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
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.
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.”
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 article. WDDTY 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.
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”.
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:
To determine the effect of the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD) on active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Can intercessory prayer improve the symptoms of sick people?
Why should it? It’s utterly implausible!
Because the clinical evidence says so?
No, the current Cochrane review concluded that [the] findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care.
Yet, not all seem to agree with this; and some even continue to investigate prayer as a medical therpy.
For this new study (published in EBCAM), the Iranian investigators randomly assigned 92 patients in 2 groups to receive either 40 mg of propranolol twice a day for 2 month (group “A”) or 40 mg of propranolol twice a day for 2 months with prayer (group “B”). At the beginning of study and 3 months after intervention, patients’ pain was measured using the visual analogue scale.
All patients who participate in present study were Muslim. At the beginning of study and before intervention, the mean score of pain in patients in groups A and B were 5.7 ± 1.6 and 6.5 ± 1.9, respectively. According to results of independent t test, mean score of pain intensity at the beginning of study were similar between patients in 2 groups (P > .05). Three month after intervention, mean score of pain intensity decreased in patients in both groups. At this time, the mean scores of pain intensity were 5.4 ± 1.1 and 4.2 ± 2.3 in patients in groups A and B, respectively. This difference between groups was statistically significant (P < .001).
The above figure shows the pain score in patients before and after the intervention.
The authors concluded that the present study revealed that prayer can be used as a nonpharmacologic pain coping strategy in addition to pharmacologic intervention for this group of patients.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This study is, in fact, extraordinary – but only in the sense of being extraordinarily poor, or at least it is extraordinary in its quality of reporting. For instance, all we learn in the full text article about the two treatments applied to the patient groups is this: “The prayer group participated in an 8-week, weekly, intercessory prayer program with each session lasting 45 minutes. Pain reduction was measured at baseline and after 3 months, by registered nurses who were specialist in pain management and did not know which patients were in which groups (control or intervention), using a visual analogue scale.”
Intercessory prayer is the act of praying on behalf of others. This mans that the patients receiving prayer might have been unaware of being ‘treated’. In this case, the patients could have been adequately blinded. But this is not made clear in the article.
More importantly perhaps, the authors fail to provide any numeric results. All that we are given is the above figure. It is not possible therefore to run any type of check on the data. We are simply asked to believe what the authors have written. I for one have great difficulties in doing so. All I do believe in relation to this article is that
- the journal EBCAM is utter trash,
- constantly publishing rubbish is unethical and a disservice to everyone,
- prayer does not need further research of this nature,
- and poor studies often generate false-positive findings.
Yes, the festive season is upon us and therefore it is high time to discuss detox (yet again). As many of us are filling their fridges to the brim, most of us prepare for some serious over-indulgence. Following alt med logic, this must prompt some counter-measures, called detox.
The range of treatments advocated by detox-fans is weird and wide (see also below):
- various alternative diets,
- herbal, vitamins, minerals and other ‘natural’ supplements,
- various forms of chelation therapy,
- electromagnetic devices,
- colonic irrigation and enemas,
- various forms of skin bruising,
- sauna and other means of inducing extensive sweating,
- ear candles,
- etc., etc.
I suppose it was to be expected that detox often goes with other crazy beliefs. This website, for instance, shows that it is even associated with anti-vaxx:
START OF QUOTE
Whether you believe vaccines to be harmful or not, one has to admit that all the ingredients added to vaccines cannot be good for anyone, especially children.
As David Wolfe has discussed, vaccines contain the following: sucrose, fructose, dextrose, potassium phosphate, aluminum potassium sulfate, peptone, bovine extract, formaldehyde, FD&C Yellow #6, aluminum lake dye, fetal bovine serum, sodium bicarbonate, monosodium glutamate, aluminum hydroxide, benzethonium chloride, lactose thimerosal, ammonium sulfate, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, bovine extract), calf serum, aluminum phosphate, aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, and ethanol.
That is a long scary list and many of these things will not leave the body naturally. Thus, a gentle detox is necessary.
Living Traditionally suggests a detoxification bath with both Zendocrine and epsom salt. Zendocrine is an essential oil mixture made up of tangerine, rosemary, geranium, juniper berry, and cilantro. Rosemary, juniper berry, and cilantro are good choices for detoxification and tangerine and geranium are purifiers.
Silica is also good for a heavy metal detox. Natural News states, “Aluminum (Al) is passed out through the urine when one supplements silica. It seems there’s little danger of taking too much, as long as adequate water is consumed and vitamin B1 and potassium levels are maintained.”
One of the best ways to get silica in your system is with the horsetail herb, rye, barley, oats, wheat, and alfalfa sprouts nuts.
Chlorella is one of the best detoxifying substances available. According to Dr. Mercola, “Chlorella is uniquely designed to not bind to the minerals your body naturally needs to function optimally. It does not bind to beneficial minerals like calcium, magnesium, or zinc. It’s almost as if chlorella knows which metals belong in your body and which chemicals need to be removed. Supplementing with chlorella is like unleashing a tiny army inside your body to fight the battle of removing toxins from your tissues and ushering them back outside your body where they belong.”
You can take it in supplement form or add a powdered version to your smoothie.
Probiotics are what is needed to put good bacteria system to rights when it has been thrown off by toxins. “They can provide assistance by decreasing the number of bad bacteria while helping to restore balance between good and bad bacteria in the gut and to keep your body functioning properly.” (LiveStrong)
Some probiotic foods include: organic yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, kombucha, and fermented vegetables.
Omega 3 oils are especially good for cell repair and keeping your brain healthy. This is because of their high fat content is similar to the fats that are naturally part of cell and brain systems. (Daily Mail)
A teaspoon daily should be enough or you could take a supplement.
According to Natural Society, cilantro is a very gentle detoxification tool. It is also effective for removing heavy metals from the brain.
For 2-3 weeks, add a teaspoon of cilantro to your food, smoothie, or just eat it up. You can also substitute with 6-7 drops of cilantro essential oil by adding it to your bath.
END OF QUOTE
Don’t you just adore the sources quoted by the author as evidence for his/her statements?
As I said, the therapies recommended for detox are diverse. Yet, they have one important feature in co<span style=”color: #668a1d;”>mmon: they are not based on anything remotely resembling good evidence. As I stressed in my article of 2012:
The common characteristics of all of these approaches are that they are unproved. Even experts who are sympathetic to alternative medicine and AD admit: ‘while there are hundreds of randomized controlled trials on drug and alcohol detox, there are no such trials of detox programs focusing on environmental toxins … at present, “detox” is certainly more of a sales pitch than a science’. The ‘studies’ of AD that have been published are of such poor methodological quality that no conclusions can be drawn from them.
While there is a total absence of sound evidence for benefit, some of these treatments have been associated with risks which depend on the nature of the treatment and can be particularly serious with diets (malnutrition), supplements (hepatoxicity), chelation (electrolyte depletion) and colonic irrigation (perforation of the colon).
Yet detox is big business’. A recent survey, for instance, suggested that 92% of US naturopaths use some form of detox. To lay people, its principles seem to make sense and, in many of us, the desire to ‘purify’ ourselves is deep rooted. Thus detox-entrepreneurs (including Prince Charles who, several years ago, launched a ‘Detox-Tincture’ via his firm Duchy Originals) are able to exploit a gullible public.
Proponents of detox are keen to point out that ‘a modern science of ‘detoxicology’ seems to be emerging’. If there is such a thing, it should address the following, fundamental questions:
- What are the toxins and toxicants?
- What evidence exists that they damage our health?
- How do we quantify them?
- How do we diagnose that a patient requires detox?
- Which treatments are effective in eliminating which toxins?
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to answer any of these questions. Until this situation changes, I do not think a ‘science of detox’ exists at all.
Yesterday I received an electronic Christmas card from two homeopathic institutions called ‘Homeopathic Associates and The Homeopathic College’. It read: WISHING YOU THE BEST OF HEALTH AND HAPPINESS FOR THE NEW YEAR!
Naturally I was puzzled, particularly since I had no recollection of ever having been in contact with them. The card was signed by Manfred Mueller, MA, DHM, RSHom(NA), CCH, and I decided to find out more about this man. It turns out that Manfred Mueller developed The Mueller Method or “Extra-Strength Homeopathy” to meet today’s complex chronic conditions, drug induced disorders, vaccine injuries, toxic overload, radiation-induced health problems, cancers, etc.
Now, this sounds interesting, I thought, and read on. Just a few clicks further, Mueller offers his wisdom on homeopathic cancer treatments in a lengthy article entitled ‘Is Homeopathy an Effective Cancer Treatment?‘
According to Mueller, the answer to his question is a clear yes. I will spare you the torture of reading the entire paper (if you have masochistic tendencies, you can read it via the link I provided above); instead, I will just copy Mueller’s conclusion:
START OF QUAOTE
Laboratory studies in vitro and in vivo show that homeopathic drugs, in addition to having the capacity to reduce the size of tumors and to induce apoptosis, can induce protective and restorative effects. Additionally homeopathic treatment has shown effects when used as a complementary therapy for the effects of conventional cancer treatment. This confirms observations from our own clinical experience as well as that of others that when suitable remedies are selected according to individual indications as well as according to pathology and to cell-line indications and administered in the appropriate doses according to the standard principles of homeopathic posology, homeopathic treatment of cancer can be a highly effective therapy for all kinds of cancers and leukemia as well as for the harmful side effects of conventional treatment. More research is needed to corroborate these clinical observations.
Homeopathy over almost two decades of its existence has developed more than four hundred remedies for cancer treatment. Only a small fraction have been subjected to scientific study so far. More homeopathic remedies need to be studied to establish if they have any significant action in cancer. Undoubtedly the next big step in homeopathic cancer research must be multiple comprehensive double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. To assess the effect of homeopathic treatment in clinical settings, volunteer adult patients who prefer to try homeopathic treatment instead of conventional therapy could be recruited, especially in cases for which no conventional therapy has been shown to be effective.
Many of the researchers conducting studies — cited here but not discussed — on the growing interest in homeopathic cancer treatment have observed that patients are driving the demand for access to homeopathic and other alternative modes of cancer treatment. So long as existing cancer treatment is fraught with danger and low efficacy, it is urgent that the research on and the provision of quality homeopathic cancer treatment be made available for those who wish to try it.
END OF QUOTE
Amazing! What could be more wrong than this?
But it’s the season of joy and love; so, let’s not go into the embarrassing details of this article. Instead, I feel like returning the curtesy of Mr Mueller’s Christmas card. Therefore, I have decided to post this open ‘Christmas card’ to him:
Dear Mr Mueller,
thank you for your card, the good wishes, and the links you provided to your websites, articles, etc. I only read the one on cancer but was impressed. It is remarkably misguided, unethical and dangerous. Crucially, it has the potential to shorten the lives of many desperate patients. I therefore urge you to desist making your opinions public or from applying them in your clinical practice. I say this not merely because I am concerned about the patients that have the misfortune to fall into your hands, but also to prevent you from getting into trouble for immoral, unethical or unlawful behaviour.
In this spirit, I wish you happiness for the New Year.