc Musculoskeletal Paediatric Health degree is designed to develop your knowledge and skills in the safe and competent care of children of all ages. Our part-time, distance-based course blends live online classes with ready to use resources through our virtual learning environment. In addition, you will have the opportunity to observe in the AECC University College clinical services at our Bournemouth campus. The course covers topics in paediatric musculoskeletal practice with specific units on paediatric development, paediatric musculoskeletal examination, paediatric musculoskeletal interventions, and paediatric musculoskeletal management. You will address issues such as risk factors and public health, including breastfeeding, supine sleep in infancy, physical activity in children and conditions affecting the musculoskeletal health of children from birth. The paediatric specific topics are completed by other optional units such as professional development, evidence-based practice, and leadership and inter-professional collaboration. In the dissertation unit you will conduct a study relevant to musculoskeletal paediatric health.
Your learning will happen through a mix of live and recorded lectures, access to online reading materials, and access to the literature through our learning services. You will also engage with the contents taught through guided activities with your peers and staff. Clinical paediatric experience is recommended to fully engage with the course. For students with limited access to a suitable clinical environment to support their studies, or for student who wants to add to their clinical experience, we are able to offer a limited number of opportunities to observe and work alongside our clinical educators within the AECC University College clinical services. Assessments are tailor made to each unit and may include a variety of methods such as critical reviews, reflective accounts, portfolios and in the last year a research dissertation.
___________________________
The AECC emphasizes its commitment to being a leading higher education institution in healthcare disciplines, nationally and internationally recognised for quality and excellence. Therefore, it seems only fair to have another look at the science behind pediatric chiropractic. Specifically, is there any good science to show that would justify a Master of Science in ‘Musculoskeletal Paediatric Health’?
So, let’s have a look and see whether there are any good review articles supporting such a degree. Here is what I found with several Medline searches (date of the review on chiropractic for any pediatric conditions, followed by its conclusion + link [so that the reader can look up the evidence]):
2008
I am unable to find convincing evidence for any of the above-named conditions.
2009
Previous research has shown that professional chiropractic organisations ‘make claims for the clinical art of chiropractic that are not currently available scientific evidence…’. The claim to effectively treat otitis seems to
be one of them. It is time now, I think, that chiropractors either produce the evidence or abandon the claim.
2009
The … evidence is neither complete nor, in my view, “substantial.”
2010
2018
What seems to emerge is rather disappointing:
- There are no really new reviews.
- Most of the existing reviews are not on musculoskeletal conditions.
- All of the reviews cast considerable doubt on the notion that chiropractors should go anywhere near children.
But perhaps I was too ambitious. Perhaps there are some new rigorous clinical trials of chiropractic for musculoskeletal conditions. A few further searches found this (again year and conclusion):
2019
2018
I might have missed one or two trials because I only conducted rather ‘rough and ready’ searches, but even if I did: would this amount to convincing evidence? Would it be good science?
No! and No!
So, why does the AECC offer a Master of Science in ‘Musculoskeletal Paediatric Health’?
Search me!
…
…
It wouldn’t have something to do with the notion that it is good for business?
Or perhaps they just want to give science a bad name?
On this blog, I have been regularly discussing the risks of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). In particular, I have often been writing about the risks of chiropractic spinal manipulations.
Why?
Some claim because I have an ax to grind – and, in a way, they are correct: I do feel strongly that consumers should be warned about the risks of all types of SCAM, and when it comes to direct risks, chiropractic happens to feature prominently.
But it’s all based on case reports which are never conclusive and usually not even well done.
This often-voiced chiropractic defense is, of course, is only partly true. But even if it were entirely correct, it would beg the question: WHY?
Why do we have to refer to case reports when discussing the risks of chiropractic? The answer is simple: Because there is no proper system of monitoring its risks.
And why not?
Chiropractors claim it is because the risks are non-existent or very rare or only minor or negligible compared to the risks of other therapies. This, I fear, is false. But how can I substantiate my fear? Perhaps by listing a few posts I have previously published on the direct risks of chiropractic spinal manipulation. Here is a list (probably not entirely complete):
- Chiropractic manipulations are a risk factor for vertebral artery dissections
- Vertebral artery dissection after chiropractic manipulation: yet another case
- The risks of (chiropractic) spinal manipulative therapy in children under 10 years
- A risk-benefit assessment of (chiropractic) neck manipulation
- The risk of (chiropractic) spinal manipulations: a new article
- New data on the risk of stroke due to chiropractic spinal manipulation
- The risks of manual therapies like chiropractic seem to out-weigh the benefits
- One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes
- An outstanding article on the subject of harms of chiropractic
- Death by chiropractic neck manipulation? More details on the Lawler case
- Severe adverse effects of chiropractic in children Another serious complication after chiropractic manipulation; best to avoid neck manipulations altogether, I think
- Ophthalmic Adverse Effects after Chiropractic Neck Manipulation
- Is chiropractic treatment safe?
- Cervical artery dissection and stroke related to chiropractic manipulation
- We have an ethical, legal and moral duty to discourage chiropractic neck manipulations
- Cerebral Haemorrhage Following Chiropractic ‘Activator’ Treatment
- Vertebral artery dissection after chiropractic manipulation: yet another case
- Horner Syndrome after chiropractic spinal manipulation
- Phrenic nerve injury: a rare but serious complication of chiropractic neck manipulation
- Chiropractic neck manipulation can cause stroke
- Chiropractic and other manipulative therapies can also harm children
- Complications after chiropractic manipulations: probably rare but certainly serious
- Disc herniation after chiropractic
- Evidence for a causal link between chiropractic treatment and adverse effects
- More on the risks of spinal manipulation
- The risk of neck manipulation
- “As soon as the chiropractor manipulated my neck, everything went black”
- Spinal epidural haematoma after neck manipulation
- New review confirms: neck manipulations are dangerous
- Top model died ‘as a result of visiting a chiropractor’
- Another wheelchair filled with the help of a chiropractor
- Spinal manipulation: a treatment to die for?
Of course, one can argue about the conclusiveness of this or that case report, but I feel that the collective evidence discussed in these posts makes my point abundantly clear:
chiropractic spinal manipulation is not safe.
The Foundation for Vertebral Subluxation has a ‘clinical practice guideline/best practices project’ that would search, gather, compile and review the scientific literature going as far back as January 1998. Their new Chapter on the chiropractic care of children was peer-reviewed and approved by 196 chiropractors from several countries and included chiropractors specializing in pediatric and maternal care such as Diplomates and others certified in such care. The Best Practices document, developed through the Foundation’s Best Practices Initiative includes a Recommendation statement as follows:
Since vertebral subluxation may affect individuals at any age, chiropractic care may be indicated at any time after birth. As with any age group, however, care must be taken to select adjustment methods most appropriate to the patient’s stage of development and overall spinal integrity. Parental education by the chiropractor concerning the importance of evaluating children for the presence of vertebral subluxation is encouraged as are public health initiatives geared toward screening of children for vertebral subluxation beginning at birth.
I am afraid there may be some errors in the new document. Allow me therefore to post a corrected version:
Since vertebral subluxations do not exist, they cannot affect individuals regardless of age. Chiropractic adjustments are thus not indicated at any time after birth. Parental education by the chiropractor concerning the importance of evaluating children for the presence of vertebral subluxation is discouraged as are public health initiatives geared toward screening of children for vertebral subluxation beginning at birth.
Or, as an American neurologist once put it so much more succinctly:
Don’t let the buggers touch your neck!
Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is advocated not merely for spinal or musculoskeletal problems, as many consumers seem to think, osteopaths also claim it to be effective for (almost) every condition. Some osteopaths who believe in the gospel of Andrew Still, the founder of osteopathy, recommend it even to facilitate breastfeeding.
But is it effective?
A double-blind randomised controlled trial to answer this question was conducted between July 2013 and March 2016. Breastfed term infants were eligible if one of the following criteria was met: suboptimal breastfeeding behaviour, maternal cracked nipples or maternal pain. The infants were randomly assigned to the intervention or the control group. The intervention consisted of two sessions of early OMT, while in the control group, the manipulations were performed on a doll behind a screen. The primary outcome was the exclusive breastfeeding rate at 1 month, which was assessed in an intention-to-treat analysis. Randomisation was computer generated and only accessible to the osteopath practitioner. The parents, research assistants and paediatricians were masked to group assignment.
One hundred twenty-eight mother-infant dyads were randomised, with 64 assigned to each group. In each group, five infants were lost to follow-up. In the intervention group, 31 of 59 (53%) of infants were still exclusively breastfed at 1 month vs 39 of 59 (66%) in the control group, (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.17; p=0.12). After adjustment for suboptimal breastfeeding behaviour, caesarean section, use of supplements and breast shields, the adjusted OR was 0.44 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.11; p=0.08). No adverse effects were reported in either group.
The authors concluded succinctly that OMT did not improve exclusive breastfeeding at 1 month.
Surprised?
Suppose not!
The only question that I can think of is this: why did osteopaths ever think that OMT might facilitate breastfeeding?
Aromatherapy, the use of essential oils for medicinal purposes, exists in several guises. One of them is inhalation aromatherapy which is a complementary therapy used in different clinical settings. But is there any sound evidence about its effectiveness?
The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of inhalational aromatherapy in the care of hospitalized pediatric patients.
A systematic review of clinical trials and quasi-experimental studies was conducted, based on PRISMA recommendations, searching Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO, LILACS, CINAHL, Science Direct, EBSCO, and updated databases. The Down and Black 2020, RoB 2020 CLARITY, and ROBINS-I 2020 scales were used through the Distiller SR software to verify the studies’ internal validity and risk of bias.
From 446 articles identified, 9 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one pilot RCT, and one non-randomized quasi-experimental trial.
Different outcomes were analyzed, with pain being the most frequently measured variable. None of the 6 studies that evaluated pain showed significant effects with inhalation aromatherapy. Additionally, non-significant effects were found regarding nausea, vomiting, and behavioral/emotional variables.
The authors concluded that the findings are still inconclusive, and more evidence is required from future studies with high methodological quality, blinding, and adequate sample sizes.
Inconclusive?
Really?
Call me a skeptic, but I think the findings show quite clearly that there is no sound evidence to suggest that inhalation aromatherapy might be effective for kids.
Steiner (Waldorf) schools, like anthroposophical medicine, are the inventions of Rudolf Steiner. His followers have often been associated with rampant anti-vax sentiments. Yet, officially such beliefs are usually denied.
A few days ago, I came across this tweet:
Der Dachverband der anthroposophischen Medizin begrüßt Corona-Impfungen… & distanziert sich von Querdenken und Co. Steiner war selbst gegen Pocken geimpft und ließ impfen.
As it is in German, allow me to translate it for you:
The umbrella organization of anthroposophical medicine welcomes corona vaccinations… & distances itself from lateral thinking and co. Steiner himself was vaccinated against smallpox and had it vaccinated.
Almost simultaneously, it was reported that, after the Corona outbreak at a Freiburg Steiner school with more than 100 people infected, it is now certain: the certificates presented to the school for exemption from wearing masks were invalid.
During circus performances at the Steiner school in Freiburg, more than 100 people had become infected with the coronavirus in October: among them pupils, teachers, and contact persons. Therefore, the school inspectorate of the Freiburg Regional Council examined the certificates that freed people from the obligation to wear masks at school for health reasons. Heike Spannagel, a spokeswoman for the Freiburg Regional Council, called the results surprising. There were 55 certificates, 52 from pupils and three from teachers – and all of them were invalid. Heike Spannagel added that the school will no longer recognize any of the certificates. Those who cannot present new certificates that are more convincing will therefore have to wear the mask, Spannagel said.
It was noticeable that many certificates came from (far remote) private clinics in Bavaria or Berlin. In addition, a Freiburg doctor had exempted pupils from the obligation to wear a mask with identical justifications. According to the regional council, however, justifications must be individually tailored. In the meantime, the public prosecutor’s office in Freiburg has requested documents from the regional council in order to initiate an investigation.
So, what has been going on?
To me, it looks like the Steiner school was tolerating or even encouraging the use of dodgy certificates. This contrasts somewhat with the tweet cited above. And, in turn, this seems to indicate that proponents of anthroposophy say one thing about COVID and then do something entirely different. This suspicion was strengthened by a tweet that appeared a little while later as a response to the tweet cited above:
Alle Anhänger der Anthroposophie, die ich kenne, sind nicht geimpft. Es ist ja schön, wenn diese Verbände das öffentlich so verkünden. Die Praxis sieht leider anders aus.
Allow me to translate again:
All the followers of anthroposophy that I know are not vaccinated. It is nice when these associations proclaim this publicly. Unfortunately, the practice looks different.
