A sizeable proportion of the general population is convinced that certain moon phases and moon signs may impact their health as well as the onset and clinical course of diseases. Those who believe in alternative medicine tend, I guess, to belong to this group. Here is a quote from one of the many websites making such claims: Understanding moon cycles and how they affect the body can be a key to better health. To understand how the moon influences your health the first step is to realize that your human body is made up of over 60% water, and the moon affects all water on the Earth. The moon controls the ebb and flow of the oceanic tides and it controls your human body in the same way.
There is, of course, no plausible reason for such claims and convictions, but this rarely stops the gullible. And anyway, it could be true – or couldn’t it?
This study investigated the perioperative and long-term outcome of living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) dependent on moon phases and zodiac signs. Patient data were prospectively collected in a continuously updated kidney transplant database. Two hundred and seventy-eight consecutive patients who underwent LDKT between 1994 and December 2009 were selected for the study and retrospectively assigned to the four moon phases (new-moon, waxing-moon, full-moon, and waning-moon) and the corresponding zodiac sign (moon sign Libra), based on the date of transplantation. Pre-existing comorbidities, perioperative mortality, surgical outcome, and long-term survival data were analysed.
Of all LDKT procedures, 11.9; 39.9; 11.5; and 36.5% were performed during the new, waxing, full, and waning moon, respectively, and 6.2% during the moon sign Libra, which is believed to interfere with renal surgery. Survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years after transplantation were 98.9, 92, and 88.7% (patient survival) and 97.4, 91.6, and 80.6% (graft survival) without any differences between all groups of lunar phases and moon signs. Overall perioperative complications and early graft loss occurred in 21.2 and 1.4%, without statistical difference (p > 0.05) between groups.
The authors concluded that moon phases and the moon sign Libra had no impact on early and long-term outcome measures following LDKT in our study. Thus, concerns of patients awaiting LDKT regarding the ideal time of surgery can be allayed, and surgery may be scheduled independently of the lunar phases.
The authors also concede that their study has some limitations. First, it is a retrospective analysis of a single transplant centre and the number of patients is not huge. In addition, due to the retrospective design of the study, no randomization of the patients was possible. However, a randomization of the patients would systematically ignore the patients preferences. Realization of such a randomized trial would therefore be challenging. As a consequence, we do not know in how many cases the transplant was scheduled according to the lunar phases on the explicit request of the patient. It would be interesting to know whether a strong desire of the patient and a corresponding fulfilment has any influence on the short- and long-term success of the surgery.
Nonsense, I hear the loonies shout: there are numerous studies confirming that the moon has a definite effect on our health!
How do you explain that?
I think there are at least two possible explanations:
- these studies were methodologically flawed and lack independent replications;
- it cannot be excluded that patients’ fear of the wrong moon-phase might exert a negative influence on their health, irrespective of any influence of the moon. In this case, the moon-phase itself would be irrelevant, but the fear would mimic a real phenomenon.
The claimed benefits of Shinrin-yoku are remarkable:
- Boosted immune system functioning, with an increase in the count of the body’s Natural Killer (NK) cells.
- Reduced blood pressure
- Reduced stress
- Improved mood
- Increased ability to focus, even in children with ADHD
- Accelerated recovery from surgery or illness
- Increased energy level
- Improved sleep
- Deeper and clearer intuition
- Increased flow of energy
- Increased capacity to communicate with the land and its species
- Increased flow of eros/life force
- Deepening of friendships
- Overall increase in sense of happiness
But is any of this really true?
The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to summarise empirical research conducted on the physiological and psychological effects of Shinrin-Yoku. Research published from 2007 to 2017 was considered. A total of 64 studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the authors, they show that health benefits associated with the immersion in nature continue to be currently researched. Longitudinal research, conducted worldwide, is needed to produce new evidence of the relationships associated with Shinrin-Yoku and clinical therapeutic effects. Nature therapy as a health-promotion method and potential universal health model is implicated for the reduction of reported modern-day “stress-state” and “technostress.”
A look at the primary studies reveals that they are usually small and of poor quality.
Perhaps a brand new review aimed more specifically at evaluating preventive or therapeutic effects of Shinrin-Yoku on blood pressure can tell us more. The authors considered all published, randomized, controlled trials, cohort studies, and comparative studies that evaluated the effects of the forest environment on changes in systolic blood pressure. Twenty trials involving 732 participants were reviewed. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure of patients submitted to the forest environment was significantly lower than that of controls. The authors concluded that this systematic review shows a significant effect of Shinrin-yoku on reduction of blood pressure.
I find this paper odd as well:
- it lacks important methodological detail;
- the authors included not just controlled clinical trials but all sorts of ‘studies’;
- there is no assessment of the methodological rigor of the primary trials (from what I could see, they were mostly too poor to draw any conclusions from them).
What does all of this mean?
I have no problems in assuming that relaxation in a forest is beneficial in many ways and a nice experience.
But why call this a therapy?
It is relaxation!
Why make so many unsubstantiated claims?
And why study it in such obviously flawed ways?
All this does, I fear, is giving science a bad name.
I recently came across this article; essentially it claims that, in 1918, chiropractic proved itself to be the method of choice for treating the flu!
Here is a short quote from it:
Chiropractors got fantastic results from influenza patients while those under medical care died like flies all around. Statistics reflect a most amazing, almost miraculous state of affairs. The medical profession was practically helpless with the flu victims but chiropractors seemed able to do no wrong.”
“In Davenport, Iowa, 50 medical doctors treated 4,953 cases, with 274 deaths. In the same city, 150 chiropractors including students and faculty of the Palmer School of Chiropractic, treated 1,635 cases with only one death.”
“In the state of Iowa, medical doctors treated 93,590 patients, with 6,116 deaths – a loss of one patient out of every 15. In the same state, excluding Davenport, 4,735 patients were treated by chiropractors with a loss of only 6 cases – a loss of one patient out of every 789.
“National figures show that 1,142 chiropractors treated 46,394 patients for influenza during 1918, with a loss of 54 patients – one out of every 886.”
“Reports show that in New York City, during the influenza epidemic of 1918, out of every 10,000 cases medically treated, 950 died; and in every 10,000 pneumonia cases medically treated 6,400 died. These figures are exact, for in that city these are reportable diseases.”
“In the same epidemic, under drugless methods, only 25 patients died of influenza out of every 10,000 cases; and only 100 patients died of pneumonia out of every 10,000 cases…”
“In the same epidemic reports show that chiropractors in Oklahoma treated 3,490 cases of influenza with only 7 deaths. But the best part of this is, in Oklahoma there is a clear record showing that chiropractors were called in 233 cases where medical doctors had cared for the patients, and finally gave them up as lost. The chiropractors saved all these lost cases but 25.”
END OF QUOTE
So what does that sort of ‘evidence’ really show?
Does it prove that chiropractic is effective against influenza?
Does it even suggest that chiropractic is effective against influenza?
I think it shows that some chiropractors (like many homeopaths) are deluded to a point where they are unable to differentiate pseudoscience from science, anecdote from evidence, cause from effect, etc.
In the case you need more explanations, let me re-phrase this section from a previous post:
In the typical epidemiological case/control study, one large group of patients [A] is retrospectively compared to another group [B]. By large, I mean with a sample size of thousands of patients. In our case, group A has been treated by chiropractors, while group B received the treatments available at the time. It is true that several of such reports seemed to suggest that chiropractic works. But this does by no means prove anything; the result might have been due to a range of circumstances, for instance:
- group A might have been less ill than group B,
- group A might have been richer and therefore better nourished,
- group A might have benefitted from better hygiene,
- group A might have received better care, e. g. hydration,
- group B might have received treatments that made the situation not better but worse.
Because these are RETROSPECTIVE studies, there is no way to account for these and many other factors that might have influenced the outcome. This means that epidemiological studies of this nature can generate interesting results which, in turn, need testing in properly controlled studies where these confounding factors are adequately controlled for. Without such tests, they are next to worthless.
The TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION (THE) reported yesterday that the British School of Osteopathy (BSO) has won university college title, meaning that it could be on the road towards full university status. University college title, awarded by the Privy Council on the advice of the Department for Education (DfE) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is usually seen as a step towards full university status. The London-based BSO already secured degree-awarding powers and access to Hefce public teaching and research funding in 2015. The BSO will be known, from September, as the University College of Osteopathy.
The THE quoted me saying “Osteopathy is based on implausible assumptions, and there is no good evidence for its effectiveness. Yet osteopaths regularly make all sorts of therapeutic claims. These facts make the BSO not a candidate for becoming a university; on the contrary, such a move would significantly downgrade the credibility of UK universities and make a mockery of academia and evidence-based healthcare.”
Charles Hunt, the BSO principal, responded: “We recognise that for some of the things that some osteopaths are doing, there is very limited evidence [to demonstrate their effectiveness], and we need to gain more for that. But within medicine, there’s a lot of things that also do not have evidence for them, but some medical practitioners are doing [them anyway].”
The BSO principal should offer a course on logical fallacies and enlist as the first student in it, I thought when reading his response.
Anyway, having stated that “osteopaths regularly make all sorts of therapeutic claims”, I better provide some evidence. Perhaps another occasion for a slide-show?
Here are a few images I found on Twitter that are relevant in this context.[please click to see them full size]
Guest post by Richard Rawlins MB BS MBA FRCS
Doctors who are registered medical practitioners (RMPs) must comply with the standards of practice set down by the General Medical Council. ‘Homeopathy’ is a specific system of medical care, devised by Dr Samuel Hahnemann in the nineteenth century, and comprises two distinct dimensions: (i) the establishment of a constructive therapeutic relationship between an empathic homeopath and a patient. This may provide benefit due to the non-specific effects of condolence, counselling, and care – and should be a component of the practice of all doctors in any event; (ii) the homeopathically prepared (HP) remedies that are generally prescribed. To avoid confusion, these two dimensions should not be conflated.
HP remedies may be obtained over the counter, prescribed by lay homeopaths and even given out by dentists and nurses on the grounds that “30C homeopathic arnica helps bruising”. The US Federal Trades Commission has stated that “The Commission will carefully scrutinize the net impression of OTC homeopathic advertising or other marketing employing disclosures to ensure that it adequately conveys the extremely limited nature of the health claim being asserted…accordingly, unqualified disease claims made for homeopathic drugs must be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence.” (FTC Policy statement 2017).
Special focus should be brought to bear on the ethical, intellectual and professional obligations of those doctors registered as medical practitioners by the GMC and practicing homeopathy in the UK. Some homeopaths may intend taking advantage of gullible and vulnerable patients. Here I take it that those practitioners who prescribe homeopathic remedies sincerely do believe they have worthwhile effects, but I contend such practice generally fails to comply with ethical and professional standards as set down by the GMC. That is to be deprecated.
Systems to regulate medical practice in the British Isles have been devised since the middle ages. In 1518, Thomas Linacre founded the College of Physicians – based on systems he had seen in Europe. From 1704, the Society of Apothecaries licensed its members to prescribe and dispense medicines, and developed the profession of general practice. In order to protect the public from charlatans, quacks and fraudsters more effectively, the Medical Act of 1858 established formal statutory regulation of doctors by the General Medical Council. Registrants who are not deemed fit to practice may be struck off the register. They can still practice, but not as registered medical practitioners. They can still use the title ‘doctor’ (as can anyone), but not for fraudulent purposes.
Dr Samuel Hahnemann qualified in Saxony in 1781 and was a good doctor, but he became disillusioned with many of the practices and practitioners of his day. He wrote about his fellow doctors: “Precious and fragile human life, so easily destroyed, was frequently placed in jeopardy at the hands of these perverted people, especially since bleedings, emetics, purges, blistering plaster, fontanels, setons, caustics and cauterisations were used.” In 1796 he wrote to a friend, “I renounced the practice of medicine that I might no longer incur the risk of doing injury, and I engaged in chemistry exclusively and in literary occupations.”
Hahnemann went on to develop his own alternative system of health care, which he styled ‘Homoeopathy’. Published as the Organon of the Healing Arts in 1810, Hahnemann set out an idiosyncratic medical system based on identifying ‘remedies’ which in large doses, could produce symptoms comparable to those suffered by the patient. The remedies he prescribed were prepared with serial dilutions so that no active principle remained. Today’s homeopaths hold that a remedy’s ‘vital force’, ‘healing energy’ or ‘memory’ provides therapeutic benefit. That may be the case, but the consensus of informed scientific and medical opinion is that any effects of ‘homeopathy’ are as a result of contextual placebo effects. The remedies themselves cannot and do not have any effect. England’s Chief Medical Officer has described homeopathy’s principles as ‘rubbish’. The government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Mark Walport has said he would tell ministers, “My view, scientifically, is absolutely clear: homeopathy is nonsense. The most it can have is a placebo effect.” Simon Stevens, CEO of the NHS, when interviewed on Radio 4 said he agrees with Sir Mark – yet failed to explain why he had not included homeopathic remedies in the 2017 list of NHS proscribed medicines. That stance is being reviewed.
The GMC states, “Patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and health. To justify that trust you must show respect for human life and make sure your practice meets the standards expected.” Those standards are set down in the GMC’s Good Medical Practice which advises, “Serious or persistent failure to follow this guidance will put your registration at risk.” The GMC standards are coherent with those of the American Medical Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics (2016).
In précis, the most relevant and important GMC standards are:
- Make the care of your patient your first concern.
- Give patients the information they want or need in a way they can understand.
- Be honest and open and act with integrity.
- Never abuse your patients’ trust in you or the public’s trust in the profession.
- You are personally accountable for your professional practice and must always be prepared to justify your decisions and actions.
- You must prescribe drugs or treatment only when you are satisfied that the drugs or treatment serve the patient’s needs.
- You must provide effective treatments based on the best available evidence.
- You must be satisfied that you have consent or other valid authority before you carry out any examination, investigation or provide treatment.
- You must make good use of the resources available to you.
I contend that medical practitioners who prescribe homeopathic remedies regularly fail to meet these standards. They know perfectly well that the best available evidence indicates no support for the assertion that homeopathic remedies ‘serve the patient’s needs’, except as placebos; that the treatments have no specific effects; that the remedies are placebos; and that resources are wasted by expenditure on these ineffective remedies. Medical homeopaths invariably do not give patients this information; they fail to obtain properly informed consent; they do not justify their decisions and actions rationally; and they may be obtaining financial advantage by misrepresentation to insurance companies or the NHS. This is an abuse of the public’s trust in the medical profession.
The issue of informed consent is particularly important. GMC guidance states that, “The doctor uses specialist knowledge and experience and clinical judgement, and the patient’s views and understanding of their condition, to identify which investigations or treatments are likely to result in overall benefit for the patient. The doctor explains the options to the patient, setting out the potential benefits, risks, burdens and side effects of each option, including the option to have no treatment. The doctor may recommend a particular option which they believe to be best for the patient, but they must not put pressure on the patient to accept their advice. …Before accepting a patient’s consent, you must consider whether they have been given the information they want or need, and how well they understand the details and implications of what is proposed. This is more important than how their consent is expressed or recorded.”
The GMC states that, “in order to have effective discussions with patients about risk, you must identify the adverse outcomes that may result from the proposed options… risks can take a number of forms, but will usually be: side effects; complications; failure of an intervention to achieve the desired aim.” The risk of wasting money on ineffective remedies, whether NHS or private, and of delaying treatment known to be effective should also be discussed.
Homeopaths acknowledge that after ministration of remedies, some patients experience ‘aggravations’ – a worsening of symptoms, but they advise this is evidence that the remedy is ‘working’. Medical consensus is more likely to suggest ‘aggravations’ are evidence of an underlying psychological component to the patient’s condition. Suggestions that remedies themselves have any effect, good or bad, is misrepresentation and may be fraud. Offering patients sugar pills with a claim the pills have therapeutic effects means lying to them, and is an abuse of trust.
Homeopaths’ system of diagnosis and prescription of remedies requires them to have beliefs for which there is no plausible evidence base. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘belief’ as “assent to a proposition, statement or fact, especially on the grounds of testimony or authority, or in the absence of proof or conclusive evidence.” It might be acceptable to practice ‘homeopathy’ as a counselling modality, providing the practitioner complies with the GMC standard that, “You must not express your personal beliefs to patients in ways that exploit their vulnerability or are likely to cause them distress.”
Homeopaths are invariably non-compliant in obtaining fully informed consent. Such a failing is an abuse of patients’ trust in the medical profession. Doctors might be determined to be unfit to practice unless they clearly justify their prescriptions, and identify the evidence that supports them. All these issues should also be explored during the doctor’s annual appraisal, without which a registered medical practitioner will not be licensed to practice. Even registration without a licence requires compliance with the standards. Appraisal can be carried out by non-homeopaths, as the issue is not the assessment of the standard of ‘homeopathic practice’, but compliance with GMC standards of good medical practice.
If a medical homeopath wishes to be GMC compliant, they must properly inform patients about contentious issues. I suggest that consent should be obtained along the lines: “I propose prescribing you a remedy comprising sugar pills impregnated with a solution which has been diluted to such an extent that a sphere of water the size of the Earth’s average radius to the Sun would probably contain no more than one molecule of the original substance. Nevertheless, my clinical experience suggests to me that this remedy will improve your condition. You need to understand that colleagues who practise conventional evidence-based scientific medicine regard my belief as implausible and the methods I use as ‘alternative.’ I believe the remedy will help you, but I have no evidence accepted by the majority of doctors that the intervention I propose will achieve the desired effects. I do not believe that taking a homeopathic remedy will delay any other treatment which might reasonably help your condition and I invite you to take this remedy with understanding of the issues I have outlined.” A copy of the consent should be placed in the patient’s records.
Those who defend the right of registered medical practitioners to prescribe HP remedies do so with arguments fatally holed by a myriad of logical fallacies. Some arguments are (with fallacies in parenthesis):
- “Homeopathy has been used for over two hundred years” (appeal to tradition and argument from ignorance);
- “It has become very popular and is what patients want (appeal to popularity);
- “Homeopathy has the capacity to help patients” (red herring, because present consideration is about the value of HP remedies, not relationships);
- “Remedies are cheap” (red herring);
- “Homeopathy does not do any harm” (irrelevant and a red herring);
- “Pharmaceuticals have side effects” (tu quoque and red herring);
- “The Royal Family use it” (appeal to irrelevant authority);
- “The remedies enhance the doctor/patient relationship (straw man);
- “Science does not know everything” (red herring and false dichotomy);
- “Those who oppose us don’t understand homeopathy” (argumentum ad hominem and ‘poisoning the well’);
- “I have the evidence of patients’ anecdotes and testimonials” (pseudoscience, confirmation bias and cherry picking);
- “Homeopathic doctors are caring people” (red herring and straw man);
- “I’ve got much evidence of patients taking remedies and getting better” (post hoc ergo propter hoc – ‘after this, therefore because of this’ – confusion of coincidence with causation).
The latter most perverse fallacy is the foundation of homeopathic practice, based on identifying a remedy whereby ‘like cures like’ – a principle based on post hoc fallacy for which there is no scientifically credible evidence.
Unless and until medical homeopaths understand the intellectual environment in which they practice, are prepared to properly inform their patients, and obtain consent for treatment having done so, they should not prescribe homeopathic remedies. Fortunately, there is no evidence that patients who are prescribed HP remedies by empathic GMC registered homeopaths have any different outcomes from those prescribed pure sugar pills – even if they are told they are placebos. However, trust in the medical profession can only be maintained if deceptive practices are set aside and full explanations for proposed interventions are offered. Given the scientific consensus, patients have to face up to the fact that to the highest degree of probability, HP remedies have no value. Regrettably, too many patients and even homeopaths are in denial. Medical homeopaths should continue to serve their patients with care, compassion and intellectual honesty, but if they are to comply with the standards required for GMC registration, they should not prescribe homeopathically prepared remedies.
The UK ‘Faculty of Homeopathy’ (FoH) is the professional body of British doctors who specialise in homeopathy. As doctors, FoH members have been to medical school and should know about evidence, science etc., I had always thought. But perhaps I was mistaken?
The FoH has a website with an interesting new post entitled ‘Scientific evidence and Homeopathy’. Here I have copied the section on CLINICAL TRIALS OF HOMEOPATHY. I have read it several times and must admit: it is a masterpiece, in my view – not a masterpiece in accurate reporting, but a masterpiece in misleading the public. The first and most obvious thing that struck me is the fact that is cites not a single clinical trial. But read for yourself (the numbers in round brackets were inserted by me and refer to my comments below):
START OF QUOTE
By August 2017 1,138 clinical trials of homeopathy had been published (1). Details can be found on the CORE-HOM database also maintained by the Carstens Foundation and accessible without charge: http://archiv.carstens-stiftung.de/core-hom
Four (2) systematic review/meta-analyses of homeopathy for all conditions have been published.,, Of these, three (3) reached a positive conclusion: that there is evidence that homeopathy is clinically effective (4). The exception is the review by Shang et al.46 This meta-analysis was controversial, particularly because its conclusions were based on only eight clinical trials whose identity was concealed until several months after the publication, precluding informed examination of its results (5) (6). The only undisputed conclusion (7) of this paper is that clinical trials of homeopathy are of higher quality than matched trials of conventional medicine: of 110 clinical trials each of homeopathy and conventional medicine, 21 trials of homeopathy but only 9 trials of conventional medicine were of ‘higher quality’. 
A leading Swedish medical researcher (8) remarked: “To conclude that homeopathy lacks clinical effect, more than 90% of the available clinical trials had to be disregarded. Alternatively, flawed statistical methods had to be applied.” Higher quality equates to less risk of bias, Mathie et al analysed randomized clinical trials of individualized homeopathy, showing that the highest quality trials yielded positive results (9).
Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy in specific clinical situations have also yielded positive results, including: allergies and upper respiratory tract infections (2 systematic reviews),, (10) (11) Arnica in knee surgery, (12) Childhood diarrhoea, Post-operative ileus, (13) Rheumatic diseases, (14) Seasonal allergic rhinitis (hay fever) (2 systematic reviews),  (15) (16) and vertigo. (17)
END OF QUOTE
- This is a wild exaggeration which was made possible by counting all sorts of clinical reports as ‘clinical trials’. A clinical trial “follows a pre-defined plan or protocol to evaluate the effects of a medical or behavioral intervention on health outcomes.” This would exclude most observational studies, case series, case reports. However, the figure cited here includes such reports.
- The author cites only three!
- Does the author mean ‘two’?
- This is not quite true! I have dedicated an entire post to this issue.
- True, the Shang meta-analysis has been criticised – but exclusively by homeopaths who, for obvious reasons, were unable to accept its negative findings. In fact, it is a solid piece of research.
- Why does the author not mention the most recent systematic review of homeopathy? Perhaps because it concluded: Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.
- Really? Undisputed? Even by the logic of the author’s last sentence, this would be disputed.
- The ‘leading researcher’ is Prof Hahn who has featured many times on my blog. He seems to be more than a little unhinged when it comes to the topic of homeopathy.
- The author forgot to mention that Mathie – who was sponsored by the British Homeopathic Association – included this little caveat in his conclusions: The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings.
- Reference 33 is the infamous ‘Swiss report’ that has been shown to be fatally flawed over and over again.
- Reference 34 refers to a review that fails to adhere to almost all the criteria of a systematic review.
- This review concluded: In all three trials, patients receiving homeopathic arnica showed a trend towards less postoperative swelling compared to patients receiving placebo. However, a significant difference in favour of homeopathic arnica was only found in the CLR trial. Only a deluded homeopath can call this a ‘positive result’.
- This is a systematic review by my team. It showed that several flawed trials produced a false positive result, while the only large multicentre trial was negative. Our conclusions therefore include the statement that several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. Only a deluded homeopath can call this a ‘positive result’.
- This reference refers to the following abstract: Despite a growing interest in uncovering the basic mechanisms of arthritis, medical treatment remains symptomatic. Current medical treatments do not consistently halt the long-term progression of these diseases, and surgery may still be needed to restore mechanical function in large joints. Patients with rheumatic syndromes often seek alternative therapies, with homeopathy being one of the most frequent. Homeopathy is one of the most frequently used complementary therapies worldwide. Only a deluded homeopath can call this a ‘positive result’.
- The first reference refers to a paper where the author analysed three of his own studies.
- Reference 40 refers to a review that fails to adhere to almost all the criteria of a systematic review.
- This reference refers to a review of Vertigoheel@ that includes observational studies. One of its authors was an employee of the manufacturer of the product. Vertigoheel is not a homeopathic remedy (it does not adhere to the ‘like cures like’ principle) but a homotoxicologic product. Homotoxicology is a method inspired by homeopathy which was developed by Hans Heinrich Reckeweg (1905 – 1985). He believed that all or most illness is caused by an overload of toxins in the body. The toxins originate, according to Reckeweg, both from the environment and from the malfunction of physiological processes within the body. His treatment consists mainly in applying homeopathic remedies which usually consist of combinations of single remedies, because health cannot be achieved without ridding the body of toxins. The largest manufacturer and promoter of remedies used in homotoxicology is the German firm Heel. Our own systematic review of RCTs of homotoxicology included 7 trials which were mostly of a high methodological standard, according to the Jadad score. The trials tested the efficacy of seven different medicines for seven different indications. The results were positive in all but one study. Important flaws were found in all trials. These render the results of the primary studies less reliable than their high Jadad scores might suggest. Despite mostly positive findings and high ratings on the Jadad score, the placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials of homotoxicology fail to demonstrate the efficacy of this therapeutic approach.
What do we make of all this?
To say that it is disappointing would, I think, be an understatement. The FoH is not supposed to be a lobby group of amateurs ignorant of science and evidence; it is a recognised professional organisation who must behave ethically. Patients and consumers should be able to trust the FoH. The fact that the FoH publish misinformation on such a scale should, in my view, be a matter for the General Medical Council.
I have mentioned the German alt med phenomenon of the ‘Heilpraktiker’ before. For instance, a year ago I wrote this:
…The German ‘Heilpraktiker’ (literally translated: healing practitioner) is perhaps best understood by its fascinating history. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, German health care was dominated by lay practitioners who were organised in multiple organisations struggling for recognition. The Nazis felt the need to re-organise this situation to bring it under their control. At the same time, the Nazis promoted their concept of ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’ (New German Medicine) which entailed the integration – perhaps more a shot-gun marriage – of conventional and alternative medicine. I have published about the rather bizarre history of the ‘New German Medicine’ in 2001:
The aim of this article is to discuss complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) in the Third Reich. Based on a general movement towards all things natural, a powerful trend towards natural ways of healing had developed in the 19(th)century. By 1930 this had led to a situation where roughly as many lay practitioners of CAM existed in Germany as doctors. To re-unify German medicine under the banner of ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’, the Nazi officials created the ‘Heilpraktiker‘ – a profession which was meant to become extinct within one generation. The ‘flag ship’ of the ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’ was the ‘Rudolf Hess Krankenhaus’ in Dresden. It represented a full integration of CAM and orthodox medicine. An example of systematic research into CAM is the Nazi government’s project to validate homoeopathy. Even though the data are now lost, the results of this research seem to have been negative. Even though there are some striking similarities between today’s CAM and yesterday’s ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’ there are important differences. Most importantly, perhaps, today’s CAM is concerned with the welfare of the individual, whereas the ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’ was aimed at ensuring the dominance of the Aryan race.
The Nazis thus offered to grant all alternative practitioners official recognition by establishing them under the newly created umbrella of ‘Heilpraktiker’. To please the powerful lobby of conventional doctors, they decreed that the ‘Heilpraktiker’ was barred from educating a second generation of this profession. Therefore, the Heilpraktiker was destined to become extinct within decades.
Several of the Nazi rulers were staunch supporters of homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine. They hoped that alternative medicine would soon have become an established part of ‘New German Medicine’. For a range of reasons, this never happened.
After the war, the Heilpraktiker went to court and won the right to educate their own students. Today they are a profession that uses homeopathy extensively. The German Heilpraktiker has no mandatory medical training; a simple test to show that they know the legal limits of their profession suffices for receiving an almost unrestricted licence for practicing medicine as long as they want…
END OF QUOTE
Since about two years, a group of German scientists, clinicians and various other experts (I was a member of the panel), led by a prominent ethicist, worked on a document that was published this week. Here are its conclusions (in German):
Medizinische Parallelwelten mit radikal divergierenden Qualitätsstandards, wie sie aktuell im deutschen Gesundheitswesen in Form von Doppelstandards bei Ergebnisbewertung und Qualitäts kontrolle bestehen, sind für eine aufgeklärte Gesellschaft nicht akzeptabel. Bei Heilpraktikern stehen aufgrund ihrer ungenügenden, kaum regulierten Ausbildung die Qualifikationen und Tätigkeitsbefugnisse in einem eklatanten Missverhältnis. Heilpraktiker bieten schwer punktmäßig alternativ oder komplementärmedizinische Verfahren an, die in den meisten Fällen wissenschaftlich unhaltbar sind. Dies führt zu einer Gefährdung von Patienten. Abhilfe verspricht nur ein gleichzeitiges Vorgehen auf mehreren Ebenen:
(1.) eine einheitliche Bewertung der Patientendienlichkeit in allen Bereichen der Medizin;
(2.) ein verstärktes Engagement für die Erfordernisse einer gelingenden Kommunikation mit Patienten;
(3.) eine verstärkte Förderung wissenschaftstheoretischer Kompetenzen in Ausbildung und Studium gesundheitsbezogener Berufe; sowie
(4.) eine Abschaffung des Heilpraktikerwesens oder eine radikale Anhebung und Sicherstellung des Kompetenzniveaus von Heilpraktikern.
Wir haben uns hier auf die Reform des Heilpraktikerwesens konzentriert und dafür zwei Lösungsvorschläge skizziert: Wir empfehlen entweder die gänzliche Abschaffung des Heilpraktikerberufs oder dessen Ablösung durch die Einführung spezialisierter „FachHeilpraktiker“ als Zusatzqualifikation für bestehende Gesundheitsfachberufe. Für die Übergangsphase empfehlen wir eine gesetzliche Beschränkung des Heilpraktikerwesens auf weitgehend gefahrlose Tätigkeiten. Auf diese Weise ließen sich die Gefahren für Patienten reduzieren und die Patientenversorgung langfristig wesentlich verbessern.
END OF QUOTE
Essentially, we are saying that, the Heilpraktiker has introduced two hugely different quality standards into the German healthcare system. In the interest of the patient and of good healthcare, this double standard must be addressed. We are demanding the profession of the Heilpraktiker either is completely abolished, or is reformed such that it no longer poses a threat to public health in Germany. Our document makes concrete suggestions for such reforms.
A recent comment by a chiropractor told us this:
“If the critics do not take step 2 [point out what’s right and support] then they are entrenched carpet bombers who see reform and reformers as acceptable collateral damage. That makes them just as much a part of the problem when it comes to reform as the subbies.”
Similar words have been posted many times before.
So, are we critics of chiropractic carpet bombers?
Personally, I find the term very distasteful and misplaced. But let’s not be petty and forget about the terminology.
The question is: should I be more supportive of chiropractors who claim to be reformers?
I feel that the claim to be a reformer is hardly enough for gaining my support. I prefer to support clinicians who do the right things. And what would that be?
Here is a list; clinicians would receive my support, if they:
- adhere to the principles of evidence-based medicine;
- follow the rules of medical ethics.
What does that mean in relation to chiropractic?
I think it means that clinicians should:
- use interventions that demonstrably do more good than harm,
- make no false claims,
- advocate the best available treatments for their patients,
- abstain from treating patients for which their therapy is not demonstrably effective,
- obtain fully informed consent from their patients which includes information about the nature of the condition, about the risks of their treatments, about other therapeutic options.
As soon as I see a chiropractor or a group of chiropractors who fit these criteria, I will support them by publicly stating that they are doing alright (as should be normal for responsible healthcare practitioners). Until this time, I reject being called a carpet bomber and call such name-calling a stupid defence of quackery.
I just came across a new article entitled ” Vaccinated children four times more likely to suffer from ADHD, autism“. It was published in WDDTY, my favourite source of misleading information. Here it is:
Vaccinated children are nearly four times more likely to suffer from learning disabilities, ADHD and autism, a major new study has discovered—and they are six times more likely to suffer from one of these neuro-developmental problems if they were also born prematurely.
The vaccinated child is also more likely to suffer from otitis media, the ear infection, and nearly six times more likely to contract pneumonia.
But the standard childhood vaccines do at least do their job: the vaccinated child is nearly eight times less likely than the unvaccinated to develop chicken pox, and also less likely to suffer from whooping cough (pertussis).
Researchers from Jackson State University are some of the first to look at the long-term effects of vaccination. They monitored the health of 666 children for six years from the time they were six—when the full vaccination programme had been completed—until they were 12. All the children were being home-schooled because it was one of the few communities where researchers could find enough unvaccinated children for comparison; 261 of the children hadn’t been vaccinated and 208 hadn’t had all their vaccinations, while 197 had received the full 48-dose course.
The vaccinated were more likely to suffer from allergic rhinitis, such as hay fever, eczema and atopic dermatitis, learning disability, ADHD (attention-deficit, hyperactive disorder), and autism. The risk was lower among the children who had been partially vaccinated.
Vaccinated children were also more likely to have taken medication, such as an antibiotic, or treatment for allergies or for a fever, than the unvaccinated.
END OF QUOTE
I looked up the original study to check and found several surprises.
The first surprise was that the study was called a ‘pilot’ by its authors, even in the title of the paper: “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children.”
The second surprise was that even the authors admit to important limitations of their research:
We did not set out to test a specific hypothesis about the association between vaccination and health. The aim of the study was to determine whether the health outcomes of vaccinated children differed from those of unvaccinated homeschool children, given that vaccines have nonspecific effects on morbidity and mortality in addition to protecting against targeted pathogens . Comparisons were based on mothers’ reports of pregnancy-related factors, birth histories, vaccinations, physician-diagnosed illnesses, medications, and the use of health services. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in outcomes using chi-square tests, and then used Odds Ratios and 96% Confidence Intervals to determine the strength and significance of the association…
What credence can be given to the findings? This study was not intended to be based on a representative sample of homeschool children but on a convenience sample of sufficient size to test for significant differences in outcomes. Homeschoolers were targeted for the study because their vaccination completion rates are lower than those of children in the general population. In this respect our pilot survey was successful, since data were available on 261 unvaccinated children…
Mothers’ reports could not be validated by clinical records because the survey was designed to be anonymous. However, self-reports about significant events provide a valid proxy for official records when medical records and administrative data are unavailable . Had mothers been asked to provide copies of their children’s medical records it would no longer have been an anonymous study and would have resulted in few completed questionnaires. We were advised by homeschool leaders that recruitment efforts would have been unsuccessful had we insisted on obtaining the children’s medical records as a requirement for participating in the study.
A further potential limitation is under-ascertainment of disease in unvaccinated children. Could the unvaccinated have artificially reduced rates of illness because they are seen less often by physicians and would therefore have been less likely to be diagnosed with a disease? The vaccinated were indeed more likely to have seen a doctor for a routine checkup in the past 12 months (57.5% vs. 37.1%, p < 0.001; OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.7, 3.1). Such visits usually involve vaccinations, which nonvaccinating families would be expected to refuse. However, fewer visits to physicians would not necessarily mean that unvaccinated children are less likely to be seen by a physician if their condition warranted it. In fact, since unvaccinated children were more likely to be diagnosed with chickenpox and whooping cough, which would have involved a visit to the pediatrician, differences in health outcomes are unlikely to be due to under-ascertainment.
The third surprise was that the authors were not at all as certain as WDDTY in their conclusions: “the study findings should be interpreted with caution. First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.”
The fourth surprise was to find the sponsors of this research:
Generation Rescue is, according to Wikipedia, a nonprofit organization that advocates the incorrect view that autism and related disorders are primarily caused by environmental factors, particularly vaccines. These claims are biologically implausible and are disproven by scientific evidence. The organization was established in 2005 by Lisa and J.B. Handley. They have gained attention through use of a media campaign, including full page ads in the New York Times and USA Today. Today, Generation Rescue is known as a platform for Jenny McCarthy‘s autism and anti-vaccine advocacy.
The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) was, according to Vaxopedia, created by and is funded by the Dwoskin Family Foundation. It provides grants to folks who will do research on “vaccine induced brain and immune dysfunction” and on what they believe are other “gaps in our knowledge about vaccines and vaccine safety”, including:
- vaccine additives, from aluminum adjuvants and mercury preservatives to other “toxins,” like formaldehyde, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, plus foreign proteins from the culture medium such as chicken embryos, monkey kidneys, cells from aborted fetal tissue, and viral DNA, etc.
- what they think is bias in the reporting of vaccine risks and benefits
- novel vaccine-associated autoimmune diseases, like ASIA syndrome and Macrophage Myofasciitis Syndrome
While they claim that they are not an anti-vaccine organization, it should be noted that Claire Dwoskin once said that “Vaccines are a holocaust of poison on our children’s brains and immune systems.”
Did I say SURPRISE?
I take it back!
When it comes to WDDTY, nothing does surprise me.
The Gerson therapy, CANCER RESEARCH UK correctly informs us, is an alternative therapy which means it is usually used instead of conventional cancer treatment. It aims to rid the body of toxins and strengthen the body’s immune system. There is no scientific evidence that Gerson therapy can treat cancer. In fact, in certain situations Gerson therapy can be very harmful to your health. The diet should not be used instead of conventional cancer treatment.
I would go two steps further:
- I would avoid the treatment at all cost.
- I would distrust anyone who promotes it.
Like this article about Gerson therapy and its coffee enemas, for instance:
START OF QUOTE
…The Gerson Institute, along with many other high-profile alternative practitioners, prescribes coffee enemas to their patients up to five times per day in order to assist the liver in its mammoth task of detoxification and encouraging healthy bile production, which can further assist in breaking down toxins and cleansing the body.
It might sound a little wacky (and more than a little uncomfortable!), but the continuing popularity of coffee enemas suggests that it may be worth giving them a go if you’re suffering from stubborn health problems or planning on starting a detox diet…
Here are some of the reasons why you might want to try a coffee enema for yourself:
You’ve probably already guessed by now that helping the liver to eliminate toxins from the body is the main reason why coffee enemas are so popular these days. The fact is, we live in an increasingly toxic world, surrounding ourselves in machines that spew forth toxic fumes, food that introduces increasing levels of harmful chemicals and excesses of vitamins and minerals, and chronic stress which tricks our bodies into retaining toxins rather than expelling them.
Eventually, something’s gotta give — it’s either your liver or the toxins (hint: it’s usually the liver). Liver failure is often accompanied by other serious health conditions, with anything from diabetes to cancer as possible outcomes. Coffee enemas bypass the digestive acids of the stomach, thereby delivering higher concentrations of caffeine to the colonic walls and stimulating greater bile secretion. This greatly helps the liver break down and eliminate toxins, a process which is marked by reduced gastrointestinal and liver pain, and a clearing of those Herxheimer symptoms.
Promote a healthy digestive tract
Over time, our digestive system can start to get a bit “down in the dumps” (pun intended). Bits of food waste can accumulate in the colon, along with toxins and other harmful compounds that stick to the colonic walls and can begin to degrade the overall health of your digestive tract. Coffee enemas, by stimulating bile secretion, help to purge the colon of that accumulated debris. This is helped by the physical flushing of fluids through the colon in the opposite direction, along with the enema encouraging greater peristalsis. Peristalsis refers to the wave-like contractions that help to move your food from one end to the other. More peristalsis means more movement of food wastes… and toxins.
Ease bloating and stomach pain
Bloating, gas and stomach pain are usually signs that your digestive system is underperforming. This is often due to a lack of bile secretion, poor food transit time and an overloaded liver… all of which are improved via coffee enemas! By using coffee enemas, you’re likely to see a marked improvement in your digestive issues, with less bloating, upset stomachs and gas.
Hundreds of recent studies have found a strong link between the gut and our mood. That link, referred to as the gut-brain axis, proves that a healthy gut is associated with a healthy state of mind. When your digestive system (and therefore gut) is overloaded with toxins, you’re bound to feel depressed and constantly suffering from negative emotions. Clearing up your toxin problem with a regular coffee enema should help to improve your mood and alleviate depression.
Candida is one of the biggest problems facing Americans today. It’s a stubborn form of yeast that resides in the gut (along with the mouth and, er, lady bits) and wreaks havoc with your immune system. Not only that, candida overgrowth contributes to insatiable sugar cravings, which in turn causes the overgrowth to establish itself more firmly.
Coffee enemas may selectively flush out candida overgrowths in the gut while preserving the beneficial bacteria that we rely on to break down food and support healthy immune function. Many people report a significant reduction in their symptoms of candida with regular coffee enema flushing.
END OF QUOTE
The article where these quotes come from is entitled ‘5 REASONS TO TRY COFFEE ENEMAS’. I think it is only fair for me to respond by writing a (much shorter) comment entitled
5 REASONS TO AVOID COFFEE ENEMAS
- None of the claims made above is supported by good evidence.
- Enemas with or without coffee are far from pleasant.
- Enemas are not risk-free.
- Such treatments cost money which could be used for something sensible.
- Coffee taken via the other end of the digestive tract is a much nicer experience.