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.
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.
This post is based on an article by Ken Harvey, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia. I took the liberty of slightly modifying his text for the purpose of this blog. The article informs us about the regulation of nonsense which, as I have often argued, is likely to result in nonsense.
Australia’s drugs regulator seems to be endorsing unfounded claims about homeopathy and traditional Chinese medicine as part of its review of how complementary medicines are regulated. In the latest proposed changes, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is looking at what suppliers can claim their products do, known as “permitted indications”. An example of a “low level” permitted indication might be “may relieve the pain of mild osteoarthritis”.
If approved, suppliers will be able to use the permitted indication to market their products. The resulting problem is obvious. For instance, despite the TGA’s Complaints Resolution Panel upholding complaints of a lack of evidence that magnesium and homeopathy “relieve muscle cramps (and restless legs)”, this permitted indication is on its draft list. Other examples of dodgy claims include “supports transport of oxygen in the body”, “regulates healthy male testosterone levels”. The list contains around 140 traditional Chinese medicine indications, such as “Harmonise middle burner (Spleen and Stomach)”, “Unblock/open/relax meridians”, “Balance Yin and Yang”. None of them have any basis in fact or science. There are also around 900 additional indications for unspecified “traditions”.
Traditional medicines are not necessarily safe, as emerging data highlights how common adverse reactions and drug interactions really are. For example, Hyland’s homeopathic baby teething products were recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration and then the TGA because they contained high levels of belladonna alkaloids which caused adverse events in hundreds of babies. In China, out of the 1.33 million case reports of adverse drug event reports received by the National Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Center in 2014, traditional Chinese medicine represented around 17.3% (equivalent to around 230,000 cases).
Listed medicines are supposed to contain pre-approved, relatively low-risk ingredients. They should be produced with good manufacturing practice and only make “low-level” health claims for which evidence is held. However, the TGA does not check these requirements before the product is marketed. To safeguard shoppers, consumer representatives, suggested the proposed list of permitted indications should be short and only contain wordings such as, “may assist” or “may help”. For consumers to make an informed purchase, claims based on “traditional use” should always have a disclaimer along the lines of what the US Federal Trade Commission uses for homeopathic products. For example, “This product’s traditional claims are based on alternative health practices that are not accepted by most modern medical experts. There is no good scientific evidence that this product works”.
As I see it, the problem is that the evidence for many of the claims which are about to be allowed is either absent, seriously flawed or negative. Yet, the purpose of any regulation of this kind must be to protect consumers from purchasing ineffective and sometimes dangerous products. Regulators are keen to balance this aim against another aim: helping an industry to thrive. It is never easy to get such a balance right. But to allow nonsense, pseudoscience and overt falsehoods to creep in, must surely be wrong, unethical and illegal.
In my previous post, I reported that the NHS has included homeopathy and herbal medicine on the list of medications that might no longer get reimbursed. The news was reported by most newspapers in the UK. All of the papers correctly quote NHS England giving their reasons for black-listing homeopathy and herbal remedies. Some papers also quote critics of homeopathy providing short ‘sound bites’ and opinions. None of the articles bother to explain in any detail why homeopathy is so ridiculously implausible or how strong the evidence against it has become. In this post, I intend to analyse some of this press coverage by copying those excerpts from the newspaper articles which I find odd or misleading and by adding short comments by myself.
THE DAILY MAIL claimed that homeopathic remedies are treatments using heavily diluted forms of plants, herbs and minerals. This is factually incorrect; think of remedies like X-ray! The Mail also quoted Don Redding, director of policy at National Voices, stating: ‘Whilst some treatments are available to purchase over the counter, that does not mean that everyone can afford them. There will be distinct categories of people who rely on NHS funding for prescriptions of remedies that are otherwise available over the counter. Stopping such prescriptions would break with the principle of an NHS “free at the point of use” and would create a system where access to treatments is based on a person’s ability to pay.’ This argument might apply to medicines that are proven to work; it does, however, not apply to homeopathy.
THE INDEPENDENT cited Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, chair of the Royal College of GPs, who said: “If patients are in a position that they can afford to buy over the counter medicines and products, then we would encourage them to do so rather than request a prescription – but imposing blanket policies on GPs, that don’t take into account demographic differences across the country, or that don’t allow for flexibility for a patient’s individual circumstances, risks alienating the most vulnerable in society.” Again, this argument might apply to medicines that are proven to work; it does, however, not apply to homeopathy.
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH also reported the quote from Don Redding, Director of Policy at National Voices which I cited above.
THE DAILY MIRROR quoted The Royal Pharmaceutical Society claiming that such a move raised “serious concerns” for poorer Brits. RPS England Board Chair Sandra Gidley said: “A blanket ban on prescribing of items available to buy will not improve individual quality of life or health outcomes in England. “Those on low incomes will be disproportionately affected.” THE MIRROR also reported what had to say and added that the NHS constitution states that: “Access to NHS services is based on clinical need, not an individual’s ability to pay; NHS services are free of charge, except in limited circumstances sanctioned by parliament.”
THE NEWS & STAR repeated the above quote from The Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
THE GUERNSEY PRESS repeated what RPS England board chair Sandra Gidley said: “We would encourage people with minor health problems to self-care with the support of a pharmacist and to buy medicines where appropriate and affordable to the individual. However, expecting everyone to pay for medicines for common conditions will further increase health inequalities and worsen the health of patients who cannot afford them. A blanket ban on prescribing of items available to buy will not improve individual quality of life or health outcomes in England. Those on low incomes will be disproportionately affected. They should not be denied treatment because of an inability to pay.”
THE TIMES also quoted the RPS and Don Redding misleadingly (see above and below) and concluded their article by citing Cristal Summer, chief executive of the British Homeopathic Association saying: Patients will be prescribed more expensive conventional drugs in place of homeopathy, which defeats the object of the exercise. The NHS also claims it wants to reduce the amount of prescription drugs patients take, then stops offering complementary therapies which can help achieve this. This clearly ignores the fact that ‘the object of the exercise’ for any health service must be to provide effective treatments and avoid placebo therapies like homeopathy.
THE SUN quoted The Royal Pharmaceutical Society saying such a move raised “serious concerns” for poorer Brits. But it said banning NHS-funded homeopathy was long overdue. THE SUN continued by citing John O’Connell, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance: “The NHS are absolutely right to look at removing homeopathy from their approved prescription list and it’s astonishing that it hasn’t happened sooner.”
METRO pointed out that actress Gwyneth Paltrow, ex-Beatle Paul McCartney and world record sprinter Usain Bolt are all known to swear by homeopathic remedies.
Generally speaking, the newspaper coverage was not bad, in my view. The exception evidently is THE TIMES (see above). Several other articles also have a slight whiff of false balance, introducing seemingly rational counter-arguments where none exist. Even though the headlines invariably focus on homeopathy, some of the quotes used by the papers are clearly about other medicines black-listed. This seems particularly obvious with the quotes by the RPS. Many readers might thus be misled into thinking that there is opposition by reputable organisations to the ban on homeopathy. None of the articles that I read quoted a homeopath at the end saying something like WE KNOW OF MANY PATIENTS WHOSE LIVES WERE SAVED BY HOMEOPATHY. JUST BECAUSE WE DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT WORK. A BAN WOULD PUT PUBLIC HEALTH AT RISK.
Only a few years ago, this type of conclusion to an article on homeopathy would have been inevitable! Could it be that UK journalists (with the exception of those at THE TIMES?) are slowly learning?
NHS England have published a list of medicines that they propose to stop funding. Items were considered for inclusion if they were:
- Items of low clinical effectiveness, where there is a lack of robust evidence of clinical effectiveness or there are significant safety concerns;
- Items which are clinically effective but where more cost-effective products are available, including products that have been subject to excessive price inflation; or
- Items which are clinically effective but, due to the nature of the product, are deemed a low priority for NHS funding.
The list includes both herbal and homeopathic remedies!!!
The document states that the annual Spend on homeopathy amounts to £92,412. It refers to the report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee which found that the use of homeopathy was not evidence based and any benefits to patients was down to placebo effect. The group agreed with the findings of the committee for the lack of evidence and considered homeopathy suitable for inclusion in the proposed list. They advise CCGs that prescribers in primary care should not initiate homeopathic items for any new patient. They also advise CCGs to support prescribers in deprescribing homeopathic items in all patients and, where appropriate, ensure the availability of relevant services to facilitate this change.
A comment published by PULSETODAY stated: NHS England is planning to stop the prescribing of homeopathy as part of new guidance for CCGs on medicines that can be considered to be of low priority for funding. Homeopathy is a new item on the list of possible low-value medicines that GPs will be banned from prescribing. Originally NHS England said that it would review just 10 items, but it has added eight new treatments, including homeopathy and herbal treatments… The original consultation document failed to include homeopathy in its treatments that should be banned. However, following a consultation, a paper presented at today’s NHS England board meeting said: ‘NHS England’s view is that, at best, homeopathy is a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds which could better be devoted to treatments that work. ‘Data on the residual use and cost of homeopathy on the NHS are hard to come by. A recent Freedom of Information request by a third party suggested that at least £578,000 has been spent on prescribed homeopathy over the past five years, with the total cost being higher than that when the cost of consultations was factored in.’ Talking at the NHS England Board meeting today NHS England medical director Sir Bruce Keogh said: ’I think this (homeopathy) has been an issue which has concerned scientific professionals for a long period of time. We can no longer shy away from addressing this particular issue. If we want our NHS to be evidence based and outcomes focused, then we must expect to have difficult conversations over difficult issues.’
This almost sounds as though Sir Bruce has been following the discussions on this blog. I have felt for a long time that the reimbursement of homeopathy by the NHS made a mockery of evidence-based medicine. It is time to end the mockery and use the money for something useful!
But before we start celebrating a victory of rationality, we should consider what happens next. There will be a consultation, and I would not be surprised to hear that the author of multiple ‘spider memos’ is already at it again. So, maybe we should hold our breath and wait.
An article by Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times caught my eye. Here are a few excerpts:
“I am sorry, Mrs. Ploni, but the muscle testing we performed on you indicates that your compatibility with your spouse is a 1 out of a possible 10 on the scale.”
“Your son being around his father is bad for his energy levels. You should seek to minimize it.”
“Your husband was born normal, but something happened to his energy levels on account of the vaccinations he received as a child. It is not really his fault, but he is not good for you.”
Welcome to the world of Applied Kinesiology (AK) or health Kinesiology… Incredibly, there are people who now base most of their life decisions on something called “muscle testing.” Practitioners believe or state that the body’s energy levels can reveal remarkable information, from when a bride should get married to whether the next Kinesiology appointment should be in one week or two weeks. Prices for a 45 minute appointment can range from $125 to $250 a session. One doctor who is familiar with people who engage in such pursuits remarked, “You have no idea how many inroads this craziness has made in our community.”
… AK (applied kinesiology) is system that evaluates structural, chemical, and mental aspects of health by using “manual muscle testing (MMT)” along with other conventional diagnostic methods. The belief of AK adherents is that every organ dysfunction is accompanied by a weakness in a specific corresponding muscle… Treatments include joint manipulation and mobilization, myofascial, cranial and meridian therapies, clinical nutrition, and dietary counselling. A manual muscle test is conducted by having the patient resist using the target muscle or muscle group while the practitioner applies force the other way. A smooth response is called a “strong muscle” and a response that was not appropriate is called a “weak response.” Like some Ouiji board out of the 1970’s, Applied Kinesiology is used to ask “Yes or No” questions about issues ranging from what type of Parnassa courses one should be taking, to what Torah music tapes one should listen to, to whether a therapist is worthwhile to see or not.
“They take everything with such seriousness – they look at it as if it is Torah from Sinai,” remarked one person familiar with such patients. One spouse of an AK patient was shocked to hear that a diagnosis was made concerning himself through the muscle testing of his wife – without the practitioner having ever met him… And the lines at the office of the AK practitioner are long. One husband holds a crying baby for three hours, while his wife attends a 45 minute session. Why so long? The AK practitioner let other patients ahead – because of emergency needs…
END OF EXCERPTS
The article is a reminder how much nonsense happens in the name of alternative medicine. AK is one of the modalities that is exemplary:
- it is utterly implausible;
- there is no good evidence that it works.
The only systematic review of AK was published in 2008 by a team known to be strongly in favour of alternative medicine. It included 22 relevant studies. Their methodology was poor. The authors concluded that there is insufficient evidence for diagnostic accuracy within kinesiology, the validity of muscle response and the effectiveness of kinesiology for any condition.
Some AK fans might now say: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!!! There is no evidence that AK does not work, and therefore we should give it the benefit of the doubt and use it.
This, of course, is absolute BS! Firstly, the onus is on those who claim that AK works to prove their assumption. Secondly, in responsible healthcare, we are obliged to employ those modalities for which the evidence is positive, while avoiding those for which the evidence fails to be positive.
It used to be called ‘good bedside manners’. The term is an umbrella for a range of attitudes and behaviours including compassion, empathy and conveying positive messages. What could be more obvious than the assumption that good bedside manners are better than bad ones?
But as sceptics, we need to doubt obvious assumptions! Where is the evidence? we need to ask. So, where is the evidence that positive messages have any clinical effects? A meta-analysis has tackled the issue, and the results are noteworthy.
The researchers aimed to estimate the efficacy of positive messages for pain reduction. They included RCTs of the effects of positive messages. Their primary outcome measures were differences in patient- or observer reported pain between groups who were given positive messages and those who were not. Of the 16 RCTs (1703 patients) that met the inclusion criteria, 12 trials had sufficient data for meta-analysis. The pooled standardized effect size was −0.31 (95% CI −0.61 to −0.01, P = 0.04, I² = 82%). The effect size remained positive but not statistically significant after we excluded studies considered to have a high risk of bias (standard effect size −0.17, 95% CI −0.54 to 0.19, P = 0.36, I² = 84%). The authors concluded that care of patients with chronic or acute pain may be enhanced when clinicians deliver positive messages about possible clinical outcomes. However, we have identified several limitations of the present study that suggest caution when interpreting the results. We recommend further high quality studies to confirm (or falsify) our result.
The 1st author of this paper published a comment in which he stated that our recent mega-study with 12 randomized trials confirmed that doctors who use positive language reduce patient pain by a similar amount to drugs. Other trials show that positive messages can:
• help Parkinson’s patients move their hands faster,
• increase ‘peak flow’ (a measure of how much air is breathed) in asthma patients,
• improve the diameter of arteries in heart surgery patients, and
• reduce the amount of pain medication patients use.
The way a positive message seems to help is biological. When a patient anticipates a good thing happening (for example that their pain will go away), this activates parts of the brain that help the body make its own drugs like endorphins. A positive doctor may also help a patient relax which can also improve health.
I am not sure that this is entirely correct. When the authors excluded the methodologically weak and therefore unreliable studies, the effect was no longer significant. That is to say, it was likely due to chance.
And what about the other papers cited above? I am not sure about them either. Firstly, they do not necessarily show that positive messages are effective. Secondly, there is just one study for each claim, and one swallow does not make a summer; we would need independent replications.
So, am I saying that being positive as a clinician is ineffective? No! I am saying that the evidence is too flimsy to be sure. And possibly, this means that the effect of positive messages is smaller than we all thought.
To a significant extend, this blog has always exposed untruths in the realm of alternative medicine – not just one or two, but hundreds. Obviously, some of them are more clear-cut than others. If, for instance, someone claims that acupuncture has been proven to be effective for a given condition, this many seem like a lie or untruth to you, like a misinterpretation of the evidence to someone else, or like the truth to a third person.
But there are some statements which are demonstrably false. These are often the most irritating lies, frequently forwarded by people who should know better and who nevertheless insist on not being truthful. Below I have listed a few, randomly-chosen examples upon which I have previously commented. For clarity, I have copied the quotes in question, linked them to my original posts, named the authors in brackets, and added a brief comment by myself in bold print.
I was at Exeter when Ernst took over what was already a successful Chair in CAM. (anonymous reviewer of my book at Amazon)
Anyone can check this fairly easily, for instance, in my memoir ‘A SCIENTIST IN WONDERLAND’, there was no pre-existing chair at Exeter.
Ernst’s leak of the Smallwood report (also front page lead in The Times, August 2005), (Dr Peter Fisher, homeopath of the Queen)
This was painfully investigated during a 13 (!) months inquiry which found that I did not leak this report. Again you find the full details in my memoir.
As far as this statement implies that homeopathy is effective for treating intoxications, this is not only a lie but a very dangerous nonsense.
If this is to suggest that homeopathy is of proven effectiveness in treating diseases of animals, this is a lie.
Homeoprophylaxis, the homeopathic vaccine alternative, prevents disease through nosodes. (Lisa is the mastermind behind All Natural Ideas)
Homeoprophylaxis has never been proven to prevent any disease; this lie could kill millions.
There are essentially two categories of critics. The first category consists of individuals who are totally ignorant of homeopathy and just repeating propaganda they’ve been exposed to. The second category is people who know that homeopathy works, but have a vested financial interest in destroying it. (Alan Schmukler, US homeopathy)
This lie is quite funny in its transparent defamation of the truth, I think.
Homeopathy works like a vaccine. (Dr Batra, Indian homeopath)
Homeopathy does not even remotely work like a vaccine; in fact, it works like a placebo, if at all.
…UK invests 0% of its research budget on CAM… (Dr Michael Dixon, GP and advisor to Prince Charles)
There has always been a sizable budget for CAM-research in the UK.
Even cancer viruses have, on record, been put into vaccinations. There is no actual vaccine for cancer. The only reason to put cancer viruses in the mix is to create more cases of cancer. In this day and age, one of the most dangerous things you can do for your health is to get vaccinated… (US homeopath)
In this short quote, there are more lies than I care to comment on. The paranoia of the anti-vaccination brigade is astounding and endangers many lives.
A lie is a statement used intentionally for the purpose of deception. In alternative medicine, we encounter so many lies that one would need to continually publish volume after volume to expose just the most harmful untruths. The danger of these lies is that some people might believe them. This could seriously harm their health. Another danger is that we might get used to them, trivialise them, or – like Trump and co – start thinking of them as ‘alternative facts’.
I will continue to do my best to prevent any of this from happening.
This recently published report provides updated clinical practice guidelines from the Society for Integrative Oncology on the use of integrative therapies for specific clinical indications during and after breast cancer treatment, including anxiety/stress, depression/mood disorders, fatigue, quality of life/physical functioning, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, lymphedema, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, pain, and sleep disturbance.
The practice guidelines are based on a systematic literature review from 1990 through 2015. The recommendations are as follows:
- Music therapy, meditation, stress management, and yoga are recommended for anxiety/stress reduction.
- Meditation, relaxation, yoga, massage, and music therapy are recommended for depression/mood disorders.
- Meditation and yoga are recommended to improve quality of life.
- Acupressure and acupuncture are recommended for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
- Acetyl-L-carnitine is not recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy due to a possibility of harm.
- No strong evidence supports the use of ingested dietary supplements to manage breast cancer treatment-related side effects.
The authors conclude that there is a growing body of evidence supporting the use of integrative therapies, especially mind-body therapies, as effective supportive care strategies during breast cancer treatment. Many integrative practices, however, remain understudied, with insufficient evidence to be definitively recommended or avoided.
I have to admit that I am puzzled by this paper.
The first obvious point to make is that these treatments are not ‘integrative therapies’; they are alternative or complementary and I fail to see what is integrative about them.
The second point is that the positive recommendations are based on often poor-quality studies which did not control for placebo effects.
The third point is that the negative recommendations are woefully incomplete. There are many more alternative therapies for which there is no strong evidence.
The forth point is the conclusion implying that treatment supported by insufficient evidence should be avoided. I would not claim that any of the mentioned treatments is backed by SUFFICIENT evidence. Therefore, we should avoid them all, one might argue.
But these concerns are perhaps relatively trivial or far-fetched. More important is the fact that a very similar article been published in 2014. Here is the abstract:
The majority of breast cancer patients use complementary and/or integrative therapies during and beyond cancer treatment to manage symptoms, prevent toxicities, and improve quality of life. Practice guidelines are needed to inform clinicians and patients about safe and effective therapies.
Following the Institute of Medicine’s guideline development process, a systematic review identified randomized controlled trials testing the use of integrative therapies for supportive care in patients receiving breast cancer treatment. Trials were included if the majority of participants had breast cancer and/or breast cancer patient results were reported separately, and outcomes were clinically relevant. Recommendations were organized by outcome and graded based upon a modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading system.
The search (January 1, 1990–December 31, 2013) identified 4900 articles, of which 203 were eligible for analysis. Meditation, yoga, and relaxation with imagery are recommended for routine use for common conditions, including anxiety and mood disorders (Grade A). Stress management, yoga, massage, music therapy, energy conservation, and meditation are recommended for stress reduction, anxiety, depression, fatigue, and quality of life (Grade B). Many interventions (n = 32) had weaker evidence of benefit (Grade C). Some interventions (n = 7) were deemed unlikely to provide any benefit (Grade D). Notably, only one intervention, acetyl-l-carnitine for the prevention of taxane-induced neuropathy, was identified as likely harmful (Grade H) as it was found to increase neuropathy. The majority of intervention/modality combinations (n = 138) did not have sufficient evidence to form specific recommendations (Grade I).
Specific integrative therapies can be recommended as evidence-based supportive care options during breast cancer treatment. Most integrative therapies require further investigation via well-designed controlled trials with meaningful outcomes.
I have harshly criticised this review on this blog in 2016. For instance, I voiced concern about the authors declaration of conflicts of interest and stated:
I know none of the authors (Heather Greenlee, Lynda G. Balneaves, Linda E. Carlson, Misha Cohen, Gary Deng, Dawn Hershman, Matthew Mumber, Jane Perlmutter, Dugald Seely, Ananda Sen, Suzanna M. Zick, Debu Tripathy) of the document personally. They made the following collective statement about their conflicts of interest: “There are no financial conflicts of interest to disclose. We note that some authors have conducted/authored some of the studies included in the review.” I am a little puzzled to hear that they have no financial conflicts of interest (do not most of them earn their living by practising integrative medicine? Yes they do! The article informs us that: “A multidisciplinary panel of experts in oncology and integrative medicine was assembled to prepare these clinical practice guidelines. Panel members have expertise in medical oncology, radiation oncology, nursing, psychology, naturopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, epidemiology, biostatistics, and patient advocacy.”). I also suspect they have other, potentially much stronger conflicts of interest. They belong to a group of people who seem to religiously believe in the largely nonsensical concept of integrative medicine…
The just-published update has a different statement about conflicts of interest:
DISCLOSURES: Linda E. Carlson reports book royalties from New Harbinger and the American Psychological Association. Misha R. Cohen reports royalties from Health Concerns Inc., outside the submitted work. Matthew Mumber owns stock in I Thrive. All remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.
Is this much better than the previous statement? Was the previous statement therefore false?
What do you think?
In the US, some right-wing politicians might answer this question in the affirmative, having suggested that American citizens don’t really need healthcare, if only they believed stronger in God. Here in the UK, some right-wing MPs are not that far from such an attitude, it seems.
A 2012 article in the ‘Plymouth Harald’ revealed that the Tory MP for South West Devon, Gary Streeter , has challenged the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for banning claims that ‘God can heal’. Mr Streeter was reported to have written to the ASA demanding it produce “indisputable scientific evidence” to prove that prayer does not work – otherwise they will raise the issue in Parliament, he threatened. Mr Streeter also accused the ASA of “poor judgement” after it banned a Christian group from using leaflets stating: “Need healing? God can heal today!… We believe that God loves you and can heal you from any sickness.”
The ASA said such claims were misleading and could discourage people from seeking essential medical treatment.
The letter to ASA was written on behalf of the all-party Christians in Parliament group, which Mr Streeter chairs. Here are a few quotes from this bizarre document:
“We write to express our concern at this decision and to enquire about the basis on which it has been made… It appears to cut across two thousand years of Christian tradition and the very clear teaching in the Bible. Many of us have seen and experienced physical healing ourselves in our own families and churches and wonder why you have decided that this is not possible. On what scientific research or empirical evidence have you based this decision?… You might be interested to know that I (Gary Streeter) received divine healing myself at a church meeting in 1983 on my right hand, which was in pain for many years. After prayer at that meeting, my hand was immediately free from pain and has been ever since. What does the ASA say about that? I would be the first to accept that prayed for people do not always get healed, but sometimes they do… It is interesting to note that since the traumatic collapse of the footballer Fabrice Muamba the whole nation appears to be praying for a physical healing for him. I enclose some media extracts. Are they wrong also and will you seek to intervene? … We invite your detailed response to this letter and unless you can persuade us that you have reached your ruling on the basis of indisputable scientific evidence, we intend to raise this matter in Parliament.”
Mr Streeter displays, of course, a profound and embarrassing ignorance of science, healthcare and common sense:
- ‘Indisputable’ evidence that something is ineffective is usually not obtainable in science.
- In healthcare it is also not relevant, because we try to employ treatments that are proven to work and avoid those for which this is not the case.
- It is common sense that those who make a claim must also prove it to be true; those who doubt it need not prove that it is untrue.
- Chronic pain disappearing spontaneously is not uncommon.
- The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence!
Personally, I find it worrying that a man with such views sits in parliament and exerts influence over me and our country.