MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

fraud

1 2 3 9

Dana Ullman is an indefatigable promotor of bogus claims and an unwitting contributor of hilarity. Therefore he has become a regular feature of this blog (see for instance here, here and here). His latest laughable assertion is that lead and other poisonings can be successfully treated with homeopathy.

Just to make sure: lead poisoning is no joke. The greatest risk is to brain development in babies, where irreversible damage can occur. Higher levels can damage the kidneys and nervous system in both children and adults. Very high lead levels may cause seizures, unconsciousness and death.

In view of this, Ullman’s claim is surprising, to say the least. In order to persuade the unsuspecting public of his notion, Ullman first cites a review of basic research on homeopathy and toxins published in Human and Experimental Toxicology. “Of forty high-quality studies, 27 showed positive results from homeopathic treatment”, Ullman states.

Now, now, now Dana!

Has your mom not taught you that telling porkies is forbidden?

Or did you perhaps miss this line in the article’s abstract? “The quality of evidence in these studies was low with only 43% achieving one half of the maximum possible quality score and only 31% reported in a fashion that permitted re-evaluation of the data. Very few studies were independently replicated using comparable models.”

Hardly ‘high quality studies’, wouldn’t you agree?

But this review was of pre-clinical studies; what about the much more important clinical evidence?

Here Ullman cites one trial where a potentized homeopathic remedy, Arsenicum Album 30C, was administered to  55 people who were entered into a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. According to Ullman, the homeopathically treated group “experienced higher excretion of arsenic in their urine for the first eleven days, compared to those given a placebo.”

Na, na, na, Dana, this is getting serious!!!

Another porky – and not even a little one.

The authors of this study clearly stated that, at the end of the 11-day RCT, there was no significant difference between the homeopathy and the placebo group: “The differences in the concentration between the two groups (drug versus placebo) were generally a little higher during the first week, but subsequently the differences were not so palpable, particularly at the 11th day.” And for those who are a bit slow on the uptake, they even included a graph that makes it abundantly clear.

The only other clinical study cited by Ullman in support of his surprising claim is a double-blind randomized trial which was conducted with 131 workers who suffered lead poisoning at the Ajax battery plant in Bauru, São Paulo State, Brazil. Subjects were prescribed homeopathic doses of lead (Plumbum metallicum 15C) or placebo which they took orally for 35 days. The results of this RCT show that homeopathy is not better than placebo.

So, we seem to have all of two RCTs on the subject (I did a quick Medline-search and also found no further RCTs), and both are negative.

Anyone who is not given to compulsive porky-telling would, I guess, conclude from this evidence that people suffering from lead poisoning should urgently see conventional experts and avoid homeopaths at all costs – not so Dana Ullman who boldly concludes his article with these words:

“As an adjunct to conventional medical treatment, professional homeopathic care is recommended for people who have been exposed (or think they have been exposed) to toxic substances… Even if you do not have a professional homeopath in your town, many homeopathic practitioners “see” their patients via Skype or do consultations over the telephone. Unlike acupuncturists, who put needles in you, or chiropractors, who adjust your spine, homeopaths are not “hands-on”: they simply need to conduct a detailed interview… If your symptoms are serious or potentially serious, it is important to see a professional homeopath and/or physician. While a homeopath will commonly prescribe a safe homeopathic dose of the toxic substance to which one was exposed, the homeopath may instead decide that a different substance more closely matches the patient’s unique symptoms…”

It takes a lot these days to make me speechless but there, Dana, you almost succeeded!

‘Natural News’ are not my favourite source of information. In fact, they consistently misinform the public about vaccines, alternative therapies and many other things. In other words, they have proven themselves to be vile mis-informers and a danger to public health.

Yet recently they have provided a valuable service to all of us: they have shown that the natural treatments they regularly promote for every ailment do not actually work for paranoia. Let me explain.

Natural News just announced that Google have “blacklisted the entire Natural News domain and removed over 140,000 pages from its index. The take down of Natural News happened this morning, and it follows a pattern of censorship we’re seeing being leveled against other pro-Trump websites. Google sent no warning whatsoever to our “webmaster tools” email address on file with them. The shut off of Natural News was clearly driven by a human decision, not an algorithm. We’re currently attempting to determine Google’s claimed justification for censoring our entire website, and we hope to have NaturalNews.com restored in Google’s index.”

The announcement continues:

Natural News is, of course, one of the world’s top educational and activism sources exposing the lies of dangerous medicine, toxic mercury in vaccines, the corporate-quack science behind GMOs, cancer industry fraud and so on. By providing truthful, empowering and passionate information to the public, we harm the profit model of the corrupt medical cartels that fund the media, lobby the government and influence internet gatekeepers with advertising money. (Google has already declared war on natural medicine and nutritional supplements, all but banning them from being advertised on Google Adsense.)

“The removal of Natural News from Google’s index means that millions of people may now be unnecessarily harmed by toxic medicines, herbicides and brain-damaging mercury in vaccines because they are being denied the “other side of the story” that’s censored by the corporate-controlled media. By censoring Natural News, Google is, in effect, siding with the criminal pharmaceutical industry that has been charged with multiple felony crimes and caught bribing doctors, fraudulently altering scientific studies, conducting medical experiments on children and price fixing their drugs to maximize profits.

“In effect, censorship of Natural News is part of the establishment’s war on humanity which includes depopulation measures (Bill Gates), covert infertility vaccines, corporate-run media disinfo campaigns and a full-on assault against scientific truth and free speech conducted in the public interest…

“It’s clear to me that Natural News is being targeted primarily because of our support for President Trump and his review of vaccine safety. It is now apparent that any person who engages in real science, critical thinking or any attempt to protect children from the brain damaging effects of mercury in vaccines is going to be silenced, discredited, smeared and blacklisted. This is an astonishing realization about the depths of total corruption in society today and how the medical cartels control information to maximize their profits off human suffering…”

END OF QUOTE

Regular readers of my blog might remember that Natural News have caught my eye several times before. Here are just 4 of the many more posts where they featured prominently:

Like so many in alternative medicine, Natural News seems to be driven by conspiracy theories to a point where paranoia is hard to deny. And that is precisely the service Natural News are providing us today; after so many years of disservice this must surely be celebrated! They demonstrate quite clearly that none of the treatments they are deeply involved in works for this condition. They do that by not even considering that Google banned them because they are constantly endangering the health of the public in the most vile, libellous and objectionable ways imaginable.

Hardly surprising, you will say, the therapies in question are all bogus!

Yes, of course, but it is nice to have a confirmation directly from the horse’s mouth, isn’t it?

A recent article in the Guardian revealed that about one third of Australian pharmacists are recommending alternative medicines with little-to-no evidence for their efficacy, including useless homeopathic products and potentially harmful herbal products.

For this survey of 240 Australian pharmacies, mystery shoppers were sent in to speak to a pharmacist at the prescription dispensing counter and ask for advice about feeling stressed. The results show that three per cent of the pharmacists recommended homeopathic products, despite a comprehensive review of all existing studies on homeopathy finding that there is no evidence they work in treating any condition and that ‘people who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments’. Twenty-six percent of all pharmacists recommended Bach flower remedies to relieve stress. A comprehensive review of all existing studies on Bach flower remedies found no difference between the remedies and placebos. Fifty-nine per cent of people were just told the complementary and alternative product recommended to them worked, and 24% were told the product was scientifically proven, without any evidence being provided to them.

Asked about these findings, Dr Ken Harvey, a prominent Australian expert, said they demonstrated that some pharmacists were failing in their professional duty to consumers. “Pharmacists are giving crazy advice, and it is dangerous in some cases,” he said. “My view is that pharmacists, if they are going to sell these products, need to have a big shining sign over the shelves of the complementary and alternative medicine section that says ‘these products have not been assessed by the government regulators to see if they work, please talk to pharmacist’.Pharamacists are giving poor advice and they clearly have a conflict of interest,” Harvey said.

If you had hoped that in other countries pharmacists behave more responsibly, I must disappoint you. The information available shows that, when it comes to alternative medicine, pharmacists across the globe act much more like shop-keepers than like health care professionals. They are in the habit of putting profit before their duty to abide by the rules of evidence-based practice. And, in doing do, they violate their own ethical codes so regularly that I ask myself why they bothered to even implement one.

On this blog I have written so often about this issue that one could come to the conclusion that I have a bee under my bonnet:

The truth, however, is not that I am the victim of a bee.

The truth is that this is a very important public health issue.

The truth is that pharmacists show little signs of even trying to get to grips with it.

The truth is that pharmacists who sell bogus medicines put profit before professional ethics.

The truth is that such behaviour is not that of health care professionals but that of shop-keepers.

The truth is that I intend to carry on reminding these pharmacists that they are behaving like charlatans.

The British Homeopathic Association (BHA) is a registered charity founded in 1902. Their objectives are “to promote and develop the study and practice of homeopathy and to advance education and research in the theory and practice of homeopathy…” and their priority is “to ensure that homeopathy is available to all…” The BHA believes that “homeopathy should be fully integrated into the healthcare system and available as a treatment choice for everyone…”

This does not bode well, in my view. Specifically, it does not seem as though we can expect unbiased information from the BHA. Yet, from a charity we certainly do not expect a packet of outright lies – so, let’s have a look.

The BHA have a website (thank you Greg for reminding me of this source; I have long known about it and used it often for lectures when wanting to highlight the state of homeopathic thinking) where they provide “THE EVIDENCE FOR HOMEOPATHY“. I find the data presented there truly remarkable, so much so that I present a crucial section from it below:

START OF QUOTE

The widely accepted method of proving whether or not a medical intervention works is called a randomised controlled trial (RCT). One group of patients, the control group, receive placebo (a “dummy” pill) or standard treatment, and another group of patients receive the medicine being tested. The trial becomes double-blinded when neither the patient nor the practitioner knows which treatment the patient is getting. RCTs are often referred to as the “gold standard” of clinical research.

Up to the end of 2014, a total of 104 papers reporting good-quality placebo-controlled RCTs in homeopathy (on 61 different medical conditions) have been published in peer-reviewed journals. 41% of these RCTs have reported a balance of positive evidence, 5% a balance of negative evidence, and 54% have not been conclusively positive or negative. For full details of all these RCTs and more in-depth information on the research in general, visit the research section of the Faculty of Homeopathy’s website. Also, see 2-page evidence summary with full references.

END OF QUOTE

Impressive!

But is it true?

Let’s have a closer look at the percentage figures: according to the BHA

  • 41% of all RCT are positive,
  • 5% are negative,
  • 54% are inconclusive.

These numbers are hugely important because they are being cited regularly across the globe as one of the most convincing bit of evidence to date in support of homeopathy. If they were true, many more RCT would be positive than negative. They would, in fact, constitute a strong indicator suggesting that homeopathic remedies are more than placebos.

One does not need to look far to find that these figures are clearly not correct! To disclose the ‘mistake’, we do not even need to study any of the 104 RCTs in question, we only need to straighten out the BHA’s ‘accounting error’ and ask: what on earth is an ‘inconclusive’ RCT?

A positive RCT obviously is one where homeopathy generated better outcomes than the placebo; similarly a negative RCT is one where the opposite was the case; in other words, where the placebo generated better outcomes than homeopathy. But what is an ‘inconclusive’ RCT? It turns out that, according to the BHA, it is one where there was no significant difference between the results obtained with placebo and homeopathy.

WHAT???

Yes, you understood correctly!

Outside homeopathy such RCTs are categorised as negative studies – they fail to show that homeopathy out-performs placebo and therefore confirm the null-hypothesis. An RCT is a test of the null-hypothesis (the experimental treatment is not better than the control) and can only confirm or reject this hypothesis. Certainly finding that the experimental treatment is not better than the control is not inconclusive bit a confirmation of the null-hypothesis. In other words it is a negative result.

So, let’s look at the little BHA – statistic again, and this time let’s do the accounting properly:

  • 41% of all RCTs are positive,
  • 59% are negative.

This means that, according to this very simplistic method, the majority of RCTs is negative. I say ‘very simplistic’ because, for a proper analysis of the trial evidence, we need to account, of course, for the quality of each trial. If the quality of the positive RCTs is, on average, less rigorous than that of the negative RCTs, the overall result would become yet more clearly negative. Most assessments of homeopathy that consider this essential factor do, in fact, confirm that this is the case.

Once all this has been analysed properly, we still have to account for factors like publication bias. Negative trials get often not published and therefore the overall picture gets easily distorted and generates a false-positive image. At the end of a sound evaluation along these lines, the result would fail to show that homeopathy differs from placebo.

Regardless of all these necessary and important considerations, the BHA website then tells us that the RCT method is problematic when it comes to testing homeopathy: “The RCT model of measuring efficacy of a drug poses some challenges for homeopathic research. In homeopathy, treatment is usually tailored to the individual. A homeopathic prescription is based not only on the symptoms of disease in the patient but also on a host of other factors that are particular to that patient, including lifestyle, emotional health, personality, eating habits and medical history. The “efficacy” of an individualised homeopathic intervention is thus a complex blend of the prescribed medicine together with the other facets of the in-depth consultation and integrated health advice provided by the practitioner; under these circumstances, the specific effect of the homeopathic medicine itself may be difficult to quantify with precision in RCTs.”

What are they trying to say here?

I am not sure.

Are they perhaps claiming that, even if an independent scientist disclosed their ‘accounting error’ and demonstrated that, in fact, the RCT evidence fails to support homeopathy, the BHA would still argue that homeopathy works?

I think so!

It looks to me that the BHA is engaged in the currently popular British past-time: THEY WANT THE CAKE AND EAT IT.

All this is more than a little disturbing, and I think it begs several questions:

  • Is this type of behaviour in keeping with the charitable status of the BHA?
  • Does it really ‘promote and develop the study and practice of homeopathy and to advance education and research’?
  • Is it not rather unethical to mislead the public in such a gross and dishonest fashion?
  • Is it not fraudulent to insist on false accounting?

I would be interested to get your views on this.

We use too many opioids; some experts even speak of an epidemic of opioid over-use. This is a serious problem not least because opioids are addictive and have other serious adverse-effects. But what can be done about it? Currently many experts are trying to answer this very questions.

It must be clear to any observer of the ‘alternative medicine scene’ that charlatans of all types would sooner or later try to jump on the ‘opioid band-waggon’.  And indeed exactly this has already happened!

In particular, chiropractors have been busy in this respect. For instance, Alison Dantas, CEO, Canadian Chiropractic Association (CCA) has been quoted in a press-release by the CCA stating that “Chiropractic services are an important alternative to opioid prescribing… We are committed to working collaboratively to develop referral tools and guidelines for prescribing professions that can help to prioritize non-pharmacological approaches for pain management and reduce the pressure to prescribe… We are looking to build an understanding of how to better integrate care that is already available in communities across Canada… Integrating chiropractors into interprofessional care teams has been shown to reduce the use of pharmacotherapies and improve overall health outcomes. This effort is even more important now because the new draft Canadian prescribing guidelines strongly discourage first use of opioids.”

I find it hard to call this by any other name than ‘CHIROPRACTIC MEGALOMANIA’.

Do chiropractors really believe that their spinal manipulations can serve as an ‘alternative to opioid prescribing’?

Do they not know that there is considerable doubt over the efficacy of chiropractic manipulation for back pain?

Do they not know that, for all other indications, the evidence is even worse or non-existent?

Do they really think they are in a position to ‘develop referral tools and guidelines for prescribing professions’?

Do they forget that their profession has never had prescribing rights, understands almost nothing about pharmacology, and is staunchly against drugs of all kinds?

Do they really believe there is good evidence showing that ‘integrating chiropractors into interprofessional care teams… reduce(s) the use of pharmacotherapies and improve overall health outcomes’?

Personally, I cannot imagine so.

Personally, I fear that, if they do believe all this, they suffer from megalomania.

Personally, I think, however, that their posturing is little more than yet another attempt to increase their cash-flow.

Personally, I get the impression that they rate their income too far above public health.

 

According to our friend Dana Ullman, “homeopathy has had a long tradition within Russia. Even though it was not officially recognized during the Communist regime, it was tolerated. And perhaps in part because it did not receive governmental sanction, the Russian people developed a trust in homeopathy. Due to the fact that homeopathic physicians worked outside of governmental medicine, homeopathy was a part of Russia’s “new economy”. People had to pay for homeopathic care, rather than receive it for free.

Homeopathy is still the minority practice. I was told that there are approximately one million medical doctors in Russia and its surrounding republics, with 15,000 medical doctors who use homeopathic medicines regularly, and about 3,000 medical doctors who specialize in classical homeopathy.”

But the ‘free ride’ of homeopathy seems to come to an end. We have seen this happening, for instance in the US, UK, Australia, and Germany. And now it is happening also in Russia:

It has just been reported that the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) has labelled homeopathic medicine a health hazard. The organization is now petitioning Russia’s Ministry of Health to abandon the use of homeopathic medicine in the country’s state hospitals, the RBC news outlet reported Monday.

A RAS committee warns that some patients were rejecting standard medicine for serious conditions in favour of homeopathic remedies, a move that almost inevitably puts their lives in danger. The committee also noted that, because of sloppy quality control during the manufacturing processes, some unlicensed homeopathic remedies contain toxic substances which harm patients in a direct fashion.

“The principles of homeopathy contradict known chemical, physical and biological laws and persuasive scientific trials proving its effectiveness are not available,” the committee stated in its report.

The move forms part of a growing backlash against homeopathy in Russia. Last month, students at the First Moscow State Medical University filed a petition to ban homeopathic principles from being taught in medical schools. Russia’s Federal Customs Service also introduced new rules in November 2016, forcing manufacturers to prove the effectiveness of any homeopathic products that they wish to sell.

To this, I have little to add; perhaps just this: ABOUT TIME TOO!

You probably guessed: this is the headline of a new WDDTY articleWDDTY tell us that they provide “information on complimentary therapies and alternative medicines” (I don’t want to sound snobbish, but I have my doubts about people who don’t even know how to spell their subject area). As the actual article in question (on vitamin C for cancer, a subject we have discussed on this blog before here and here) is quite short, I might as well show you its full beauty:

START OF QUOTE

High-dose vitamin C does kill cancer—but only when it’s given intravenously. It’s now just a few steps away from being approved as a safe and effective cancer treatment alongside chemotherapy and radiation.

Although researchers have tested the vitamin as a cancer therapy many times, they almost always concluded that it was ineffective—but they were guaranteeing failure by giving it orally to patients.

When it’s given intravenously, it bypasses the gut and goes directly into the bloodstream—where concentrations of the vitamin are up to 500 times higher than when it’s taken orally—and targets cancer cells, say researchers at the University of Iowa.

The therapy is now going through the approval process, and could soon be available as an alternative to chemotherapy or radiation, the two conventional cancer treatments.

It’s been proved to be effective in animal studies, and phase 1 trials have demonstrated that it’s safe and well-tolerated.

Now doctors at the university are starting to use it on patients with pancreatic cancer and lung cancer, and are measuring their progress against other patients who will continue to be given chemotherapy or radiation.

Biologist Garry Buettner, who works at the university, has worked out just why vitamin C is so effective: the vitamin breaks down quickly in the body, and generates hydrogen peroxide that kills cancer cells. “Cancer cells are much less efficient in removing hydrogen peroxide than normal cells, so cancer cells are much more prone to damage and death from a high amount of hydrogen peroxide”, he explained. “This explains how very, very high levels of vitamin C do not affect normal tissue, but can be damaging to tumour tissue.”

END OF QUOTE

According to the author, these amazing claims are based on one single source: a Medline-listed article with the following abstract:

Ascorbate (AscH) functions as a versatile reducing agent. At pharmacological doses (P-AscH; [plasma AscH] ≥≈20mM), achievable through intravenous delivery, oxidation of P-AscH can produce a high flux of H2O2 in tumors. Catalase is the major enzyme for detoxifying high concentrations of H2O2. We hypothesize that sensitivity of tumor cells to P-AscH compared to normal cells is due to their lower capacity to metabolize H2O2. Rate constants for removal of H2O2 (kcell) and catalase activities were determined for 15 tumor and 10 normal cell lines of various tissue types. A differential in the capacity of cells to remove H2O2 was revealed, with the average kcell for normal cells being twice that of tumor cells. The ED50 (50% clonogenic survival) of P-AscH correlated directly with kcell and catalase activity. Catalase activity could present a promising indicator of which tumors may respond to P-AscH.

The author of the WDDTY article is Bryan Hubbard. I did not know this man but soon learnt that he is actually the co-founder of WDDTY. He may not know how to spell ‘complementary medicine’ but he certainly has a lot of fantasy! His latest drivel on vitamin C for cancer seems to prove it. He seems to have the ability to extrapolate from the truth to a point where it becomes unrecognisable. The claims he makes in his article in question certainly are in no way supported by the evidence he provided as his source.

This could be trivial; yet sadly, it isn’t: WDDTY is read by many members of the unsuspecting public. Some of them might have cancer or know someone who has cancer. These desperate patients are likely to believe what is published in WDDTY and might be tempted to act upon it. In other words, the totally misleading articles by Hubbard put lives at risk – and that I cannot find trivial!

What doctors don’t tell you is not what WDDTY suggest; doctors don’t tell you that vitamin C reverses cancer because it is not true. In view of this and other evidence, perhaps the acronym WDDTY is not the best for this publication? Could I perhaps suggest to ‘Hubbard and Co’ another abbreviation? How about MIFUC (MisInformation From Unethical Columnists)?

[yes, I know, I was tempted to chose another noun for the ‘C’, but I resisted!]

Homeopaths have, since about 200 years, insisted that their remedies are efficacious treatments for infectious diseases. As evidence for this notion, they often produce epidemiological data showing that a group of infected patients treated homeopathically had better results than another group treated conventionally. While potentially interesting, such findings never constitute proof, because the two groups might not have been comparable and many other factors could have determined the observed outcome. In fact, these stories are prime examples for the need of rigorously controlled trials when testing the efficacy of medical treatments.

Homeopaths are invariably unable to provide more compelling evidence for their claims. Instead, they repeat, since 200 years, their assumptions over and over again. Are they not aware, I ask myself, that the repetition of a lie does not create a truth?

What their repetition of lies sometimes does create, unfortunately, is some impact on a political level. This website explains it fairly well:

The Public Health Ministry (of Thailand) is thinking of implementing alternative therapy homeopathy in all districts of Sing Buri this year, after a report that it could boost the human’s body immunity to fight dengue fever, an inspector-general at the ministry said.

Homeopathic medicines had been given to Sing Buri volunteer students from kindergarten to lower-secondary level in a 2012-13 trial and it yielded satisfactory results, said Dr Jakkriss Bhumisawasdi, director of the Inspector-General Region for Bureau of Inspection and Evaluation.

The number of dengue fever cases in Sing Buri have gone down, taking its rankings from No 67 in the country (with one death) in 2011 to No 76 in 2012. As there was a nationwide dengue fever outbreak in 2013, Sing Buri reported the country’s lowest prevalence at 44.95 per 100,000 population.

Jakkriss said “homeopathy” was safe and low-cost and had been used in various countries including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, the United States, Australia, India and Malaysia.

Pilot project

Next, the system of medicine would be implemented in Region 4 Bureau’s seven other provinces: Nakhon Nayok, Nonthaburi, Pathum Thani, Ayutthaya, Lop Buri, Sara Buri and Ang Thong. If this one district per province pilot project went well, they would consider implementing it across the country, he said.

Sing Buri Hospital paediatrician Dr Wali Suwatthika said the preparation involved dissolving Eupatorium herbal pills in drinking water. Each child would be given 3cc of this tasteless water every three months. The trial, which began in July 2012, covered 4,250 children in Muang district and only four of them developed mild dengue fever in one year, while seven out of the district’s 2,856 remaining kids who didn’t get the medicine had dengue fever, in a more severe condition.

Thailand reported 150,934 dengue fever patients last year, double the previous year’s number, and 133 deaths. As there is no vaccine for dengue fever, the Public Health Ministry used a combination of several measures, including the eradication of mosquito larva incubation grounds and a campaign for people to install mosquito nets.

END OF QUOTE

So, where is the evidence that homeopathy does anything at all for Dengue patients? The 2012-13 trial referred to above has, as far as I can see, not been published. This probably means that it was not a publishable study at all. The only study available on Medline is this one:

A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of a homeopathic combination medication for dengue fever was carried out in municipal health clinics in Honduras. Sixty patients who met the case definition of dengue (fever plus two ancillary symptoms) were randomized to receive the homeopathic medication or placebo for 1 week, along with standard conventional analgesic treatment for dengue. The results showed no difference in outcomes between the two groups, including the number of days of fever and pain as well as analgesic use and complication rates. Only three subjects had laboratory confirmed dengue. An interesting sinusoidal curve in reported pain scores was seen in the verum group that might suggest a homeopathic aggravation or a proving. The small sample size makes conclusions difficult, but the results of this study do not suggest that this combination homeopathic remedy is effective for the symptoms that are characteristic of dengue fever.

END OF QUOTE

The bottom line is simple and depressing: the totality of the best available evidence fails to show that homeopathy is efficacious for Dengue fever (or any other infectious disease). It is irresponsible to claim otherwise.

Trump says he never mocked a disabled journalist.

YET THE WHOLE WORLD SAW HIM DO IT!

UK Brexit politicians such as Boris Johnson claim they never promised £ 350 million per week of EU funds for the NHS.

BUT WE ALL SAW THE PICTURES OF THE CAMPAIGN BUS!

These are just two of the numerous, obvious and highly significant lies that we have been told in recent months. In fact, we have heard so many lies recently that some of us seem to be getting used to them. We even have a new term for the phenomenon: the ‘post-truth society’.

Personally I don’t like the word at all: it seems to reflect a tacit acceptance of lies and their legitimisation.

I find it dangerous to put up with falsehoods in that way. And I think the truth is far too valuable to abandon it without a fight. I will therefore continue to call a lie a lie!

And, by Jove, in alternative medicine, we have no shortage of them:

  • Homeopaths claiming to be able to treat any condition with their ‘high potency remedies’.
  • Chiropractors who claim that spinal manipulation improves health.
  • Healers who state that their paranormal healing affects symptoms.
  • Alternative practitioners who claim that they treat the root cause of diseases.
  • Naturopaths who pretend they can treat childhood conditions.
  • Acupuncturists who say that rebalancing yin and yang affects health.
  • Alternative practitioners who insist they can detox our bodies.
  • Politicians who claim that TCM save lives.
  • Slapping therapists who say they can cure diabetes.
  • Journalists who publish that Paleo-diet can cure inflammatory bowel diseases.
  • Entrepreneurs who promote their unproven products as diabetes cures.
  • Academics who teach homeopathy to medical students.
  • Homeopaths who claim that their remedies are effective alternatives for vaccinations.

Do I need to go on?

These are not ‘post-truths’ – these are just lies, pure and simple.

We must not be lulled into complacency or false tolerance. Lies are lies, and they are wrong and unethical. In many instances they can even kill. To ignore or accept a steady stream of lies is not a solution; on the contrary, it can easily become part of the problem.

So, let’s continue to call them by their proper name – no matter whether they originate from the dizzy heights of world politics or the low lands of quackery.

The WDDTY is not my favourite journal – far from it. The reason for my dislike is simple: far too many of its articles are utterly misleading and a danger to public health. Take this recent one entitled ‘Paleo-type diet reversing Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis’, for instance:

START OF QUOTE
Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are being reversed solely by diet—essentially a Paleo diet. The non-drug approach has been successful in 80 per cent of children who’ve been put on the special diet.

The diet—called the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD)—has been pioneered by Dr David Suskind, a gastroenterologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital. The diet excludes grains, dairy, processed foods and sugars, other than honey, and promotes natural, nutrient-rich foods, including vegetables, fruits, meats and nuts.

Children are going into complete remission after just 12 weeks on the diet, a new study has discovered. Ten children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)—an umbrella term for Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis—were put on the diet, and eight were completely symptom-free by the end of the study. Suskind started exploring a dietary approach to IBD because he became convinced that the standard medical treatment of steroids or other medication was inadequate. “For decades, medicine has said diet doesn’t matter, that it doesn’t impact disease. Now we know that diet does have an impact, a strong impact. It works, and now there’s evidence,” he said.

END OF QUOTE

“For decades, medicine has said diet doesn’t matter, that it doesn’t impact disease”.

Really?

In this case, I must have studied an entirely different subject all these years ago at university – I had been told it was medicine but perhaps…???…!!!

It took me some time to find the original paper – they cited a wrong reference (2017 instead of 2016). But eventually I located it. Here is its abstract:

GOAL:

To determine the effect of the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD) on active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

BACKGROUND:

IBD is a chronic idiopathic inflammatory intestinal disorder associated with fecal dysbiosis. Diet is a potential therapeutic option for IBD based on the hypothesis that changing the fecal dysbiosis could decrease intestinal inflammation.

STUDY:

Pediatric patients with mild to moderate IBD defined by pediatric Crohn’s disease activity index (PCDAI 10-45) or pediatric ulcerative colitis activity index (PUCAI 10-65) were enrolled into a prospective study of the SCD. Patients started SCD with follow-up evaluations at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. PCDAI/PUCAI, laboratory studies were assessed.

RESULTS:

Twelve patients, ages 10 to 17 years, were enrolled. Mean PCDAI decreased from 28.1±8.8 to 4.6±10.3 at 12 weeks. Mean PUCAI decreased from 28.3±23.1 to 6.7±11.6 at 12 weeks. Dietary therapy was ineffective for 2 patients while 2 individuals were unable to maintain the diet. Mean C-reactive protein decreased from 24.1±22.3 to 7.1±0.4 mg/L at 12 weeks in Seattle Cohort (nL<8.0 mg/L) and decreased from 20.7±10.9 to 4.8±4.5 mg/L at 12 weeks in Atlanta Cohort (nL<4.9 mg/L). Stool microbiome analysis showed a distinctive dysbiosis for each individual in most prediet microbiomes with significant changes in microbial composition after dietary change.

CONCLUSIONS:

SCD therapy in IBD is associated with clinical and laboratory improvements as well as concomitant changes in the fecal microbiome. Further prospective studies are required to fully assess the safety and efficacy of dietary therapy in patients with IBD.

What does this mean?

The WDDTY report bears very little resemblance to the journal article (let alone with the title of their article or any other published research by David Suskind).

How come?

I cannot be sure, but I would not be surprised to hear that the latter was ‘egged up’ to make the former appear more interesting.

If that is so, WDDTY are (once again) guilty of misleading the public to the point of endangering lives of vulnerable patients.

SHAME ON EVERY OUTLET THAT SELLS WDDTY, I’d say.

1 2 3 9
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