MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

critical thinking

WHAT DOCTORS DON’T TELL YOU (WDDTY) is probably the most vile publication I know. It systematically misleads its readers by alarming news about this or that conventional treatment, while relentlessly promoting pseudoscientific non-sense. This article , entitled “MMR can cause skin problems and ulcers if your immune system is compromised” is a good example (one of a multitude):

The MMR vaccine can cause serious adverse reactions, researchers have admitted this week. The rubella (German measles) component of the jab increases the risk of infection from the rubella virus itself, and can cause serious skin inflammation and ulcers in anyone whose immune system is compromised.

The risk is highest among people with primary immunodeficiency diseases (PIDD), chronic genetic disorders that cause the immune system to malfunction.

Although the risk for people with compromised immune systems has been known, and is even included in the package inserts supplied with the vaccine, it was theoretical, say researchers from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who say they have uncovered “genuine evidence of harm.”

The researchers analysed the health profile of 14 people—four adults and 10 children—who suffered some form of a PIDD. Seven of them still had the rubella virus in their tissues, suggesting that their immune systems were too weak to get rid of the virus in the vaccine. The virus can damage skin cells and cause ulcers, and makes the person more susceptible to the actual rubella virus, the researchers say.

People with a poor immune system already have compromised T-cells—which are responsible for clearing viral infections—and the MMR makes the problem worse.

END OF QUOTE

And what is wrong with this article?

The answer is quite a lot:

  1. The research seems to be about a very specific and rare condition, yet WDDTY seem to want to draw much more general conclusions.
  2. The research itself is not described in a way that it would be possible to evaluate.
  3. The sample size of what seems to have been a case-control study was tiny.
  4. The study is not properly cited for the reader to verify and check; for all we know, it might not even exist.
  5. I was not able to find the publication on Medline, based on the information given.

Collectively, these points render the article not just useless, in my view, but make it a prime example of unethical, unhelpful and irresponsible scaremongering.

 

On this blog, we have repeatedly discussed the issues around para-normal or spiritual healing practices. In one of these posts I concluded that these treatments are:

  1. utterly implausible
  2. not supported by good clinical evidence.

What follows seems as simple as it is indisputable: energy healing is nonsense and does not merit further research.

Yet both research and – more importantly – the practice of spiritual healing continue, not only in the developed world but even more so in poor and under-developed countries.

Traditional healers, known in Rwanda as Abarangi or Abacwezi claim to use their spiritual powers to heal sick patients. Recently, they urged their government to acknowledge them through proper regulation. Jean-Bosco Kajongi, the leader of the healers in Rwanda, said Abahereza are like doctors who have been selected by angels. “Umuhereza is someone who gets power from God to treat different diseases but particularly demonic possession such as ‘Amahembe’ and ‘Imandwa’. Sometimes, doctors detect something in the body, do surgery but find nothing. But Abarangi can identify the disease beforehand and heal it. Thus, we want to have legal personality and work with modern doctors because what we cure, they cannot even see it. Therefore, mortality rate would decrease.”

Abahereza claim to have God-given powers to heal any disease, provided that the patient has belief in their powers. Claudine Uwamahoro, a resident of Rulindo district is one of them. “Last year, I was transferred to Kanombe Military Hospital to have my leg cut off after they diagnosed me with cancer. Abarangi told me it was not cancer but rather ‘Imandwa.’ They treated me but I didn’t get healed immediately because I had not yet heeded God’s commandment because they do not use any medicines but only requires you to obey God and respect his commandments.  Now my leg has been healed… Like Jesus came to save us so that we don’t perish, Umurangi also came so that we do not die of diseases that normal medicines cannot treat.”

Another patient agrees: “In 1983, I played football but later, Imandwa disabled me and my legs were paralyzed. I went to various hospitals and was given an assortment of medicines but they could not help. I always had fever; Doctors treated me but could not identify what kind of disease it really was. I even went to traditional healers but they didn’t have a solution. Pastors and priests prayed for me but in vain. Sorcerers also tried but failed. I was possessed by Imandwa and I was cured by Umurangi from Kirehe District. I believe that they have the power from God and when you respect their conditions, they treat and cure you completely.”

According to Alexia Mukahirwa, another witness, Umurangi is very powerful. “I was sick for 16 years. I went to different places and met many doctors. Some told me I had blood infection, others said it was stomach and intestinal infections. I consumed numberless medicines that never helped until I saw the power of Abarangi and believed them. Some people said that I had HIV/AIDS but it was not true. I only weighed 42 kilograms but now I have 68. Abarangi are powerful and may God bless them.”

James Mugabo, who is an “Umuhereza” or priest, said: “Before colonialism, people had their way of treating illness. But we have abandoned everything yet we should not.” The Director General of clinical services in the Ministry of Health responded by stating: “The law and policy are being drafted and will help us to know who does what kind of medicine and their identity. From that, we will know where to localize Abarangi in traditional or alternative.”

Hearing such things, we might smile and think ‘that’s Rwanda – this would not happen in developed countries’. But sadly, it does! These things happen everywhere. I know of healing ceremonies in the UK and the US that are embarrassingly similar to the ones in Rwanda – remember, for instance, the scenes seen on TV where Donald Trump was blessed by some evangelicals to receive the ability to win the election? And now they will probably claim that it worked!

Nothing to do with alternative medicine, you say? Perhaps this website on ‘spiritual homeopathy’ is more relevant then:

START OF QUOTE

What is spiritual homeopathy? It is based on the principle that “like cures like” and “wounds heal wounds” — the underlying wisdom of support groups. A Biblical story which illustrates this principle takes place on the ancient shepherding people’s journey through the desert. When they grew impatient and complained bitterly to Moses, God sent venomous snakes to bite the people. Many died. When the people confessed their sin, God told Moses to put a bronze snake on a pole. Those who were bitten and focused on the bronze snake did not die; they looked and lived.

Many years later Jesus said of his mission, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so the Chosen One must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes on the Chosen One might have eternal life.” Jesus’ disciple Peter wrote, “By Christ’s wounds you are healed.” In “The Angel that Troubled the Waters,” Thornton Wilder wrote: “Without your wound where would your power be? … In love’s service only the wounded can serve.”

As the Thanksgiving and Christmas season approaches, spiritual homeopathy offers healing to all – because the Babe in the Manger is also the Wounded Healer

END OF QUOTE

I think I rest my case.

 

 

Which illnesses can be treated with homeopathy?

The answer to this question could not be more simple: none!

This is not my opinion but the general consensus amongst critical thinkers and people who adhere to the principles of evidence-based medicine – a group that evidently does not include homeopaths. Take this website, for instance; it advocates homeopathy for almost every conceivable condition:

START OF QUOTE

Homeopathic medicines can be used for numerous illnesses, both acute and chronic. In an acute illness such as the flu or gastroenteritis, for example, the homeopath will choose the homeopathic medicine by taking into consideration and assessing the signs and symptoms exhibited by the patient from the beginning of the illness.

This is the medication or medications that will be administered to the patient with the aim of quickly reversing the pathological process and restoring optimal health.

In the case of a chronic illness such as asthma, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic gastroenteritis, the homeopathic physician will, in addition to assessing the current clinical symptoms of the illness, also take into consideration other general signs in the patient.

He will give equal importance to the person’s pathological background, their build, character, personality, attitude towards life etc.

All of this information will enable the homeopathic physician to identify the best medicine or medicines needed for the patient’s recovery.

Homeopathic treatment can space out the relapses that occur in chronic conditions, until they eventually disappear.

Numerous illnesses can be treated with homeopathy – in many cases the treatment is curative and in some cases it is palliative, when the illness is irreversible.

Some of the illnesses that respond best to homeopathic treatment are as highlighted below:

ENT and bronchial problems

  • Ear infections,
  • rhinitis,
  • sinusitis,
  • pharyngitis,
  • tonsillitis,
  • tracheitis,
  • bronchitis,
  • asthma.

Digestive problems

  • Stomach complaints
  • acidity,
  • heartburn,
  • fullness,
  • poor digestion,
  • flatulence,
  • duodenal ulcer,
  • diarrhoea,
  • constipation,
  • nausea,
  • vomiting,
  • canker sores.

Cardiovascular problems

Osteoarticular complaints

All types of muscle and/or joint pain due to arthrosis or arthritis:

  • neck pain,
  • shoulder pain,
  • elbow pain,
  • wrist pain,
  • Back pain,
  • sciatica,
  • knee pain,
  • ankle pain,
  • Sprains,
  • contractures etc.

Traumas

Urological disorders

Gynaecological problems

Dermatological problems

  • Eczema, hives,
  • Acne vulgaris, acne rosacea,
  • Recurrent boils, verucas, plantar warts,
  • Molluscum contagiosum,
  • Herpes simple and zoster
  • Psoriasis

Neurological disorders

  • Headaches and migraines.
  • Eye problems
  • Conjunctivitis,
  • blepharitis,
  • styes, dacryocistitis,
  • uveitis.

Behavioural and psychiatric disorders

  • Anxiety,
  • depression,
  • stress,
  • mental fatigue,
  • Pediatric problems,
  • Ear infections,
  • tonsillitis,
  • bronchitis,
  • asthma,
  • diarrhoea,
  • vomiting,
  • skin complaints,
  • canker sores,
  • teething problems,
  • sleep disorders,
  • educational attainment issues,
  • behavioural issues.

Endocrine disorders

  • Obesity,
  • hypothyroidism,
  • hyperthyroidism,
  • Depleted immune defences,
  • Recurrent infections affecting the throat,
  • sinuses, nose, ears,
  • connective tissue, larynx,
  • bronchial tubes,
  • lungs,
  • skin,
  • bladder etc.

Palliative care

For the treatment of the diverse symptoms that appear over the course of the illness. Homeopathy can improve the patient’s general wellbeing and counteract the side effects of other treatments.

These are just a few examples, but the list could be endless – it is important to stress that homeopathy is very effective in pathologies that are difficult to establish or those with contradictory or paradoxical symptoms.

In recurrent illnesses, homeopathic medicines can boost the defences and help to regulate the sufferer’s body in order to prevent further relapses.

Homeopathy is an excellent preventive medicine.

END OF QUOTE

Some of us wonder why homeopathy continues to be popular in many parts of the world. The answer seems obvious: homeopathy is popular mostly because consumers fail to understand what it really is and therefore fall for the uncounted lies published by homeopaths and other interested parties.

If this is so, we urgently need factual and easy to understand information for consumers – and guess what: this is precisely the aim of the book I have just published – for the 1st review of this book, see here.

Dietary and herbal supplements (DHS) are currently popular. They are being promoted as being natural and therefore safe – an assumption that is clearly wrong: some DHS can contain toxic substances or they might cause interactions with drugs or other DHS.

This study explored whether adverse events were actually associated with such interactions and examined specific characteristics among inpatient DHS users prone to such adverse events. It was designed as a cross-sectional survey of 947 patients hospitalized in 12 departments of a tertiary academic medical centre in Haifa, Israel. It evaluated the rate of DHS use among inpatients, the potential for interactions, and actual adverse events during hospitalization associated with DHS use. It also assessed whether DHS consumption was documented in patients’ medical files. Statistical analysis was used to delineate DHS users at risk for adverse events associated with interactions with conventional drugs or other DHS.

The results show that about half of all patients took DHS. In 17 (3.7%) of the 458 DHS users, an adverse event may have been caused by DHS-drug-DHS interactions. According to the Drug Interaction Probability Scale, 14 interactions “probably” caused the adverse events, and 11 “possibly” caused them. Interactions occurred more frequently in older patients (p = 0.025, 95% CI: 2.26-19.7), patients born outside Israel (p = 0.025, 95% CI: 0.03-0.42), those with ophthalmologic (p = 0.032, 95% CI: 0.02-0.37) or gastrointestinal (p = 0.008, 95% CI: 0.05-0.46) comorbidities, and those using higher numbers of DHS (p < 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.52-2.48) or drugs (p = 0.027, 95% CI: 0.23-3.77).

The authors concluded that approximately one in 55 hospitalizations in this study may have been caused by adverse events associated with DHS-drug-DHS interactions. To minimize the actual occurrence of adverse events, medical staff education regarding DHS should be improved.

This seems to be a good study and it generated interesting findings on an important topic.

Why do I have nevertheless a problem with it?

The answer is simple but not pleasant: very similar results have been published almost simultaneously in more than one journal. The link above is to an article in the BR J CLIN PHARMACOL of October this year. The following text is from the abstract of an article in INTERN EMERG MED also of October this year:

Of 927 patients who agreed to answer the questionnaire, 458 (49.4 %) reported the use of 89 different DHS. Potential DHS-DHS interactions were identified in 12.9 % of DHS users. Three interactions were associated with the actual occurrence of adverse events. Patients at risk of DHS-DHS interactions included females (p = 0.026) and patients with greater numbers of concomitant medications (p < 0.0001) and of consumed DHS (p < 0.0001). In 88.9 % of DHS users, DHS use was not reported in medical files and only 18 % of the DHS involved in interactions were documented. Potential DHS-DHS interactions are common in inpatients, and may lead to hospitalization or worsen existing medical conditions. The causal relationship between potential interactions and actual adverse events requires further study.

END OF QUOTE

And to my surprise, I also found a third article also from the October issue of INTERN EMERG MED reporting on this survey. Here is part of its abstract:

DHS users were determined via a questionnaire. The Natural Medicine database was used to search for potential DHS-drug interactions for identified DHS, and the clinical significance was evaluated using Lexi-interact online interaction analysis. Medical files were assessed for documentation of DHS use. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to characterize potential risk factors for DHS-drug interactions. Of 927 patients consenting to answer the questionnaire, 458 (49 %) reported DHS use. Of these, 215 (47 %) had at least one potential interaction during hospitalization (759 interactions). Of these interactions, 116 (15 %) were potentially clinically significant. Older age [OR = 1.02 (1.01-1.04), p = 0.002], males [OR = 2.11 (1.35-3.29), p = 0.001] and increased number of used DHS [OR = 4.28 (2.28-8.03), p < 0.001] or drugs [OR = 1.95 (1.17-3.26), p = 0.011] were associated with potential interactions in DHS users. Physicians documented only 16.5 % of DHS involved in these interactions in patients’ medical files. In conclusion, a substantial number of inpatients use DHS with potential interactions with concomitant medications. Medical staff should be aware of this, question patients on DHS usage and check for such interactions.

END OF QUOTE

What is the difference between the three articles? The first one in INTERN EMERG MED authored by Levy I, Attias S, Ben Arye E, Goldstein L, Schiff E evaluated “potential DHS-DHS interactions among inpatients”. The second one in INTERN EMERG MED also authored by Levy I, Attias S, Ben Arye E, Goldstein L, Schiff E evaluated “potentially dangerous interactions of DHS with prescribed medications among inpatients”. Finally the one in BR J CLIN PHARMACOL also authored by Levy I, Attias S, Ben-Arye E, Goldstein L, Schiff E  assessed in addition the interactions between DHS and prescription drugs.

Dual publications are usually considered to be a violation of research ethics. Publication of different aspects of one single data-set in multiple articles is called ‘salami-slicing’ and is often considered to be poor form.

My question to you, the reader of this post, is: What type of scientific misconduct do we have here?

Price Charles celebrates his 68th birthday today. Time to update the tribute which I dedicated to him on this occasion three years ago. Charles is, of course, one of the world’s most outspoken and influential proponent of alternative medicine and a notorious attacker of science. This is why he has featured on this blog with some regularity. His love affair with all things alternative started early in his life.

As a youngster, Charles went on a journey of ‘spiritual discovery’ into the wilderness of northern Kenya. His guru and guide was Laurens van der Post (later discovered to be a fraud and compulsive fantasist and to have fathered a child with a 14-year old girl entrusted to him during a sea voyage). Van der Post wanted to awake Charles’ mind and attune it to the ideas of Carl Jung’s ‘collective unconscious’ which allegedly unites us all through a common vital force. It is this belief in vitalism that provides the crucial link to alternative medicine: virtually every form of the otherwise highly diverse range of alternative therapies is based on the assumption that some sort of vital force or energy exists. Charles was so taken by van der Post that, after his death, he established an annual lecture in his honour.

Throughout the 1980s, Charles lobbied for the statutory regulation of chiropractors and osteopaths in the UK. In 1993, it finally became reality.

Osteopathy has strong Royal links: Prince Charles is the President of the GOsC; Princess Diana was the President of the GCRO; and Princess Anne is the patron of the British School of Osteopathy (statement dated 2011).

In 1982, Prince Charles was elected as President of the British Medical Association (BMA) and promptly challenged the medical orthodoxy by advocating alternative medicine. In a speech at his inaugural dinner as President, the Prince lectured the medics: ‘Through the centuries healing has been practised by folk healers who are guided by traditional wisdom which sees illness as a disorder of the whole person, involving not only the patient’s body, but his mind, his self-image, his dependence on the physical and social environment, as well as his relation to the cosmos.’ The BMA-officials were impressed – so much so that they ordered a full report on alternative medicine which promptly condemned this area as nonsense.

In 1993, Charles founded his lobby group that ended up being called the ‘Foundation for Integrated Health’ (FIH). It was closed down in 2010 amidst allegations of money laundering and fraud. Its chief executive, George Gray, was later convicted and went to jail. The FIH had repeatedly been economical with the truth.

In 2000, Charles wrote an open letter to The Times stating that…It makes good sense to evaluate complementary and alternative therapies. For one thing, since an estimated £1.6 billion is spent each year on them, then we want value for our money. The very popularity of the non-conventional approaches suggests that people are either dissatisfied with their orthodox treatment, or they find genuine relief in such therapies. Whatever the case, if they are proved to work, they should be made more widely available on the NHS…But there remains the cry from the medical establishment of “where’s the proof?” — and clinical trials of the calibre that science demands cost money…The truth is that funding in the UK for research into complementary medicine is pitiful…So where can funding come from?…Figures from the department of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter show that less than 8p out of every £100 of NHS funds for medical research was spent on complementary medicine. In 1998-99 the Medical Research Council spent no money on it at all, and in 1999 only 0.05 per cent of the total research budget of UK medical charities went to this area…

In 2001, Charles worked on plans to help build a model hospital of integrated medicine. It was to train doctors to combine conventional medicine and alternative treatments, such as homeopathy, Ayurvedic medicine and acupuncture, and was to have have up to 100 beds. The prince’s intervention marked the culmination of years of campaigning by him for the NHS to assign a greater role to alternative medicine. Teresa Hale, founder of the Hale Clinic in London, said: “Twenty-five years ago people said we were quacks. Now several branches, including homeopathy, acupuncture and osteopathy, have gained official recognition.” The proposed hospital, which was due to open in London in 2003 or early 2004, was to be overseen by Mosaraf Ali, who runs the Integrated Medical Centre (IMC) in London. But the hospital never materialised. This might be due to Mosaraf Ali falling in disrepute: Raj Bathija, 69 and from India, went for a massage at the clinic of Dr Mosaraf Ali and his brother Imran in 2005 after suffering from two strokes. However, he claims that shortly after the treatment, his legs became pale and discoloured. Four days afterwards, Mr Bathija was admitted to hospital, where he had to have both legs amputated below the knee due to a shortage of blood. According to Mr Bathija, Dr Ali and his brother were negligent in that they failed to diagnose his condition and neglected to advise him to go to hospital. His daughter Shibani said: “My father was in a wheelchair but was making progress with his walking. He hoped he might become a bit more independent. With the amputations, that’s all gone.”

In 2002, the The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (today called the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (RLHIM)) received £18.5 million of NHS funds to pay for an extensive refurbishment and restoration of the grand Victorian building. It seems likely that Royal protection facilitated this action.

In 2003, Prince Charles’ FIH launched a five-year plan which outlined how to improve access to alternative therapies.

In 2004, Charles publicly supported the Gerson diet as a treatment for cancer and Prof Baum, one of the UK’s most eminent oncologists, was invited to respond in an open letter to the British Medical Journal: …Over the past 20 years I have treated thousands of patients with cancer and lost some dear friends and relatives to this dreaded disease…The power of my authority comes with knowledge built on 40 years of study and 25 years of active involvement in cancer research. Your power and authority rest on an accident of birth. I don’t begrudge you that authority but I do beg you to exercise your power with extreme caution when advising patients with life-threatening diseases to embrace unproven therapies.

In 2005, the ‘Smallwood-Report’ was published; it had been commissioned by Charles and paid for by Dame Shirley Porter to inform health ministers. It stated that up to 480 million pounds could be saved, if one in 10 family doctors offered homeopathy as an alternative to standard drugs for asthma. Savings of up to 3.5 billion pounds could be achieved by offering spinal manipulation rather than drugs to people with back pain. Because I had commented on this report, Prince Charles’ first private secretary asked my vice chancellor to investigate my activities; even though I was found to be not guilty of any wrong-doing, all local support stopped which eventually led to my early retirement. ITV later used this incident in a film entitled THE MEDDLING PRINCE.

In a 2006 speechPrince Charles told the World Health Organisation in Geneva that alternative medicine should have a more prominent place in health care and urged every country to come up with a plan to integrate conventional and alternative medicine into the mainstream. But British science struck back. Anticipating Prince Charles’s sermon in Geneva, 13 of Britain’s most eminent physicians and scientists wrote an “Open Letter” which expressed concern over “ways in which unproven or disproved treatments are being encouraged for general use in Britain’s National Health Service.” The signatories argued that “it would be highly irresponsible to embrace any medicine as though it were a matter of principle.”

In 2008The Times published my letter asking the FIH to withdraw two guides promoting “alternative medicine”, saying: “the majority of alternative therapies appear to be clinically ineffective, and many are downright dangerous.” A speaker for the FIH countered the criticism by stating: “We entirely reject the accusation that our online publication Complementary Healthcare: A Guide contains any misleading or inaccurate claims about the benefits of complementary therapies. On the contrary, it treats people as adults and takes a responsible approach by encouraging people to look at reliable sources of information… so that they can make informed decisions. The foundation does not promote complementary therapies.”

In 2009, the Prince held talks with the health Secretary to persuade him to introduce safeguards amid a crackdown by the EU that could prevent anyone who is not a registered health practitioner from selling remedies. This, it seems, was yet another example of Charles’ disregard of his constitutional role.

In the same year, Charles urged the government to protect alternative medicine because “we fear that we will see a black market in herbal products”, as Dr Michael Dixon, then medical director of Charles’ FIH, put it.

In 2009, the health secretary wrote to the prince suggesting a meeting on the possibility of a study on integrating complementary and conventional healthcare approaches in England. The prince had written to Burnham’s predecessor, Alan Johnson, to demand greater access to complementary therapies in the NHS alongside conventional medicine. The prince told him that “despite waves of invective over the years from parts of the medical and scientific establishment” he continued to lobby “because I cannot bear people suffering unnecessarily when a complementary approach could make a real difference”. He opposed “large and threatened cuts” in the funding of homeopathic hospitals and their possible closure. He complained that referrals to the Royal London homeopathic hospital were increasing “until what seems to amount to a recent ‘anti-homeopathic campaign’”. He warned against cuts despite “the fact that these homeopathic hospitals deal with many patients with real health problems who otherwise would require treatment elsewhere, often at greater expense”.

In 2009, the ‘College of Integrated Medicine’ (the name was only later changed to ‘College of Medicine’, see below) was to have a second base in India. An Indian spokesman commented: “The second campus of the Royal College will be in Bangalore. We have already proposed the setting up of an All India Institute of Integrated Medicine to the Union health ministry. At a meeting in London last week with Prince Charles, we finalized the project which will kick off in July 2010”.

In 2010, Charles publicly stated that he was proud to be perceived as ‘an enemy of the enlightenment’.

In 2010, ‘Republic’ filed an official complaint about FIH alleging that its trustees allowed the foundation’s staff to pursue a public “vendetta” against a prominent critic of the prince’s support for complementary medicines. It also suggested that the imminent closure of Ernst’s department may be partly down to the charity’s official complaint about him after he publicly attacked its draft guide to complementary medicines as “outrageous and deeply flawed”.

In 2010, former fellows of Charles’ disgraced FIH launched a new organisation, The College of Medicine’ supporting the use of integrated treatments in the NHS. One director of the college is Michael Dixon, a GP in Cullompton, formerly medical director of the Foundation for Integrated Health. My own analysis of the activities of the new college leaves little doubt that it is promoting quackery.

In 2010, Charles published his book HARMONY which is full of praise for even the most absurd forms of alternative therapies and even bogus diagnostic tests used by alternative practitioners.

In 2011, after the launch of Charles’ range of herbal tinctures, I had the audacity to publicly criticise Charles for selling the Duchy Herbals detox tincture.

In 2011, Charles forged a link between ‘The College of Medicine’ and an Indian holistic health centre (see also above). The collaboration was reported to include clinical training to European and Western doctors in ayurveda and homoeopathy and traditional forms of medicine to integrate them in their practice. The foundation stone for the extended campus of the Royal College known as the International Institution for Holistic and Integrated Medicine was laid by Dr Michael Dixon in collaboration with the Royal College of Medicine.

In 2012, Charles was nominated for ‘THE GOLDEN DUCK AWARD’ for his achievements in promoting quackery. However, Andrew Wakefield beat him to it; Charles certainly was a deserving runner-up.

In 2013, Charles called for society to embrace a broader and more complex concept of health. In his article he described a vision of health that includes the physical and social environment, education, agriculture and architecture.

In 2013, Charles’ Highgrove enterprise offered ‘baby-hampers’ for sale at £195 a piece and made a range of medicinal claims for the products it contained. As these claims were not supported by evidence, there is no way to classify them other than quackery.

By 2013, the ‘Association of Osteomyologists’ were seeking to become regulated by statute, with the help of Prince Charles as their patron. The chairman and founder of this organisation was knighted for services to alternative medicine.  Osteomyologists encourage the use of techniques including cranio-sacral therapy and claim that “we all know that Colleges, Institutions, and Medical Practitioners, are brain washed from the very outset into believing that their discipline is the only way to go.”

In November 2013, Charles invited alternative medicine proponents from across the world, including Dean Ornish, Michael Dixon, chair of College of Medicine, UK and Issac Mathai of Soukya Foundation, Bangalore, to India for a ‘brain storm’ and a subsequent conference on alternative medicine. The prince wanted the experts to collaborate and explore the possibilities of integrating different systems of medicines and to better the healthcare delivery globally, one of the organisers said.

In June 2014, BBC NEWS published the following text about a BBC4 broadcast entitled ‘THE ROYAL ACTIVIST’ aired on the same day: Prince Charles has been a well-known supporter of complementary medicine. According to a… former Labour cabinet minister, Peter Hain, it was a topic they shared an interest in. He had been constantly frustrated at his inability to persuade any health ministers anywhere that that was a good idea, and so he, as he once described it to me, found me unique from this point of view, in being somebody that actually agreed with him on this, and might want to deliver it. Mr Hain added: “When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 2005-7, he was delighted when I told him that since I was running the place I could more or less do what I wanted to do.*** I was able to introduce a trial for complementary medicine on the NHS, and it had spectacularly good results, that people’s well-being and health was vastly improved. And when he learnt about this he was really enthusiastic and tried to persuade the Welsh government to do the same thing and the government in Whitehall to do the same thing for England, but not successfully,” added Mr Hain. On this blog, I have pointed out that the research in question was fatally flawed and that Charles, once again, overstepped the boundaries of his constitutional role.

In 2015, two books were published which are relevant in this context. My memoir A SCIENTIST IN WONDERLAND recounts most of my dealings with Charles and his sycophants, including how an intervention from his first private secretary eventually led to the closure of my department. The book by Catherine Meyer CHARLES, THE HEART OF A KING is far less critical about our heir to the throne; it nevertheless severely criticises his stance on alternative medicine.

In October 2015, the Guardian obtained the infamous “black spider memos” which revealed that Charles had repeatedly lobbied politicians in favour of alternative medicine (see also above).

In 2016, speaking at a global leaders summit on antimicrobial resistance, Prince Charles warned that Britain faced a “potentially disastrous scenario” because of the “overuse and abuse” of antibiotics. The Prince explained that he had switched to organic farming on his estates because of the growing threat from antibiotic resistance and now treats his cattle with homeopathic remedies rather than conventional medication. “As some of you may be aware, this issue has been a long-standing and acute concern to me,” he told delegates from 20 countries “I have enormous sympathy for those engaged in the vital task of ensuring that, as the world population continues to increase unsustainably and travel becomes easier, antibiotics retain their availability to overcome disease… It must be incredibly frustrating to witness the fact that antibiotics have too often simply acted as a substitute for basic hygiene, or as it would seem, a way of placating a patient who has a viral infection or who actually needs little more than patience to allow a minor bacterial infection to resolve itself.”

CONCLUSIONS

It seems that, in recent years (and perhaps in view of soon becoming our King), the Prince has tried to keep a low profile in controversial areas such as alternative medicine. But, every now and then, his passion for quackery seems to get the better of him. The late Christopher Hitchens repeatedly wrote about this passion, and his comments are, in my view, unsurpassable:

We have known for a long time that Prince Charles’ empty sails are so rigged as to be swelled by any passing waft or breeze of crankiness and cant. He fell for the fake anthropologist Laurens van der Post. He was bowled over by the charms of homeopathic medicine. He has been believably reported as saying that plants do better if you talk to them in a soothing and encouraging way… The heir to the throne seems to possess the ability to surround himself—perhaps by some mysterious ultramagnetic force?—with every moon-faced spoon-bender, shrub-flatterer, and water-diviner within range.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY YOUR ROYAL HIGHNESS

Yes, I have a new book out. It is on homeopathy, and the publisher thought it important enough to issue a press-release. I thought you might be interested in reading it – if nothing else, it could be a welcome distraction from the catastrophic new from America. Here it is:

As a junior doctor, Edzard Ernst worked in a homeopathic hospital, practised homeopathy, and was impressed with its results. As his career progressed and he became a research scientist, he investigated the reasons for this efficacy and began to publish the evidence. This new book Homeopathy – The Undiluted Facts presents what he has learned to a lay audience. As an authoritative guide, it is complemented by an 80-page lexicon on the subject, covering definitions, key ingredients and protagonists in its history from founder Samuel Hahnemann to supporter Prince Charles.

Edzard Ernst says: “Homeopathy has been with us for more than 200 years and today millions of patients and consumers swear use its remedies on a daily basis. While some people seem to believe in it with a quasi-religious fervor, others loath it with a similarly deeply-felt passion. In this climate, it is far from easy for consumers to find simple, factual and reliable material on this subject. My book aims to fill this gap.”

There are many misconceptions and myths surrounding homeopathy which Ernst is able to dispel. In the final chapter, he covers both spurious arguments made by proponents of homeopathy and spurious arguments made by its opponents.

For example, in countering the notion that patients who use homeopathy must be stupid, he points out that many patients consult homeopaths because they have needs which are not met by conventional medicine. During a consultation with a homeopath, patients often experience more sympathy, empathy, and compassion. To dismiss this as stupidity would mean missing a chance to learn a lesson.

Ernst encourages both skepticism and openness to new ideas. He says: “This book is based on the all-important principle that good medicine must demonstrably generate more good than harm. Where this is not the case, I will say so without attempting to hide the truth.”

On 25 and 26 May of this year I wrote two posts about an acupuncture trial that, in my view, was dodgy. To refresh your memory, here is the relevant part of the 2nd post:

This new study was designed as a randomized, sham-controlled trial of acupuncture for persistent allergic rhinitis in adults investigated possible modulation of mucosal immune responses. A total of 151 individuals were randomized into real and sham acupuncture groups (who received twice-weekly treatments for 8 weeks) and a no acupuncture group. Various cytokines, neurotrophins, proinflammatory neuropeptides, and immunoglobulins were measured in saliva or plasma from baseline to 4-week follow-up.

Statistically significant reduction in allergen specific IgE for house dust mite was seen only in the real acupuncture group. A mean (SE) statistically significant down-regulation was also seen in pro-inflammatory neuropeptide substance P (SP) 18 to 24 hours after the first treatment. No significant changes were seen in the other neuropeptides, neurotrophins, or cytokines tested. Nasal obstruction, nasal itch, sneezing, runny nose, eye itch, and unrefreshed sleep improved significantly in the real acupuncture group (post-nasal drip and sinus pain did not) and continued to improve up to 4-week follow-up.

The authors concluded that acupuncture modulated mucosal immune response in the upper airway in adults with persistent allergic rhinitis. This modulation appears to be associated with down-regulation of allergen specific IgE for house dust mite, which this study is the first to report. Improvements in nasal itch, eye itch, and sneezing after acupuncture are suggestive of down-regulation of transient receptor potential vanilloid 1.

…the trial itself raises a number of questions:

  1. Which was the primary outcome measure of this trial?
  2. What was the power of the study, and how was it calculated?
  3. For which outcome measures was the power calculated?
  4. How were the subjective endpoints quantified?
  5. Were validated instruments used for the subjective endpoints?
  6. What type of sham was used?
  7. Are the reported results the findings of comparisons between verum and sham, or verum and no acupuncture, or intra-group changes in the verum group?
  8. What other treatments did each group of patients receive?
  9. Does anyone really think that this trial shows that “acupuncture is a safe, effective and cost-effective treatment for allergic rhinitis”?

In the comments section, the author wrote: “after you have read the full text and answered most of your questions for yourself, it might then be a more appropriate time to engage in any meaningful discussion, if that is in fact your intent”, and I asked him to send me his paper. As he does not seem to have the intention to do so, I will answer the questions myself and encourage everyone to have a close look at the full paper [which I can supply on request].

  1. The myriad of lab tests were defined as primary outcome measures.
  2. Two sentences are offered, but they do not allow me to reconstruct how this was done.
  3. No details are provided.
  4. Most were quantified with a 3 point scale.
  5. Mostly not.
  6. Needle insertion at non-acupoints.
  7. The results are a mixture of inter- and intra-group differences.
  8. Patients were allowed to use conventional treatments and the frequency of this use was reported in patient diaries.
  9. I don’t think so.

So, here is my interpretation of this study:

  • It lacked power for many outcome measures, certainly the clinical ones.
  • There were hardly any differences between the real and the sham acupuncture group.
  • Most of the relevant results were based on intra-group changes, rather than comparing sham with real acupuncture, a fact, which is obfuscated in the abstract.
  • In a controlled trial fluctuations within one group must never be interpreted as caused by the treatment.
  • There were dozens of tests for statistical significance, and there seems to be no correction for multiple testing.
  • Thus the few significant results that emerged when comparing sham with real acupuncture might easily be false positives.
  • Patient-blinding seems questionable.
  • McDonald as the only therapist of the study might be suspected to have influenced his patients through verbal and non-verbal communications.

I am sure there are many more flaws, particularly in the stats, and I leave it to others to identify them. The ones I found are, however, already serious enough, in my view, to call for a withdrawal of this paper. Essentially, the authors seem to have presented a study with largely negative findings as a trial with positive results showing that acupuncture is an effective therapy for allergic rhinitis. Subsequently, McDonald went on social media to inflate his findings even more. One might easily ask: is this scientific misconduct or just poor science?

END OF QUOTE

This and the previous post created lots of discussion and comments. However, the question whether the study in question amounted to scientific misconduct was never satisfactorily resolved. Therefore, I decided to write to the editor of ‘Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol‘ where the trial had been published. He answered by saying I would need to file an official complaint for him to address the issue. On 13 June, I therefore sent him the following email:

Thank you for your letter of 3/6/2016 suggesting I make a formal complaint about the paper entitled ‘EFFECT OF ACUPUNCTURE ON HOUSE DUST MITE…’ [ Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016] by McDonald et al. I herewith wish to file such a complaint.

The article in question reports an RCT of acupuncture for persistent allergic rhinitis. It followed a parallel group design with 3 groups receiving the following interventions:

1.       Acupuncture

2.       Sham-acupuncture

3.       No treatment

There was a plethora of outcome measures and time points on which they were measured. A broad range of parameters was defined as primary endpoints.

The conclusion reached by the authors essentially was that acupuncture affected several outcome measures in a positive sense, thus supporting the notion that acupuncture is efficacious [“Symptoms and quality of life improved significantly and were still continuing to improve 4 weeks after treatment ceased.”] This conclusion, however, is misleading and needs correcting.

The main reasons for this are as follows:

·         Despite the fact that the authors did many dozens of statistical tests for significance, they did not correct for this multiplicity of tests. Consequently, some or most of the significant results are likely to be false positive.

·         Many of the positive results of this paper were not obtained by comparing one group to another but by doing before/after comparisons within one group. This approach defies the principle of a controlled clinical trial. For doing intra-group comparisons, we obviously do not need any control group at all. The findings from intra-group comparisons are prominently reported in the paper, for instance in the abstract, giving the impression that they originate from inter-group comparisons. One has to read the paper very carefully to find that, when inter-group comparisons were conducted, their results did NOT confirm the findings from the reported intra-group comparisons. As this is the case for most of the symptomatic endpoints, the impression given is seriously misleading and needs urgent correction.

On the whole, the article is a masterpiece of obfuscation and misrepresentation of the actual data. I urge you to consider the harm than can be done by such a misleading publication. In my view, the best way to address this problem is to withdraw the article.

I look forward to your decision.

Regards

E Ernst

END OF QUOTE

I had to send several reminders but my most recent one prompted the following response dated 7/11/ 2016:

Dear Professor Ernst,
Thank you for your patience while we worked through the process of considering your complaints levied on the article entitled ‘EFFECT OF ACUPUNCTURE ON HOUSE DUST MITE…’ [ Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016] by McDonald et al. I considered the points that you made in your previous letter, sought input from our editorial team (including our biostatistics editor) , our publisher and the authors themselves. I sent the the  charges ( point by point) anonymously to the authors and allowed them time to respond which they did. I had their responses reviewed by selected editors and , as a result of this process, have decided not to pursue any corrective or punitive action based upon the following :
 
  1. Our editorial team recognizes that this is not the best clinical trial we have published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. However, neither is is the worst. As in most published research studies, there are always things that could have been done better to make it a stronger paper. Never-the-less, the criticism falls fall short of any sort of remedy that would include withdrawal of the manuscript.
  2. Regarding your accusation that the multiple positive endpoint resulted in the authors making specific therapeutic claims, our assessment is that no specific therapeutic claim was made but rather the authors maintained that the data support the value of acupuncture in improving symptoms and quality of life in patients with AR. We do not believe there was overreach in those statements.
  3. The authors’ stated intent was to show immune changes associated with clinical markers of improvement in the active acupuncture group compared to controls. The authors maintain (and our editors agree) that their data assessments were primarily based upon three statistical tests not “dozens” (as stated in your original letter of complaint).  The power analysis and sample size calculations were presented to us and deemed adequate , making the probability of a type I error quite low.
  4. The authors acknowledge in their paper that there could be limitations to their data interpretation based upon potential disparities between intra- and intergroup comparisons. The editors felt their transparency was adequately disclosed.
In summary, as editor-in-chief of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, I did not find sufficient merit in your charges to initiate any corrective or punitive action for this manuscript. I understand you will strongly disagree with this decision and I regret that. However, in the final analysis, my primary intent is to preserve the objectivity, fairness, and integrity of our journal and its review process. I believe I have accomplished that in this instance.
 
Sincerely
END OF QUOTE
This seems to settle the issue: the study in question does not involve scientific misconduct!
Or does it?
I would be grateful for the view of the readers of this post.

I have published many articles on the risks of various alternative treatments (see for instance here, here, here, here, here and here) – not because I am alarmist but because I have always felt very strongly that, for a researcher into alternative medicine, the most important issue must be to make sure users of these therapies are as safe as possible. Usually I differentiated between direct and indirect risks. The former relate to the risks of the treatment and include, for instance, liver damage caused by a herbal remedy or stroke due to neck manipulation. The latter are mainly due to the poor, often irresponsible advice given by many therapists.

A recent article adopted the same terminology when reviewing the risks of alternative medicine specifically for cancer patients. As the indirect risks are often neglected, I will here quote the relevant section of this paper in full:

…Health care physicians and oncology experts have an ethical responsibility to initiate the communication regarding the use of complementary therapies with cancer patients. However, according to data obtained from this literature review, oncology doctors and physicians will discuss complementary therapies only when a patient him/herself raises this issue within a consultation. This passive attitude was linked to a lack of sufficient scientific evidence for positive outcomes of complementary therapies found in high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Oncology nurses, on the other hand, sometimes actively promote complementary modalities that they find to correspond with their vision of holistic care.

According to the included studies, complementary providers often differ from conventional health care providers in their understanding of treatment concepts, philosophies and diagnostic procedures. This leads to different models of disease causality (cells, blood, nerves vs. energy, vital force, meridians) and treatment philosophy (reductionism vs. holism). As many complementary providers are philosophically oriented towards personal and spiritual growth, patients may feel guilty if the disease continues to advance despite the patients’ best spiritual and mental efforts. According to Broom and colleagues, such philosophies may also give patients false hope of recovery.

Another indirect risk connected to the combination of conventional and complementary treatment in cancer care is the lack of regulation and standardized education in many countries. Currently, there are, for example, no standard training requirements for complementary providers working in cancer care or any other health care setting in the EU. According to Mackareth et al., complementary providers in England need specific training to learn how to practice safely.

Moreover, there is a need for common medical terminology to bridge the communication gap between health care providers working outside the conventional health care system. Common medical terminology may reduce the existing communication gap between conventional and complementary providers about mutual patients. To minimize communication gap between physicians, oncology experts and complementary providers, a medical complementary record should include a treatment plan with conventional and complementary diagnosis, explanation of terminology, possible treatment interactions, description of the complementary treatment plan and goals. If possible, the quality of any complementary supplement given should be reported.

END OF QUOTE

As I said, I find it important to discuss the indirect risks of alternative medicine, and I am therefore pleased that the authors of this article addressed them. At the same time, I find their text remarkably tame.

Why are they not more open and forceful about what, after all, amounts to a serious public health issue? The answer might be simpler than expected: most of them are affiliated with the ‘National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway’. Could it be that open warnings about outright quackery is not what suits this unit?

So, what might be an open and frank approach to discussing the indirect risks of alternative medicine? In my view, it should make several points abundantly clear and transparent:

  • Alternative practitioners (APs) are usually not trained to advise patients responsibly, particularly in cases serious disease.
  • The training of APs is often inadequate and sometimes resembles more to brain-washing than to proper education.
  • Consequently, APs often woefully over-estimate what their therapy can achieve.
  • The patients of APs are often desperate and ready to believe even the tallest tales.
  • APs have a huge conflict of interest – in order to make a living they need to treat as many patients as possible and are therefore not motivated to refer them to more suitable care.
  • APs are frequently in denial when it comes to the risks of their treatments.
  • APs are not educated such that they understand the full complexities of serious illness.
  • As a result, APs far too often misguide their patients to make tragically wrong choices thus putting their health at serious risk.
  • In most countries, the regulators turn a blind eye to this huge problem.

These are by no means trivial  points, and they have nothing to do with a ‘turf war’ between conventional and alternative medicine. They relate to our ethical duty to keep our patients as safe as we can. It has been estimated that, in oncology alone, 1 – 5% of deaths are due to patients opting to have alternative instead of conventional treatments. This amounts to an unbearably high absolute number of patients dying prematurely due to the indirect risks of alternative medicine.

It is high time, I think, that we tackle this issue systematically and seriously.

This press-release just came to my attention:

Today, with the stroke of his pen, Governor Tom Wolf adds Pennsylvania to the list of states that acknowledge the value of alternative healthcare from a qualified professional. Pennsylvania becomes the 21st U.S. jurisdiction to regulate naturopathic medicine. The new law HB516 regulates naturopathic doctors; ensuring patients can trust that their wellness professional holds a graduate degree from an accredited naturopathic medical school.

Heidi Weinhold, N.D. and Legislative Chair of the Pennsylvania Association of Naturopathic Physicians (PANP), says, “This is a historic day for naturopathic medicine. The governor’s approval will throw open the doors for more Pennsylvania students to choose this academic course of study. Then, they can return home from a four-year graduate program to set up a practice as a naturopathic doctor.”

The PANP members worked for the last 16 years with the state legislature to advance the much-needed recognition of this growing medical field. Their goal was to increase the credibility and minimize the confusion between professionals with an advance degree and the self-study practitioner. “Naturopathic professionals also seek to better coordinate and collaborate with medical professionals across the spectrum. We believe in integrative care, and this law gives us the stature we need to work N,” explains Dr. Weinhold.

Under the new law, the terms Naturopathic Doctor and ND will be reserved exclusively for those who have attended four-year, post-graduate level programs at institutions recognized by the United States Department of Education. “This protects the scope-of-work and title for graduates from an accredited N.D. program,” offers Dr. JoAnn Yanez, executive director of the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Colleges.

Naturopathic Doctors are currently practicing at Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia, as well as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers, where they work side by side with medical doctors in an integrative setting. More patients could be served in this manner once naturopathic doctors are registered in this state. Both Penn State Hershey Medical Center and West Penn Allegheny General Hospital have indicated that they would hire Naturopathic Doctors if they were registered in the state.

“The PANP will be working over the next year on implementation of the legislation in order that NDs can begin to register with the Board of Medicine. A number of Representatives and Senators have encouraged us to come back to the legislature next session in order to expand the scope of this bill. We are very encouraged about the future of naturopathic medicine in Pennsylvania,” says Dr. Marie Winters, manager of the Naturopathic Medicine Department of the Cancer Treatment Centers of America and president of PANP.

The law will go into effect January 1, 2018.

Pennsylvania joins these other jurisdictions which regulate naturopathic medicine: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands, and these provinces in Canada: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan.

END OF QUOTE

Here are a few comments and issues that I find remarkable about this announcement:

  • Naturopaths are called ‘naturopathic doctors’, yet in the same sentence it is pointed out that they are ‘wellness professionals’. I am not sure what the latter, woolly term is supposed to mean – perhaps that naturopathy cannot effectively treat diseases?
  • The document speaks of ‘accredited naturopathic medical schools’. Has anyone checked the utter nonsense that is being taught there? The answer is yes, Britt Marie Hermes has, and her verdict is truly depressing and devastating.
  • Naturopaths instantly interpret the new regulation as a ‘governor’s approval’ and ‘recognition’. It shows why alternative practitioners want to be regulated: they foremost crave the APPROVAL and the RECOGNITION they clearly do not deserve.
  • Naturopaths believe in ‘integrative care’ – of course they do, because this is nothing but a ploy for smuggling quackery into evidence-based medicine (EBM).
  • Naturopaths want to be ‘peer-to-peer with other disciplines’ – but they are unable to show that their interventions generate more good than harm. This effectively is an attempt to place quackery on the same level as EBM.
  • Naturopaths already treat cancer patients in the state! Really? Do they use Laetrile, or homeopathy?
  • Naturopaths are portrayed as being a benefit to public health. Has anyone considered that the opposite might be the case? See for instance here and here.

It would be wrong to call the Czech Republic the promised land for homeopathy. For instance, the only research paper by Czech authors related to the subject that I could locate was published in the Journal ‘Homeopathy‘ and, on even superficial reading, it has little to do with homeopathy. Here is the abstract:

We discovered a previously unknown phenomenon in liquid water, which develops over time when water is left to stand undisturbed, and which made precise gravimetric measurement impossible. We term this property autothixotropy (weak gel-like behaviour developing spontaneously over time) and propose a possible explanation. The results of quantitative measurements, performed by two different methods, are presented. We also report the newly discovered phenomenon of autothixotropy-hysteresis and describe the dependence of autothixotropy on the degree of molecular translative freedom. A very important conclusion is that the presence of very low concentration of salt ions, these phenomena do not occur in deionized water. Salt ions may be the determinative condition for the occurrence of the phenomena.

In fact, historically, homeopathy had had a hard time in this country. Until World War II only very few doctors practiced homeopathy on Czech territory. Dr. Quin, founder of British homeopathy, practiced a short time in the small town of Tisnov. A Catholic homeopathic hospital existed at Kromeriz since 1860. During the communist era of 1948-89, homeopathy was prohibited, and, until 1991, no books about homeopathy were available in the Czech language. More recently, about 20 titles were published by the Alternativa Publishing house. The Czech Homeopathic Medical Chamber is an organisation that only permits MDs and currently has about 1000 members. The Czech Medical Homeopathic Society has only about 300 members.

After the fall of the ‘iron curtain’, homeopathy evidently became more popular. It has recently been reported that the number of homeopathic remedies sold in the Czech Republic rose by over 50% during the past 15 years. Last year, Czechs bought homeopathic preparations for over 170 million crowns, which is 10% more than a year ago.  “The patients most frequently use homeopathics against the problems associated with common viral diseases,” said Ales Krebs, deputy chairman of the Czech Pharmacy Chamber.  The homeopathic flu remedy Oscillococcinum seems to be one of the most popular homeopathic preparation in the Czech Republic. Yet Czech chemists say that it is ‘absolute nonsense’.

Most physicians seem to be equally cynical about homeopathy and its practitioners: “Homeopathics are perfect drugs. The manufacturing is dirt cheap and they sell for 60 crowns. They cannot be forged because the fakes have the same effect as the original product,” Czech doctors joke about the growing interest in homeopathy. Stepan Svacina, chairman of the Czech Medical Society, says: “The doctor can use a placebo in a psychological therapy. It does not matter whether this may be a homeopathic preparation or jumping on one leg.” Another doctor is quoted as stating that “Advocates of homeopathy often argue with doctors’ conspiracy with pharmaceutical makers, but they themselves certainly do not offer their methods for free as a sort of philanthropy.”

The cost for a first consultation with a Czech homeopath ranges between 100 to 3,000 crowns. The patient pays another 800-1,000 crowns for each next examination. ($1 = 24.846 crowns)

In 2014, the Czech Republic Ministry of Health issued a press-release stating that…although the Ministry for Health of the Czech Republic does not perceive the evidence base for homeopathy to be strong enough yet, this does not prevent doctors from utilising this if it is desired and appropriate…

Because the use of homeopathy cannot ever be considered to be ‘appropriate’, this declaration could arguably be interpreted by those who insist on evidence as a new prohibition of homeopathy in the Czech Republic.

Recent Comments

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


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories