commercial interests

This is a blog about alternative medicine! A blog that promised to cover all major forms of alternative medicine. So, how could I have so far ignored the incredible health benefits of Apple Cider Vinegar (ACV)? Realising that this omission is quite frankly scandalous, I now quickly try to make amends by dedicating this entire post to ACV and its fantastic properties.

There is no shortage of information on the subject (almost 1.5 million websites!!!); this article entitled “13 Reasons Apple Cider Vinegar Is the Magic Potion You Need in Your Life”, for instance, tells us about the ’13 Real Benefits of vinegar’. As it was published in the top science journal ‘COSMOPOLITAN’, it must be reliable. The article makes the wonders of ACV very clear:


1. It reduces bloating. Vinegar increases the acidity in the stomach, which allows it to digest the food you’ve eaten and helps propel it into the small intestine, according to Raphael Kellman, MD, founder of the Kellman Center for Integrative and Functional Medicine in New York City. Because slow digestion can cause acid reflux, a burning sensation that occurs when food in your stomach backs up all the way into your esophagus and triggers feelings of fullness, consuming vinegar to move things along can stop you from feeling like the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

2. It increases the benefits of the vitamins and minerals in your food. “When your stomach isn’t producing enough acid, this impairs the absorption of nutrients as well as B6, folate, calcium, and iron,” Dr. Kellman explains. Help your body by ingesting a bit more acid in the form of vinegar, and you’ll actually be able to use all the good stuff you consumed by ordering the side salad instead of fries.

3. It cancels out some of the carbs you eat. The acetic acid found in vinegar interferes with the enzymes in your stomach responsible for digesting starch so you can’t absorb the calories from carbs you’ve eaten.

4. It softens your energy crash after eating lots of sugar or carbs. Consuming vinegar before a meal can help by slowing the rush of sugar to your blood stream, so your blood sugar spike resembles a hill instead of a mountain and you don’t crash quite as hard.

5. It keeps you full longer. In a small but thorough study, researchers found that people who consumed vinegar before eating a breakfast of white bread felt more satisfied 90 minutes after eating compared to people who only ate the bread. (Worth noting: Two hours after eating, both groups were equally hungry. It just goes to show why white bread doesn’t make a stellar breakfast food — with or without vinegar.)

6. It can help your muscles produce energy more efficiently before a major push. Endurance athletes sometimes drink diluted vinegar before they carb-load the night before competing because acetic acid can helps the muscles turn carbs into energy to fuel intense exercise, according to well-regarded research conducted on animals.

7. It could lower your blood pressure. Animal studies suggest that drinking vinegar can lower your blood pressure by a few points. Researchers don’t understand exactly how this works or whether it is equally effective among humans, but Johnston is pretty confident it can make at least a modest difference.

8. It cleans fruits and veggies. The best way to clean produce, according to Johnston, is with diluted vinegar: Research suggests its antibacterial properties can significantly reduce pathogens such as Salmonella. Just fill an empty spray bottle with diluted vinegar and spritz your produce (salad stuff, fruits, etc.) then rinse in regular water before serving.

9. It kills bad breath. You might have heard that the antibacterial properties of vinegar can kill microorganisms responsible for bad breath — and in theory, this is true. However, Johnston warns, “it’s no more effective than any other antibacterial agents, and there are better products designed for this purpose.”

10. It deodorizes smelly feet. Just wipe down your clompers with a paper towel dipped in diluted vinegar. The antibacterial properties of vinegar will kill the smelly stuff.

11. It relieves jellyfish stings. In case you’re ever stung by a jellyfish and just so happen to have diluted vinegar on hand, you’ll be awfully lucky: Vinegar deactivates the jellyfish’s sting better than many other remedies — even though hot water still works best, according to a study that compared both techniques.

12. It balances your body’s pH levels, which could mean better bone health. Although vinegar is obviously acidic, it actually has a neutralizing effect once it’s inside of you. Meaning: It makes your body’s pH more basic (i.e., alkaline).

13. It alleviates heartburn — sometimes, according to Johnston, who just wrapped up a study on using vinegar to treat this condition. Vinegar’s effectiveness depends on the source of your heartburn: If you have erosive heartburn caused by lesions in your esophagus or stomach ulcers, a dose of vinegar will only aggravate the problem. But if your heartburn stems from something you ate, adding acetic acid to your stomach can help neutralize the acid in there and help fix the problem, providing you with at least a little bit of comfort.


What, you are not impressed by these claims nor the references? I found another website that offers plenty more science:

  1. Katie J. Astell, Michael L. Mathai, Andrew J. McAinch, Christos G. Stathis, Xiao Q. Su. A pilot study investigating the effect of Caralluma fimbriata extract on the risk factors of metabolic syndrome in overweight and obese subjects: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Biomedical and Lifestyle Diseases (BioLED) Unit, College of Health and Biomedicine, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria 3021, Australia.
  2. Niedzielin, K., Kordecki, H.,,_double_blind,_randomized_study_on.4.aspx
  3. M. Million, et al. Obesity-associated gut microbiota is enriched in Lactobacillus reuteri and depleted in Bifidobacterium animalis and Methanobrevibacter smithii. International Journal of Obesity (2012) 36, 817–825; doi:10.1038/ijo.2011.153; published online 9 August 2011
  4. Rastmanesh R., et al. High polyphenol, low probiotic diet for weight loss because of intestinal microbiota interaction. Chemico-Biological InteractionsPublished 15 October 2010.
  5. Thielecke F, et al. Epigallocatechin-3-gallate and postprandial fat oxidation in overweight/obese male volunteers: a pilot study Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Jul;64(7):704-13. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2010.47.
  6. Wang H., Effects of catechin enriched green tea on body composition. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Apr;18(4):773-9. doi: 10.1038/oby.2009.256.
  7. Bitange Nipa Tochi, Zhang Wang, Shi – Ying Xu and Wenbin Zhang, 2008. Therapeutic Application of Pineapple Protease (Bromelain): A Review. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 7: 513-520.
  8. Date K, Satoh A, Iida K, Ogawa H. Pancreatic α-Amylase Controls Glucose Assimilation by Duodenal Retrieval through N-Glycan-specific Binding, Endocytosis, and Degradation. J Biol Chem. 2015 May 28. pii: jbc.M114.594937.
  9. Perano SJ,Couper JJ,Horowitz M, Martin AJ, Kritas S, Sullivan T, Rayner CK. Pancreatic enzyme supplementation improves the incretin hormone response and attenuates postprandial glycemia in adolescents with cystic fibrosis: a randomized crossover trial.J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014 Jul;99(7):2486-93. doi: 10.1210/jc.2013-4417. Epub 2014 Mar 26.

Ok, not plenty; and not very sound or relevant either.

So, let’s do a Medline search! This is sure to produce convincing clinical trials on human patients that back up all of the above claims.

Yes! Medline does indeed generate 58 hits for ACV (just to give you a comparison, searching for ‘atenolol’, a fairly ancient beta-blocker, for instance, generates 7877 hits and searching for ‘acupuncture’ provides more that 27 000 hits):

The first human study of ACV listed on Medline is from one of my favourite journals, the . It is not a clinical trial, but a case report:

A 32-y-old married woman was admitted with intense vaginal discharge with foul odor, itching, groin pain, and infertility for the past 5 y. Candida albicans was isolated from the culture of vaginal swab. The patient was diagnosed with chronic vaginal candida infection. She failed to respond to integrative medicine methods prescribed. Recovery was achieved with the application of apple cider vinegar. Alternative treatment methods can be employed in patients unresponsive to medical therapies. As being one of these methods, application of apple cider vinegar can cure vaginal candida infection.

But surely that cannot be all!

No, no, no! There is more; a pilot study has also been published. It included all of 10 patients and concluded that vinegar affects insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients with diabetic gastroparesis by reducing the gastric emptying rate even further, and this might be a disadvantage regarding to their glycaemic control.

That’s what I like! A bold statement, even though we are dealing with a tiny pilot. He who dares wins!

Anything else?

Afraid not! The rest of the 58 references are either animal studies, in vitro experiments or papers that were entirely irrelevant for the clinical effects of ACV.

But how can this be?

Does this mean that all the claims made by ‘COSMOPOLITAN’ and thousands of other publications are bogus?

I cannot imagine – no, it must mean that, yet again, science has simply not kept up with the incredible pace of alternative medicine.


The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) has launched a campaign to inform the public that, despite everything non-homeopaths may say and despite the undeniable facts about homeopathy, their remedies are highly effective. This article provides a detailed account of their incompetence.

I saw the image below first on Twitter. It is part of their current campaign and summarises ‘POSITIVE MESSAGES ABOUT HOMEOPATHY’ as the SoH proclaim them. Presumably, they did this piece of work to help their members finding the right arguments when defending the indefensible.

I am not usually prone to laughing fits, but this had me in stiches! It is hilarious, I think; a true masterpiece of comedy.

The masterpiece is almost too perfect to tarnish with my comments; however, I cannot resist. Sorry!

I will take the arguments in turn going clockwise and starting with


Should this not be ‘homeopathic medicines’? In any case, the remedies (medicines seems too strong a word) are tested in so-called ‘provings’ – yes, safely because they normally contain no active ingredient… and effectively? I cannot see why provings might be ‘effective’; they are pure fantasy.


No, as we have discussed often on this blog, adding cow pie to apple pie is not a positive contribution to anything.


Appeal to tradition = fallacy.

Appeal to authority = fallacy.


This too is false logic, because all good medicine puts the patient at the centre; in addition it is grammatically false English (if I as a non-native speaker may be so bold).


I doubt it. But even if this figure is correct, an appeal to popularity is a fallacy and not a logical argument.


I doubt it. But even if this figure is correct, an appeal to popularity is a fallacy and not a logical argument.


What is ‘natural’ in endlessly diluting things like ‘Berlin Wall’ and pretending it is a medicine? In any case, the appeal to tradition is yet another fallacy.


This is where I almost fell off my chair; homeopathy is the opposite of progress, it is a dogma and a belief-system.


All good medicine is holistic; arguably, homeopathy is not holistic.


Yes, this is what homeopaths believe, but it is not true.

To conclude what better than quoting the person who, a long time ago, said: “HOMEOPATHS ARE THE CLOWNS AMONGST THE HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS” ?


Who could resist reading an article entitled “Is Dead Vagina Syndrome Real? Plus, 4 Ways To Boost Your Libido“?

Well I couldn’t, particularly as it came from a site promisingly called ‘ALTERNATIVE DAILY’!

And I did not regret it. Here are some excerpts:

…“Dead vagina syndrome” or DVS is used to describe a woman’s over-sensitized vagina. Some people believe that regularly using a strong vibrator can cause a woman to lose feeling in her private parts. What’s worse, it’s thought that this desensitization of the nether regions makes it almost impossible for a woman to get aroused with an actual human partner. Thus, DVS is born. The theory behind the condition suggests that using a strong vibrator regularly will ultimately damage sensitive nerves around the clitoris and in the vagina…”

[Luckily, there is help – help from all natural, herbal remedies, no less. The article recommends the following cures]


Saffron, a culinary delicacy, has a powerful libido-boosting effect. In fact, research suggests that saffron has been used traditionally as an aphrodisiac. And a little goes a long way. All you need is one or two strands to do the trick.

Maca root

Used for centuries in Asian countries, maca root has traditionally been used for male sexuality. But a study from the Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital has found that it may also be helpful for women in need of a sexual boost.


In animal studies, nutmeg has been found to increase sexual activity in male rats. Interestingly, nutmeg has also been used traditionally as an aphrodisiac by African women and is still used today by women of all cultures. So, what’s good for men is obviously good for women too…


Before you get all excited and start planting your own physic garden or hurry to the next health food shop, let me tell you this: I have looked into the evidence, and to call it flimsy would be the understatement of the year. There is no good reason to believe that these herbal remedies (or any other alternative therapy) can help women increase their libido.

Thankfully, the article ends on a truthful and reassuringly positive note: “most experts agree that DVS is not a real medical concern for women.”

… nor for men, I hasten to add.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what might we conclude from all this?

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

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

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

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

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

3) described patients receiving chiropractic services;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


These conclusion are mostly not based on the data provided.

The researchers seemed to insist on addressing utterly trivial questions.

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

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

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



Malaria is an infection caused by protozoa usually transmitted via mosquito bites. Malaria is an important disease for homeopaths because of Hahnemann’s quinine experiment: it made him postulate his ‘like cures like’ theory. Today, many experts assume that Hahnemann misinterpreted the results of this experience. Yet most homeopaths are still convinced that potentised cinchona bark is an effective prophylaxis against malaria. Some homeopathic pharmacies still offer homeopathic immunisations against the infection. In several cases, this has caused people who believed to be protected fall ill with the infection.

Perhaps because of this long tradition, homeopaths seem to have difficulties giving up the idea that they hold the key to effective malaria prevention. An article published in THE INDIAN EXPRESS entitled ‘Research suggests hope for homoeopathic vaccine to treat malaria’ reminds us of this bizarre phenomenon:

…In a laboratory test set-up, an ultra-dilute homoeopathic preparation was prepared by extracting samples from Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite that causes malaria. The homoeopathic preparation was used in-vitro to check if it had anti-malarial activity… “Homoeopathy has been criticised for lack of scientific evidence. This lab-model test established that a medicine developed from an organism that causes malaria can be used to treat the infection,” said Dr Rajesh Shah, principal investigator in the research.

Following the tests, Shah is approaching the government in order to conduct a full-fledged clinical trial for the homoeopathic medicine. “We found that the homoeopathic medicine exhibited 65 per cent inhibition against malaria while chloroquine treatment has 54 per cent efficacy,” Shah claimed. The research was published in the International Journal of Medical and Health Research in July. It observed that the homoeopathic solution inhibited enzyme called hemozoin is known to have an anti-malarial effect…


I thought this story was both remarkable and odd. So I looked up the original paper. Here is the abstract:

The inventor has developed malaria nosode and has subjected it for evaluation of antimalarial activity in vitro assay along with few other homeopathy preparations. The potential antimalarial activity of the Malaria nosode, Malaria officinalis and China officinalis was evaluated by β-Hematin Formation Assay. The hemozoin content was determined by measuring the absorbance at 400 nm. The results were recorded as % inhibition of heme crystallization compared to negative control (DMSO) Malaria nosode, Malaria officinalis and China officinalis exhibited inhibition of hemozoin and the inhibition was greater than the positive control Chloroquine diphosphate used in the study. The study has shown anti-disease activity of an ultra-dilute (potentized) homeopathic preparation. The Malaria nosode prepared by potentizing Plasmodium falciparum organisms has demonstrated antimalarial activity, which supports the basic principle behind homeopathy, the law of similar.

Now I am just as puzzled!

Why would any responsible scientist advocate running a ‘full-fledged clinical trial’ on the basis of such flimsy and implausible findings?

Would that not be highly unethical?

Would one not do further in-vitro tests?

Then perhaps some animal studies?

Followed by first studies in humans?

Followed perhaps by a small pilot study?

And, if all these have generated positive results, eventually a proper clinical trial?

The answers to all these questions is YES.

But not in homeopathy, it seems!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Gravityscan Badge

Recent Comments

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

Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.