commercial interests
Coffee enemas consist of the administration of warm coffee via the rectum into a patient’s intestines. They are popular, not least because they cause profuse bowel movements and thus lead to immediate relief of constipation and therefore to short-lasting weight loss.
Coffee enemas are promoted for detox under the erroneous assumption that that the content of our colon is toxic, an obsolete theory known as ‘autointoxication’. Other notions assume that coffee enemas have beneficial antioxidant effects or stimulate the liver. Supporters of coffee enemas also claim they are effective treatments for:
- boosting immunity
- increasing energy
- preventing yeast overgrowth
- treating autoimmune diseases
- excreting parasites from the digestive tract
- removing heavy metals from the body
- alleviating depression
- treating cancer
Coffee enemas can cause adverse reactions some of which can be severe and have even caused fatalities:
- electrolyte imbalances
- rectal burns
- nausea
- vomiting
- cramping
- bloating
- dehydration
- bowel perforation
This new systematic review was conducted to investigate the safety and effectiveness of self-administered coffee enema and to provide evidence about its benefits and risks.
Relevant studies were retrieved from multiple electronic literature searches. Considering self-administered coffee enema being used in a various indication, study population was not restricted. Any types of published studies that included outcomes of effectiveness or safety of self-administered coffee enema with or without comparators were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Data on biomedical indications, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse events were collected. Descriptive analyses were planned because diverse health conditions and outcome variables did not allow for quantitative synthesis.
Nine case reports that describe adverse events were identified and included in the analysis. The reported problems included:
- colitis,
- proctocolitis,
- rectal perforation, peritonitis,
- rectal burn,
- cardiorespitatory arrest, followed by death,
- hepatic failure, followed by death,
- vomiting, dyspnoea, followed by death.
No study reporting on the effectiveness of coffee enema was found.
The authors concluded that, based on the evidences reviewed, this systematic review does not recommend coffee enema self-administration as a SCAM modality that can be adopted as a mean of self-care, given the unsolved issues on its safety and insufficient evidence with regard to the effectiveness.
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is full of truly barmy ideas, but coffee enems are amongst the worst. They are disgusting, uncomfortable, useless and risky. I am posting this article with the sincere hope that nobody reading it will ever consider using such nonsense.
THE WORLD FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE had been unknown to me, I must admit (I came across it when googling ‘Schuessler salts’). The name does, I suspect, attract many people who search for reliable, science-based information. Its website contains all sorts of amazing articles, for instance:
On the subject of Schuessler salts (also called Tissue salts), their website informs us that:
… Dr. Schüßler found out that functional organ disorders are often caused by a lack of one or more minerals. To treat the disorder, these minerals are supplied in homeopathic potency to stimulate the body to improve the absorption and transport of the mineral in question. In the treatment of colds or to strengthen the immune system, very good results can be achieved with Schuessler salts.
Colds
On the first signs:
Schuessler Salt no. 3 Ferrum phosphoricum D12
For coughs, colds, hoarseness, sore throat, earache:
Schuessler Salt No. 4 Potassium chloratum D6
For persistent colds with yellowish secretions:
Schuessler Salt No. 6 Potassium sulfuricum D6
Schuessler Salt No. 12 Calcium sulfuricum D6
With a fever below 39 degrees Celsius/102.2 degrees Fahrenheit:
Schuessler Salt No. 3 Ferrum phosphoricum D12
With a fever of more than 39 degrees Celsius/102.0 degrees Fahrenheit:
Schuessler Salt No. 5 Potassium phosphoricum D6…
I wonder how many patients with persistent cough have followed their advice and taken Schuessler Salt No. 6 Potassium sulfuricum D6 and/or Schuessler Salt No. 12 Calcium sulfuricum D6.
And why not?
I’ll tell you why not: persistent cough can be a sign for corona-virus or other serious infections. And if it’s not due to an infection, it might be due to cancer.
IF YOU HAVE A PERSISTENT COUGH, PLEASE SEE YOUR DOCTOR!
Back to Schuessler salts (I have written about them before here and here). They are a derivative of homeopathy in the sense that they are highly diluted (Schuessler was a German homeopath). But they do not follow the ‘like cures like’ assumption. Many homeopaths are thus indignant, if Schuessler salts get confused with homeopathics. Yet, they shouldn’t be: both Schuessler salts and homeopathics have one important feature in common: they are ineffective.
Some years ago, I published a systematic review of all clinical studies of Schuessler salts (sorry, I cannot find the reference at the moment). That was an easy task, because there are none (one ought to ask why there is not a single trial of Schuessler salts. I suspect the manufacturers do not want one, because they already know the result). This renders the recommendation of the THE WORLD FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE all the more enraging.
I think I will therefore rename this organisation; I shall call it
THE WORLD FOUNDATION OF ANTI-SCIENCE.
The objective of this study was to carry out a patent survey of homeopathic products and processes. A free and international patent database, Espacenet, was used. The search was carried out using the keyword homeop*, with two approaches:
- no date restrictions for the search,
- a date limit for the publication years 2008 to 2018.
The patents from the limited period were organized as depositor countries, ownerships and groups, including homeopathic formulations, equipment, packaging, production procedures, and analytical methods.
Without date restriction, 601 patents were identified in the survey. Of these, 174 were related to homeopathy and published in the period 2008 to 2018. Technologies come mainly from the following countries:
- United States (55 patents),
- Russia (24),
- Germany (15),
- France (13),
- India (12),
- Ukraine (11),
- Brazil (6),
- China (6).
Among the ownerships,
- 69% of patent applications were by independent depositors,
- 23% by companies,
- 7.5% by universities,
- 0.5% by company/university partnerships.
New formulations represented 75.9% of technologies, whilst the others comprised 14.3% for equipment, 3.8% for drugs packaging, 3.8% for production procedures, and 2.2% for analytical methods.
The authors concluded that the present review helps visualize the homeopathy-related patents published in recent years, as well as the main countries and researchers investing in the field of homeopathy.
It is not often that I find anything interesting published in the journal HOMEOPATHY these days. But this paper is fascinating, I thought. The main reason for this is the fact that we hear so often arguments which go something like this:
HOMEOPATHY CANNOT BE PATENTED —> NO COMMERCIAL INTEREST —> NO MONEY TO BE MADE —> NO FUNDS FOR RESEARCH —> NO LARGE AND RIGOROUS CLINICAL TRIALS.
And here we learn that there are about 17 patents per year. Sure this is not a lot but it squarely defeats the argument that homeopathic formulations cannot be patented.
Even more fascinating is the question which homeopathic formulation one might want to get patented. I have recently alluded to the weird and wonderful stuff that is already on offer (see here, here, here and here). Here I persent to you a few more:
- Alligator Miss. (Alligator Mississippiensis)
- Boa Constrictor
- Boa Constrictor (Skin)
- Car Exhaust
- Eclipse Totality
- Exhaust fumes (Car petrol exhaust fumes)
- Frog (Chytrid Fungus)
- Frog spawn (Common frog, Rana temporaria)
- Great Wall of China
- Guinness
- Gunpowder
- Hadrian’s Wall
- Ibuprofen
- Indigo (colour)
- Irish Wet Turf
- Oxygenium (Oxygen)
- Ozone (O3)
- Paracetamol
- Penicillinum
- Prednisolone
- Progesterone
- Rubber (Synthetic)
- Salicylic Acid
- Sol Africana
- Sol Australis (Sunlight – Australia)
- Sol Britannic (Sunlight British)
- Stonehenge (Emanation)
- Tamoxifen
- Vitamin A (Retinol)
- Vitamin B Complex
- Vitamin B12 (Cyanocobalamin)
- Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin, Vitamin G)
- Vitamin B3 (Nicotinic Acid, Niacin)
- Vitamin B5 (D-Pantothenic acid hemicalcium salt)
- Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine Hydrochloride)
- Vitamin C (L-Ascorbic Acid)
- Vitamin D (Vitamin D2 + Vitamin D3)
- Vitamin D2 (Ergocalciferol)
- Vitamin D3 (Cholecalciferol)
- Vitamin E ((±)-α-Tocopherol)
- Vitamin H (Biotin) (Biotin)
- Vitamin K (Vitamin K1)
- Vitamin K Injection (Phylloquinone, Vitamine K1)
- Wind (South-West)
We see very clearly that, in homeopathy, imagination knows no bounds. So, let me ask you, my readers and avid fans of homeopathy
WHICH FORMULATION WOULD YOU WANT TO PATENT?
(only serious answers, of course)
THE FIRST WORLDWIDE MANIFESTO AGAINST PSEUDOSCIENCE
2750 signatories from 44 countries have signed it [I was number 11] and today is its official launch. I am delighted to present to you the full text of the English version:
Let’s be clear: pseudoscience kills. And they are being used with total impunity thanks to European
laws that protect them.
They kill thousands of people, with names and families. People such as Francesco Bonifaz, a 7-yearold boy whose doctor prescribed homeopathy instead of antibiotics. He died in Italy [1]. People like Mario Rodríguez, who was 21 years old and was told to use vitamins to treat his cancer. He died in Spain [2]. People like Jacqueline Alderslade, a 55-year-old woman whose homeopath told her to stop taking her asthma medication. She died in Ireland [3]. People like Cameron Ayres, a 6-month-old baby, whose parents did not want to give their child “scientific medicine”. He died in England [4]. People like Victoria Waymouth, a 57-year-old woman who was prescribed a homeopathic medication to treat her heart problem. She died in France [5]. People like Sofia Balyaykina, a 25-year-old woman, who had a cancer that was curable with chemotherapy but was recommended an “alternative treatment”, a mosquito bite treatment. She died in Russia [6]. People like Erling Møllehave, a 71-year-old man whose acupuncturist pierced and damaged his lung with a needle. He died in Denmark [7]. People like Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert, a 40-year-old-woman whose therapist recommended the German NewMedicine to treat her breast cancer. She died in Germany [8]. People like Sylvia Millecam, a 45-year-old woman whose New Age healer promised to cure her cancer. She died in the Netherlands [9].
European directive 2001/83/CE has made –and still makes— possible the daily deception of thousands of hundreds of European citizens [10]. Influential lobbyists have been given the opportunity to redefine what a medicine is, and now they are selling sugar to sick people and making them believe it can cure them or improve their health. This has caused deaths and will continue to do so until Europe admits an undeniable truth: scientific knowledge cannot yield to economic interests, especially when it means deceiving patients and violating their rights.
Europe is facing very serious problems regarding public health. Overmedication, multi-resistant bacteria and the financial issues of the public systems are already grave enough, without the additional problem of gurus, fake doctors or even qualified doctors claiming they can cure any disease by manipulating chakras, making people eat sugar or using “quantic frequencies”. Europe must not only stop the promotion of homeopathy but also actively fight to eradicate public health scams. More than 150 pseudo-therapies have been identified as being in use throughout Europe. Thousands of citizens lives depend on this being prevented. In fact, according to a recent research, 25.9 % of Europeans have used pseudo-therapies last year. In other words, 192 million patients have been deceived [11].
Some believe there is a conflict between freedom of choice for a treatment and the removal of pseudo-therapies, but this is not true. According to article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person has a right to medical care. Lying to patients in order to sell them useless products that could kill them breaks their right to correct information about their health. This way, even if a citizen has a right to refuse medical treatment when he or she is properly informed, it is also true that nobody has the right to lie to obtain profit at the expense of someone else’s life. Only in a world in which lying to a sick person would be considered ethical, could homeopathy —or any other pseudo-therapy— be allowed to continue to be sold to citizens.
Effective treatments being replaced by false ones is not the only danger of pseudo-therapies. Obvious delays in therapeutic care occur when a person gets false products instead of medication at the early stages of a disease. Many times, it is then too late by the time they get treated with proper medicine. Moreover, several of these practices have serious effects on their own and may cause damage or even death because of their side effects.
Many pseudo-therapists argue that “the other medicine” comes with side effects as well, which is indeed true. However, the difference resides in that pseudo-therapies cannot cure a disease or improve your health, and because of that patients assume risks in exchange of promises that are a scam, according to the full weight of the scientific evidence available. Lying to a sick person is not another type of medicine, it is simply lying to a sick person.
Every country has to face the pseudo-therapies issue in its own ways. Yet it is not acceptable that European laws protect the distortion of scientific facts so that thousands of citizens can be deceived or even lead to their deaths.
We, the signatories of this manifest, therefore declare that:
1. Scientific knowledge is incompatible with what pseudo-therapies postulate, as in the case
of homeopathy.
2. European laws that protect homeopathy are not acceptable in a scientific and technological
society that respects the right of the patients not to be deceived.
3. Homeopathy is the best known pseudo-therapy, but it is not the only one nor the most
dangerous one. Others, such as acupuncture, reiki, German New Medicine, iridology,
biomagnetism, orthomolecular therapy and many more, are gaining ground and causing
victims.
4. Measures must be taken to stop pseudo-therapies, since they are harmful and result in
thousands of people being adversely affected.
5. Europe needs to work towards creating legislation that will help stop this problem.
Europe being concerned about the misinformation phenomena but at the same time protecting one the most dangerous types of it, health misinformation, is just not coherent. This is why the people signing this manifesto urge the governments of European countries to end a problem in which the name of science is being used falsely and which has already cost too many lives.
[1] Homeopathy boy died of encephalitis. Redazione ANSA, 2017.
http://www.ansa.it/english/news/general_news/2017/05/29/homeopathy-boy-died-of-encephalitis-3_13e02493-
4e62-4787-9162-12d831121ef6.html
[2] Grieving dad sues over ‘cure cancer with vitamins’ therapy, The local. Emma Anderson, 2016.
https://www.thelocal.es/20160412/grieving-father-sues-naturopath-over-son-cure-cancer-vitamins-leukaemia
[3] Asthmatic ‘told to give up drugs’. The Irish News, 2001.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/asthmatic-told-to-give-up-drugs-26063764.html
[4] Homeopaths warn of further tragèdies. BBC News, 2000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/702699.stm
[5] Alternative cure doctor suspended. BBC News, 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6255356.stm
[6] Футболист рассказал трагичную историю жены. Она умерла от рака в 25 лет. Sport24, 2018.
https://sport24.ru/news/football/2018-08-28-futbolist-rasskazal-tragichnuyu-istoriyu-zheny-ona-umerla-ot-raka-v-25-let
[7] Mand døde efter akupunktur – enke vil nu lægge sag an mod behandleren, TV2, 2018.
http://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2018-01-23-mand-doede-efter-akupunktur-enke-vil-nu-laegge-sag-an-modbehandleren [8] The price of refusing science-based medical and surgical therapy in breast càncer, Science Blogs, 2012.
https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/30/the-price-of-refusing-science-based-medical-and-surgical-therapy-inbreast-cancer
[9] Psychic ‘misled actress to hopeless cancer death’. Expatica. 2004.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070208144309/http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_i
d=19&story_id=4821
[10] Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol1/dir_2001_83_consol_2012/dir_2001_83_cons_2012_en.pdf
[11] Use of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe: Health-related and sociodemographic
determinants. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. Laura M. Kemppainen et al. 2018.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5989251/
I want to thank our friend ‘OLD BOB’ for alerting me to Patrick Holford’s comment on a recent trial of vitamin C for COVID-19. Here are three short quotes from Holford:
… Overall, 5 out 26 people (19%) died in the vitamin C group while 10 out of 28 (36%) receiving the placebo died. That means that vitamin C almost halved the number of deaths. Those on vitamin C were 60% more likely to survive.
… Of those most critically ill, 4 people (18%) in the vitamin C group died, compared to 10 (50%) in the placebo group. That’s two-thirds less deaths. Statistically this meant that of those most critically ill who were given vitamin C, they were 80% less likely to die…
… now there is another proven treatment – vitamin C…
And here is the abstract of the actual trial Holford refers to:
Background: No specific medication has been proven effective for the treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we tested whether high-dose vitamin C infusion was effective for severe COVID-19.
Methods: This randomized, controlled, clinical trial was performed at 3 hospitals in Hubei, China. Patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the ICU were randomly assigned in as 1:1 ratio to either the high-dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) or the placebo. HDIVC group received 12 g of vitamin C/50 ml every 12 hours for 7 days at a rate of 12 ml/hour, and the placebo group received bacteriostatic water for injection in the same way. The primary outcome was invasive mechanical ventilation-free days in 28 days(IMVFD28). Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, organ failure, and inflammation progression.
Results: Only fifty-six critical COVID-19 patients were ultimately recruited due to the early control of the outbreak. There was no difference in IMVFD28 between two groups. During the 7-day treatment period, patients in the HDIVC group had a steady rise in the PaO2/FiO2 (day 7: 229 vs. 151 mmHg, 95% CI 33 to 122, P=0.01). Patients with SOFA scores ≥3 in the HDIVC group exhibited a trend of reduction in 28-day mortality (P=0.06) in univariate survival analysis. IL-6 in the HDIVC) group was lower than that in the placebo group (19.42 vs. 158.00; 95% CI -301.72 to -29.79; P=0.04) on day 7.
Conclusion: This pilot trial showed that HDIVC might show a potential signal of benefit for critically ill patients with COVID-19, improving oxygenation even though it failed to improve IMVFD28.
The following points are, I think, worth mentioning:
- This was, according to its authors, a PILOT study.
- It was far too small (n=56) to provide reliable results on mortality.
- The trial authors know that and interpret their findings with sufficient caution.
- The primary endpoint, the IMVFD28, showed NO significant difference between the groups.
- The secondary endpoint: HDIVC infusion exhibited a non-significant trend of reduction in 28-day mortality (P=0.06).
- In more severe patients (SOFA score ≥3), univariate survival analysis and Cox regression showed a similar results (P=0.07, HR, 0.32 [95% CI 0.10-1.06]).
And what does all of this mean? It means that, in this pilot study, vitamin C failed to produce a significant result. Only in a subgroup analysis related to a secondary endpoint was there a slight advantage of vitamin C. This effect is, of course, interesting and needs further investigation (I am sure that is happening as we speak). It could have some clinical significance but, just as likely, it could just be due to chance. There is not way of knowing which is which.
In other words, to hype the findings and to even make statements such as ‘now there is another proven treatment, vitamin C’ is not just exaggerated, it is irresponsible.
This begs the question: why does Mr Holford do it? In case you don’t already know about this man, go on the Internet, and you will quickly find possible answers. Here is an excerpt from his Wiki page which might give you a clue:
Patrick Holford is a British author and entrepreneur who endorses a range of controversial vitamin tablets. As an advocate of alternative nutrition and diet methods, he appears regularly on television and radio in the UK and abroad. He has 36 books in print in 29 languages. His business career promotes a wide variety of alternative medical approaches such as orthomolecular medicine, many of which are considered pseudoscientific by mainstream science and medicine.
Holford’s claims about HIV and autism are not in line with modern medical thought, and have been criticised for putting people in danger and damaging public health.
In 2006 Holford was discovered to be using his PR advisor to delete critical content from his Wikipedia page…
Holford has been the subject of criticism for his promotion of medically dubious techniques and products including hair analysis, his support of the now struck off doctor Andrew Wakefield, and advocating the use of “non-drug alternatives for mental health” for which he has been given an award by the Church of Scientology-backed Citizens Commission on Human Rights.
SAY NO MORE!
It is today exactly 8 years that I am writing this blog. To mark the occasion, I am trying to write my shortest post ever. It focusses on a question that has often occupied my mind and rarely leaves the comments sections of this blog: What makes a healthcare professional use a bogus SCAM therapy? Think, for instance, of any practitioner of homeopathy. What makes him or her tick? Why does (s)he practice homeopathy and not real medicine? After years of thinking about it, the answer turns out to be really quite simple. There are only three possibilities:
Practitioners who employ disproven treatments either
try to con you
or
they have been conned themselves
or
both.
________________________
Think of it, there is no other explanation!
If, however, you do know of another one, please let me know.
AND THANKS FOR MAKING THIS BLOG A SUCCESS.
- The main concern of the FoH seems to be boosting their membership. This suggests that their numbers are dwindling sharply. I wonder why. Is it because of the nasty sceptics? Or is it because the public is slowly understanding that homeopathics are placebos?
- No expertise or even previous exposure to science or healthcare seem to be needed. Considering that the successful candidate is expected to write grant applications, this seems surprising to say the least.
- No knowledge of homeopathy seems required. I find this odd. How is the ‘Chief Operating Officer’ going to understand the weird and wonderful world he/she is supposed to immerse into?
- Reputational management! What a great term! I had not heard it before. It makes sense in relation to Boris Johnson or Donald Trump. In connection with homeopathy, it is truly hilarious, I feel.
So, here it is:
- they offer a decent salary;
- they allow you to work from home most of the time;
- they require skills and expertise only in homeopathic doses.
Come on, Sandra, Lollypop, Dana, Heinrich, RG, Roger, Old Bob:
GO FOR IT!
Research by a reputable independent research company done for Securivita a German insurance company shows that those receiving homeopathic care were much better off. Over 15,700 patients were involved in the study which also used a comparison group.
The study showed that in a wide range of patients with various pathological problems that if they had homeopathic care they faired dramatically better than those just getting conventional medicine.
Children having homeopathy treatment from birth, were particularly healthier and with less problems. Over the three year study period, the number of children needing antibiotics decreased by 16.7 per cent in the homeopathy group, whereby it increased by 73.9 per cent in the conventional medical comparison group!
The number of hospitalizations in the comparison group increased by 32.6 per cent whereby in the homeopathy treatment group it decreased by 9.8 per cent!
Adults and children treated homoeopathically had dramatic improvements in allergies, dermatitis, asthma, just to name a few.
These are just a few examples of the remarkable benefits of homeopathic treatment outlined in the study by by the Leipzig Health Forum , an independent analytical institute specializing in health services conducted for Securvita Krankenkasse Insurer.
“We don’t need fewer, but more homeopathic doctors who will continue on this successful path,” says Götz Hachtmann , director of the health insurance company Securvita.
The study is in German and can be found here.
____________________________
Blessed are those who don’t read German (at least in this instance)!
As I am not amongst the blessed, I ought to tell you a bit about the ‘massive’ study. The OHR, the ‘OFFICIAL HOMEOPATHIC RESOURCE’ (btw what makes the OHR ‘official’?) claims that the study can be found here. The OHR is evidently not well enough resourced for translating the German text into English; if they were, they would know that the link goes not to a ‘study’ but to some kind of a glossy marketing brochure about the ‘study’ (there is no actual published scientific paper on the ‘study’). It provides hardly any relevant information; all we learn is that 15 700 individuals who regularly consulted homeopathic physicians were compared over a three year period to an equally sized control group who did not consult homeopathic doctors… And that’s essentially it! No further relevant details are offered.
By contrast, quite a bit of information is offered about the findings, for instance:
- In the homeopathy group, the hospitalisation rate of depressive patients dropped by 10%, while it increased in controls by 33%.
- The days off work dropped by 17% vs an increase in controls of 17%.
- The use of antibiotics decreased by 17% vs an increase of 74%.
And how do they explain these differences?
Yes, you guessed it:
they are due to homeopathy!
One does not need to have a perfumer’s nose to smell a few badly decomposing rats here, for example:
- We do not learn how many variables were tested in this ‘study’. Therefore, it is likely that the ‘results’ provided are the positive ones, while the not so positive potential effects of homeopathy remained unmentioned. Perhaps the death rate was higher in the homeopathy group? Perhaps they suffered more heart attacks? Perhaps they had a lower quality of life? Perhaps they caused more costs? Perhaps they committed more suicides? etc. etc.
- Even more obvious is the stench of selection bias. The individuals in the homeopathy group were clearly different from the controls to start with. They might have been more health conscious. They clearly were more cautious about antibiotics. They might have been of better general health. They might have been younger. They could have contained more women. They might have been more afraid of going into a hospital. They might have been keener to attend work. In fact, the only variable in which the two groups were comparable is sample size.
Even if we eventually we see this ‘study’ published in a peer-reviewed journal with full methodological details etc., it will not allow even the smartest spin-doctor to establish cause and effect. Its findings would not be more conclusive than those of previously discussed attempts to produce positive evidence for homeopathy. The ‘positive’ findings could have been the result of hundreds of causes, none of which are related to homeopathy.
In a nutshell: this new German ‘study’ is a textbook example for arguing in favour of conducting proper research rather that rampant pseudo-research.
But I must not always be so negative!!!
So, let me try to point out the positive sides of this ‘study’:
The ‘massive independent study’ is a true masterpiece of advertising and marketing for both Securivita and homeopathy.
Well done guys!
I am proud of you!
- That’s exactly the stuff needed for successfully misleading the public.
- That’s precisely the info required to increase your cash flow.
- That’s helpful ‘research’ for convincing politicians.
- That’s definitely the type of baloney to impresses the Ullmanns of this world.
- That’s even the sort of ‘science’ which the ‘OFFICIAL HOMEOPATHIC RESOURCE’ cannot recognise for what it truly is:
invalid junk.
This recent review claimed to evaluate the evidence on the use of human and veterinary homeopathy, evidence level 1a studies were considered. Focusing on the external evidence on the use of homeopathy in infections, some evidence level 1a, 1b, 2c studies, and a case report, are described in more detail.
In conclusion, evidence for the effectiveness of human and veterinary homeopathy in general, and in particular, of homeopathic treatment for infections, is available. Especially, individualized homeopathy demonstrates effects at all quality levels according to Cochrane criteria, even in the methodologically high-quality studies. As in most areas of veterinary medicine and medicine, further good/excellent studies are necessary. In compliance with the principles of homeopathy, further methodologically high-quality trials focusing on the homeopathic treatment of infections are the next logical step. The selection of the simile (individually fitting homeopathic medicinal product) by appropriately trained homeopathic doctors/veterinarians is essential for the effectiveness of homeopathy. Implementation of studies at university facilities is a prerequisite for quality assurance. Consequently, further integration of homeopathy at universities is a necessary requirement for the patients’ best interests.
Who wrote this bizarre paper?
The authors who state to have no conflicts of interest are
This study assessed the patterns of dietary supplement usage among cancer survivors in the United States in a population-based setting. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) datasets (1999-2016) were accessed, and adult respondents (≥ 20 years old) with a known status of cancer diagnosis and a known status of dietary supplements intake were included. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was then used to assess factors associated with dietary supplements intake. Moreover, and to evaluate the impact of dietary supplements on overall survival among respondents with cancer, multivariable Cox regression analysis was conducted.
A total of 49,387 respondents were included in the current analysis, including a total of 4,575 respondents with cancer. Among respondents with cancer, 3,024 (66.1%) respondents reported the use of dietary supplements; while 1,551 (33.9%) did not report the use of dietary supplements. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, factors associated with the use of dietary supplements included:
- older age (OR: 1.028; 95% CI: 1.027-1.030);
- white race (OR for black race vs. white race: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.63-0.72);
- female gender (OR for males vs. females: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.53-0.59),
- higher income (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.11-1.14),
- higher educational level (0.59; 95% CI: 0.56-0.63),
- better self-reported health (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.17-1.58),
- health insurance (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.27-1.44),
- history of cancer (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.10-1.31).
Using multivariable Cox regression analysis and within the subgroup of respondents with a history of cancer, the use of dietary supplements was not found to be associated with a difference in overall survival (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.98-1.30).
The authors concluded that dietary supplement use has increased in the past two decades among individuals with cancer in the United States, and this increase seems to be driven mainly by an increase in the use of vitamins. The use of dietary supplements was not associated with any improvement in overall survival for respondents with cancer in the current study cohort.
Many cancer patients, when they first get diagnosed, are tested for vitamin D levels and found to be low or borderline. Consequently, they get a prescription for supplements. Other than this, there is rarely an indication to take any vitamins or other dietary supplements. Yet, cancer patients take them because they think these ‘natural’ preparations can do no harm (and because the industry can be persuasive [there is big money at stake] and the odd breed of ‘integrated’ oncologists might even recommend them). Sadly, this assumption is not correct. The biggest danger, in my view, is the possibility of supplements to interact with one of the many drugs that cancer patients need to take. So, in a way, it is reassuring that, on average, there is no detrimental effect on overall survival.
The paper will probably also reignite the perennial discussion about the effects of vitamin C on the natural history of cancer. My understanding is that there is none (and this verdict seems to be supported by the findings reported here). But I am, of course, aware that this is a ‘hot potato’ and that some readers will think differently. To them I say: please show me the evidence.
