MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

medical ethics

1 2 3 32

This is the question asked by the American Chiropractic Association. And this is their answer [the numbers in square brackets were inserted by me and refer to my comments below]:

Chiropractic is widely recognized [1] as one of the safest drug-free, non-invasive therapies available for the treatment of neuromusculoskeletal complaints [2]. Although chiropractic has an excellent safety record [3], no health treatment is completely free of potential adverse effects. The risks associated with chiropractic, however, are very small [4]. Many patients feel immediate relief following chiropractic treatment [5], but some may experience mild soreness, stiffness or aching, just as they do after some forms of exercise [6]. Current research shows that minor discomfort or soreness following spinal manipulation typically fades within 24 hours [7]…

Some reports have associated high-velocity upper neck manipulation with a certain rare kind of stroke, or vertebral artery dissection [8]. However, evidence suggests that this type of arterial injury often takes place spontaneously in patients who have pre-existing arterial disease [9]. These dissections have been associated with everyday activities such as turning the head while driving, swimming, or having a shampoo in a hair salon [10]. Patients with this condition may experience neck pain and headache that leads them to seek professional care—often at the office of a doctor of chiropractic or family physician—but that care is not the cause of the injury. The best evidence indicates that the incidence of artery injuries associated with high-velocity upper neck manipulation is extremely rare—about one to three cases in 100,000 patients who get treated with a course of care [11]. This is similar to the incidence of this type of stroke among the general population [12]…

When discussing the risks of any health care procedure, it is important to look at that risk in comparison to other treatments available for the same condition [13]. In this regard, the risks of serious complications from spinal manipulation for conditions such as neck pain and headache compare very favorably with even the most conservative care options. For example, the risks associated with some of the most common treatments for musculoskeletal pain—over-the-counter or prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) and prescription painkillers—are significantly greater than those of chiropractic manipulation [14]…

Doctors of chiropractic are well trained professionals who provide patients with safe, effective care for a variety of common conditions. Their extensive education has prepared them to identify patients who have special risk factors [15] and to get those patients the most appropriate care, even if that requires referral to a medical specialist [16].

END OF QUOTE

  1. Appeal to tradition = fallacy
  2. and every other condition that brings in cash.
  3. Not true.
  4. Probably not true.
  5. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence.
  6. Not true, the adverse effects of spinal manipulation are different and more severe.
  7. Not true, they last 1-3 days.
  8. Not just ‘some reports’ but a few hundred.
  9. Which does not mean that spinal manipulation cannot provoke such events.
  10. True, but this does not mean that spinal manipulation cannot provoke such events.
  11. There are other estimates that gives much higher figures; without a proper monitoring system, nobody can provide an accurate incidence figure.
  12. Not true, see above.
  13. ‘Available’ is meaningless – ‘effective’ is what we need here.
  14. The difference between different treatments is not merely their safety but also their effectiveness; in the end it is the risk/benefit balance that determines their value.
  15. Not true, there are no good predictors to identify at-risk populations.
  16. Chiropractors are notoriously bad at referring to other healthcare professionals; they have a huge conflict of interest in keeping up their cash-flow.

So, is chiropractic a safe treatment?

My advice here is not to ask chiropractors but independent experts.

 

Words like these are sure to persuade me that this chiropractic conference announcement is an invitation to abandon reason and dive into pure, unappetising BS. Reading the full text confirms my suspicion; here are a few quotes:

… Chiropractic practitioners are blazing new trails in pediatrics, neurology, neuroplasticity, and multisensory integration, pushing the understanding and possibilities of greater health potential for [autistic] children. This first-ever chiropractic pediatric CE program, with an emphasis on autism, will open the door to more chiropractors serving this precious group of children, taking the daunting fear out of this neurodevelopmental disorder and replacing it with optimism and hope.

AutismOne Online Media Director Candyce Estave said: “As a chiropractor, you’ve already displayed the courage to pursue a better way for your practice and your patients. You’ve shown your patients how supporting the healthy terrain and flow of the body underlies maintaining good health. But what about what’s called ‘autism’? How do you help the multitude of children and families who would love to seek your services for that? You can learn how at the AutismOne 2018 Conference!”

Chiropractic emphasizes the inherent recuperative power of the body to heal itself when it is free of nervous system interference and given the right conditions. Led by Steve Tullius, DC, the Chiropractic Pediatric Continuing Education Credit Program will bring together the best information from the chiropractic and other healing communities to prepare the practicing chiropractor with up-to-the-minute information, confidence, and resources to help children with autism get better. The CE program is co-sponsored by Sherman College of Chiropractic.

Dr. Jeanne Ohm, chiropractor since 1981 and director of the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association since 2002 says, “This year’s AutismOne Conference will offer essential fundamentals in caring for children with these special needs. I encourage all chiropractors to expand their practices and offer their vital services to this growing population in such dire need.”

END OF QUOTES

Blazing new trails in pediatrics, neurology, neuroplasticity, and multisensory integration?

Vital services?

Are they claiming that freeing autistic children from ‘nervous system interference’ (with spinal ‘adjustments’ no doubt) cures autism?

Surely not!

This assumption would put chiropractic firmly into the category of anti-scientific quackery. Seen from this perspective, the little footnote to the announcement is rather hilarious:

“Professionals from other scientific disciplines are also welcome to attend.”

Weleda, a leading manufacturer of homeopathic preparations, is, according to their own judgement, a ‘unique organisation – economically thriving, kind at heart and committed to the well-being of our planet, our environment and our people. We’ve grown into that role through the adoption of seven basic principles which are unchanging, binding for everyone who works with us, and which clearly underpin the way we work.’

The first of these 7 principles is the ‘Fair treatment of customers, partners and suppliers‘. Fair treatment and being ‘kind at heart’ would include telling the truth, wouldn’t it? But reading what Weleda state about homeopathy, one might wonder!

The Weleda article entitled ‘An introduction to Homeopathy’ contains many statements worthy of some critical analysis, I think. Here is a selection of 10 just quotes:

  1. … a [homeopathic] remedy [is] made from a natural substance… in a tiny dose which has been ‘potentised’ to be effective.
  2. Many people choose this approach for every-day family ailments, with a homeopathic ‘first aid kit’…
  3. … allopathic medicine works against the disease and its symptoms using “anti” drugs…
  4. Homeopathy works by stimulating the body’s own natural healing capacity.
  5. If you do experience complex, persistent or worrying symptoms then please seek the advice of a doctor who specialises in homeopathy.
  6. Today there are four homeopathic hospitals offering treatment under the National Health Service – in London, Glasgow, Liverpool and Bristol.
  7. Homeopathy can be used to treat the same wide range of illness as conventional medicine, and may even prove successful when all other forms of treatment have failed.
  8. … the fact that the remedies are widely used on animals dismisses the idea that the success of a treatment is all in the mind.
  9. Occasionally, symptoms become worse on first taking a homeopathic medicine. This is called an ‘aggravation’, and is a good sign that the remedy is working.
  10. … some homeopathic remedies will successfully treat many people with the same symptoms. For example, arnica is usually used for muscular bruising …

And here are my thoughts on these 10 statements:

  1. I had always thought that homeopathics can be made from any substance (including Berlin Wall) and not just natural ones. Moreover, the dose is often not ‘tiny’ but non-existent. Finally, the assumption that ‘potentisation’ renders remedies ‘effective’ is pure wishful thinking.
  2. A homeopathic ‘first aid kit’ is a contradiction in terms. If someone needs first aid, she surely must avoid homeopathy.
  3. The term ‘allopathy’ is a derogatory term created by Hahnemann to defame the heroic medicine of his time. The notion of ‘anti-drugs’ is popular in homeopathy, but evidently, it is pure nonsense.
  4. This notion is wishful thinking by homeopaths at its best; there is not a jot of evidence that it is true.
  5. If you do experience complex, persistent or worrying symptoms then please seek the advice of a doctor who practices evidence-based medicine but NOT homeopathy.
  6. This statement is untrue; a footnote to the article states ‘Copyright 2017 Weleda UK’, it is thus odd to see that Weleda is so ill-informed.
  7. The claim that homeopathy is a panacea is dangerous nonsense.
  8. This notion is endlessly being promoted by homeopaths. Sadly the repetition of a falsehood does not create a truth (see for instance here).
  9. ‘Homeopathic aggravations’ are a myth.
  10. Yes, homeopathic arnica is used for muscular bruising – but it not effective for that or any other indication.

It is only fair, I think, that I declare my conflicts of interest in relation to Weleda.

While at Exeter, I ran during 14 years an annual conference for researchers in alternative medicine. One year, I accepted a modest sponsorship from Weleda for this meeting [I forgot how much and which year precisely this was, possibly around 1999 and probably around £ 3 000].

More importantly, Weleda was one of the companies that financed the German journalist Claus Fritzsche who then spent much time and effort to attack and defame me. This story that ended tragically with Fritzsche’s suicide.

Needless to say that I regret both events.

Arguably, I therefore have two opposing conflicts of interest, one pro and one contra Weleda. This is why I tried to focus my comments purely on demonstrable facts. They show, I think, that Weleda’s claims about homeopathy should be take with more than a little pinch of salt – or perhaps even with a dose of NaCl, C200?

I have often remarked on the fact that, in alternative medicine, more surveys get published than in any other medical field. Typically these surveys are not just useless but overtly counter-productive:

  • they tend to be of very poor quality;
  • their results are not generalizable and thus meaningless;
  • they show that a sizable proportion of the population uses alternative therapies, pay out of their own pocket for them, and are satisfied with them;
  • the authors then state that it must be unfair that only the affluent can benefit from alternative medicine;
  • eventually, the conclusion is reached that alternative medicine should be paid for by the healthcare system and be free for all at the point of usage.

Therefore, I find that it is a waste of time to even read surveys of alternative medicine usage. But every now and then, one does come along that is worth discussing – like this one, for instance.

The survey evaluated dietary supplements (DS) usage by US adults aged ≥60 y to characterize the use of DSs, determine the motivations for use, and examine the associations between the use of DSs and selected demographic, lifestyle, and health characteristics. Data from 3469 older adults aged ≥60 y from the 2011-2014 NHANES were analyzed. DSs used in the past 30 d were ascertained via an interviewer-administered questionnaire in participants’ homes. The prevalence of overall DS use and specific types of DSs were estimated. The number of DSs reported and the frequency, duration, and motivation(s) for use were assessed. Logistic regression models were constructed to examine the association between DS use and selected characteristics.

Seventy percent of older adults reported using ≥1 DS in the past 30 d; 54% of users took 1 or 2 products, and 29% reported taking ≥4 products. The most frequently reported products were multivitamin or mineral (MVM) (39%), vitamin D only (26%), and omega-3 fatty acids (22%). Women used DSs almost twice as often as men. Those not reporting prescription medications were less likely to take a DS than those reporting ≥3 prescription medications. The most frequently reported motivation for DS use was to improve overall health (41%).

The authors concluded that the use of DSs among older adults continues to be high in the United States, with 29% of users regularly taking ≥4 DSs, and there is a high concurrent usage of them with prescription medications.

I find these data impressive – but not in a positive sense, I hasten to add.

The level of DS use in the US is staggering. Considering that 90% (my estimate) of the supplements are completely useless, the amount of money that is being wasted is huge. Even more concerning is the frequency of drug interactions that are being provoked by DS-intake.

And what’s the solution?

Obviously, it is better information for consumers (which is easier said than done – but I am trying my best!).

It has been announced that Susan and Henry Samueli have given US$ 200 million to medical research at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). Surely this is a generous and most laudable gift! How could anyone doubt it?

As with any gift, one ought to ask what precisely it is for. If someone made a donation to research aimed at showing that climate change is a hoax, that white supremacy is justified, or that Brexit is going to give Brits their country back, I doubt that it would be a commendable thing. My point is that research must always be aimed at finding the truth and discovering facts. Research that is guided by creed, belief or misinformation is bound to be counter-productive, and a donation to such activities is likely to be detrimental.

Back to the Samuelis! The story goes that Susan once had a cold, took a homeopathic remedy, and subsequently the cold went away. Ever since, the two Samuelis have been supporters not just of homeopathy but all sorts of other alternative therapies. I have previously called this strikingly common phenomenon an ‘epiphany‘. And the Samuelis’ latest gift is clearly aimed at promoting alternative medicine in the US. We only need to look at what their other major donation in this area has achieved, and we can guess what is now going to happen at UCI. David Gorski has eloquently written about the UCI donation, and I will therefore not repeat the whole, sad story.

Instead I want to briefly comment on what, in my view, should happen, if a wealthy benefactor donates a large sum of money to medical research. How can one maximise the effects of such a donation? Which areas of research should one consider? I think the concept of prior probability can be put to good use in such a situation. If I were the donor, I would convene a panel of recognised experts and let them advise me where there are the greatest chances of generating important breakthroughs. If one followed this path, alternative medicine would not appear anywhere near the top preferences, I dare to predict.

But often, like in the case of the Samuelis, the donors have concrete ideas about the area of research they want to invest in. So, what could be done with a large sum in the field of alternative medicine? I believe that plenty of good could come it. All one needs to do is to make absolutely sure that a few safeguards are in place:

  • believers in alternative medicine must be kept out of any decisions processes;
  • people with a solid background in science and a track-record in critical thinking must be put in charge;
  • the influence of the donor on the direction of the research must be minimised as much as possible;
  • a research agenda must be defined that is meaningful and productive (this could include research into the risks of alternative therapies, the ethical standards in alternative medicine, the fallacious thinking of promoters of alternative medicine, the educational deficits of alternative practitioners, the wide-spread misinformation of the public about alternative medicine, etc., etc.)

Under all circumstances, one needs to avoid that the many pseudo-scientists who populate the field of alternative or integrative medicine get appointed. This, I fear, will not be an easy task. They will say that one needs experts who know all about the subtleties of acupuncture, homeopathy, energy-healing etc. But such notions are merely smoke-screens aimed at getting the believers into key positions. My advice is to vet all candidates using my concept of the ‘trustworthiness index’.

How can I be so sure? Because I have been there, and I have seen it all. I have researched this area for 25 years and published more about it than any of the untrustworthy believers. During this time I trained about 90 co-workers, and I have witnessed one thing over and over again: someone who starts out as a believer, will hardly ever become a decent scientist and therefore never produce any worthwhile research; but a good scientist will always be able to acquire the necessary knowledge in this or that alternative therapy to conduct rigorous and meaningful research.

So, how should the UCI spend the $ 200 million? Apparently the bulk of the money will be to appoint 15 faculty chairs across medicine, nursing, pharmacy and population health disciplines. They envisage that these posts will go to people with expertise in integrative medicine. This sounds extremely ominous to me. If this project is to be successful, these posts should go to scientists who are sceptical about alternative medicine and their main remit should be to rigorously test hypotheses. Remember: testing a hypothesis means trying everything to show that it is wrong. Only when all attempts to do so have failed can one assume that perhaps the hypothesis was correct.

My experience tells me that experts in integrative medicine are quite simply intellectually and emotionally incapable of making serious attempts showing that their beliefs are wrong. If the UCI does, in fact, appoint people with expertise in integrative medicine, it is, I fear, unavoidable that we will see:

  • research that fails to address relevant questions;
  • research that is of low quality;
  • promotion masquerading as research;
  • more and more misleading findings of the type we regularly discuss on this blog;
  • a further boost of the fallacious concept of integrative medicine;
  • a watering down of evidence-based medicine;
  • irreversible damage to the reputation of the UCI.

In a nutshell, instead of making progress, we will take decisive steps back towards the dark ages.

The TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION (THE) reported yesterday that the British School of Osteopathy (BSO) has won university college title, meaning that it could be on the road towards full university status. University college title, awarded by the Privy Council on the advice of the Department for Education (DfE) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is usually seen as a step towards full university status. The London-based BSO already secured degree-awarding powers and access to Hefce public teaching and research funding in 2015. The BSO will be known, from September, as the University College of Osteopathy.

The THE quoted me saying “Osteopathy is based on implausible assumptions, and there is no good evidence for its effectiveness. Yet osteopaths regularly make all sorts of therapeutic claims. These facts make the BSO not a candidate for becoming a university; on the contrary, such a move would significantly downgrade the credibility of UK universities and make a mockery of academia and evidence-based healthcare.”

Charles Hunt, the BSO principal, responded: “We recognise that for some of the things that some osteopaths are doing, there is very limited evidence [to demonstrate their effectiveness], and we need to gain more for that. But within medicine, there’s a lot of things that also do not have evidence for them, but some medical practitioners are doing [them anyway].”

What???

The BSO principal should offer a course on logical fallacies and enlist as the first student in it, I thought when reading his response.

Anyway, having stated that “osteopaths regularly make all sorts of therapeutic claims”, I better provide some evidence. Perhaps another occasion for a slide-show?

Here are a few images I found on Twitter that are relevant in this context.

[please click to see them full size]

Guest post by Richard Rawlins MB BS MBA FRCS

Doctors who are registered medical practitioners (RMPs) must comply with the standards of practice set down by the General Medical Council. ‘Homeopathy’ is a specific system of medical care, devised by Dr Samuel Hahnemann in the nineteenth century, and comprises two distinct dimensions: (i) the establishment of a constructive therapeutic relationship between an empathic homeopath and a patient. This may provide benefit due to the non-specific effects of condolence, counselling, and care – and should be a component of the practice of all doctors in any event; (ii) the homeopathically prepared (HP) remedies that are generally prescribed. To avoid confusion, these two dimensions should not be conflated.

HP remedies may be obtained over the counter, prescribed by lay homeopaths and even given out by dentists and nurses on the grounds that “30C homeopathic arnica helps bruising”. The US Federal Trades Commission has stated that “The Commission will carefully scrutinize the net impression of OTC homeopathic advertising or other marketing employing disclosures to ensure that it adequately conveys the extremely limited nature of the health claim being asserted…accordingly, unqualified disease claims made for homeopathic drugs must be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence.” (FTC Policy statement 2017).

Special focus should be brought to bear on the ethical, intellectual and professional obligations of those doctors registered as medical practitioners by the GMC and practicing homeopathy in the UK. Some homeopaths may intend taking advantage of gullible and vulnerable patients. Here I take it that those practitioners who prescribe homeopathic remedies sincerely do believe they have worthwhile effects, but I contend such practice generally fails to comply with ethical and professional standards as set down by the GMC. That is to be deprecated.

Systems to regulate medical practice in the British Isles have been devised since the middle ages. In 1518, Thomas Linacre founded the College of Physicians – based on systems he had seen in Europe. From 1704, the Society of Apothecaries licensed its members to prescribe and dispense medicines, and developed the profession of general practice. In order to protect the public from charlatans, quacks and fraudsters more effectively, the Medical Act of 1858 established formal statutory regulation of doctors by the General Medical Council. Registrants who are not deemed fit to practice may be struck off the register. They can still practice, but not as registered medical practitioners. They can still use the title ‘doctor’ (as can anyone), but not for fraudulent purposes.

Dr Samuel Hahnemann qualified in Saxony in 1781 and was a good doctor, but he became disillusioned with many of the practices and practitioners of his day. He wrote about his fellow doctors: “Precious and fragile human life, so easily destroyed, was frequently placed in jeopardy at the hands of these perverted people, especially since bleedings, emetics, purges, blistering plaster, fontanels, setons, caustics and cauterisations were used.” In 1796 he wrote to a friend, “I renounced the practice of medicine that I might no longer incur the risk of doing injury, and I engaged in chemistry exclusively and in literary occupations.”

Hahnemann went on to develop his own alternative system of health care, which he styled ‘Homoeopathy’. Published as the Organon of the Healing Arts in 1810, Hahnemann set out an idiosyncratic medical system based on identifying ‘remedies’ which in large doses, could produce symptoms comparable to those suffered by the patient. The remedies he prescribed were prepared with serial dilutions so that no active principle remained. Today’s homeopaths hold that a remedy’s ‘vital force’, ‘healing energy’ or ‘memory’ provides therapeutic benefit. That may be the case, but the consensus of informed scientific and medical opinion is that any effects of ‘homeopathy’ are as a result of contextual placebo effects. The remedies themselves cannot and do not have any effect. England’s Chief Medical Officer has described homeopathy’s principles as ‘rubbish’. The government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Mark Walport has said he would tell ministers, “My view, scientifically, is absolutely clear: homeopathy is nonsense. The most it can have is a placebo effect.” Simon Stevens, CEO of the NHS, when interviewed on Radio 4 said he agrees with Sir Mark – yet failed to explain why he had not included homeopathic remedies in the 2017 list of NHS proscribed medicines. That stance is being reviewed.

The GMC states, “Patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and health. To justify that trust you must show respect for human life and make sure your practice meets the standards expected.” Those standards are set down in the GMC’s Good Medical Practice which advises, “Serious or persistent failure to follow this guidance will put your registration at risk.” The GMC standards are coherent with those of the American Medical Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics (2016).

In précis, the most relevant and important GMC standards are:

  • Make the care of your patient your first concern.
  • Give patients the information they want or need in a way they can understand.
  • Be honest and open and act with integrity.
  • Never abuse your patients’ trust in you or the public’s trust in the profession.
  • You are personally accountable for your professional practice and must always be prepared to justify your decisions and actions.
  • You must  prescribe drugs or treatment only when you are satisfied that the drugs or treatment serve the patient’s needs.                                                                                                                                             
  • You must provide effective treatments based on the best available evidence.
  • You must be satisfied that you have consent or other valid authority before you carry out any examination, investigation or provide treatment.
  • You must make good use of the resources available to you.

I contend that medical practitioners who prescribe homeopathic remedies regularly fail to meet these standards. They know perfectly well that the best available evidence indicates no support for the assertion that homeopathic remedies ‘serve the patient’s needs’, except as placebos; that the treatments have no specific effects; that the remedies are placebos; and that resources are wasted by expenditure on these ineffective remedies. Medical homeopaths invariably do not give patients this information; they fail to obtain properly informed consent; they do not justify their decisions and actions rationally; and they may be obtaining financial advantage by misrepresentation to insurance companies or the NHS. This is an abuse of the public’s trust in the medical profession.

The issue of informed consent is particularly important. GMC guidance states that, “The doctor uses specialist knowledge and experience and clinical judgement, and the patient’s views and understanding of their condition, to identify which investigations or treatments are likely to result in overall benefit for the patient. The doctor explains the options to the patient, setting out the potential benefits, risks, burdens and side effects of each option, including the option to have no treatment. The doctor may recommend a particular option which they believe to be best for the patient, but they must not put pressure on the patient to accept their advice. …Before accepting a patient’s consent, you must consider whether they have been given the information they want or need, and how well they understand the details and implications of what is proposed. This is more important than how their consent is expressed or recorded.”

The GMC states that, “in order to have effective discussions with patients about risk, you must identify the adverse outcomes that may result from the proposed options… risks can take a number of forms, but will usually be: side effects; complications; failure of an intervention to achieve the desired aim.” The risk of wasting money on ineffective remedies, whether NHS or private, and of delaying treatment known to be effective should also be discussed.

Homeopaths acknowledge that after ministration of remedies, some patients experience ‘aggravations’ – a worsening of symptoms, but they advise this is evidence that the remedy is ‘working’. Medical consensus is more likely to suggest ‘aggravations’ are evidence of an underlying psychological component to the patient’s condition. Suggestions that remedies themselves have any effect, good or bad, is misrepresentation and may be fraud. Offering patients sugar pills with a claim the pills have therapeutic effects means lying to them, and is an abuse of trust.

Homeopaths’ system of diagnosis and prescription of remedies requires them to have beliefs for which there is no plausible evidence base. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘belief’ as “assent to a proposition, statement or fact, especially on the grounds of testimony or authority, or in the absence of proof or conclusive evidence.” It might be acceptable to practice ‘homeopathy’ as a counselling modality, providing the practitioner complies with the GMC standard that, “You must not express your personal beliefs to patients in ways that exploit their vulnerability or are likely to cause them distress.”

Homeopaths are invariably non-compliant in obtaining fully informed consent. Such a failing is an abuse of patients’ trust in the medical profession. Doctors might be determined to be unfit to practice unless they clearly justify their prescriptions, and identify the evidence that supports them. All these issues should also be explored during the doctor’s annual appraisal, without which a registered medical practitioner will not be licensed to practice. Even registration without a licence requires compliance with the standards. Appraisal can be carried out by non-homeopaths, as the issue is not the assessment of the standard of ‘homeopathic practice’, but compliance with GMC standards of good medical practice.

If a medical homeopath wishes to be GMC compliant, they must properly inform patients about contentious issues. I suggest that consent should be obtained along the lines: “I propose prescribing you a remedy comprising sugar pills impregnated with a solution which has been diluted to such an extent that a sphere of water the size of the Earth’s average radius to the Sun would probably contain no more than one molecule of the original substance. Nevertheless, my clinical experience suggests to me that this remedy will improve your condition. You need to understand that colleagues who practise conventional evidence-based scientific medicine regard my belief as implausible and the methods I use as ‘alternative.’ I believe the remedy will help you, but I have no evidence accepted by the majority of doctors that the intervention I propose will achieve the desired effects. I do not believe that taking a homeopathic remedy will delay any other treatment which might reasonably help your condition and I invite you to take this remedy with understanding of the issues I have outlined.” A copy of the consent should be placed in the patient’s records.

Those who defend the right of registered medical practitioners to prescribe HP remedies do so with arguments fatally holed by a myriad of logical fallacies. Some arguments are (with fallacies in parenthesis):

  • “Homeopathy has been used for over two hundred years” (appeal to tradition and argument from ignorance);
  • “It has become very popular and is what patients want (appeal to popularity);
  • “Homeopathy has the capacity to help patients” (red herring, because present consideration is about the value of HP remedies, not relationships);
  • “Remedies are cheap” (red herring);
  • “Homeopathy does not do any harm” (irrelevant and a red herring);
  • “Pharmaceuticals have side effects” (tu quoque and red herring);
  • “The Royal Family use it” (appeal to irrelevant authority);
  • “The remedies enhance the doctor/patient relationship (straw man);
  • “Science does not know everything” (red herring and false dichotomy);
  • “Those who oppose us don’t understand homeopathy” (argumentum ad hominem and ‘poisoning the well’);
  • “I have the evidence of patients’ anecdotes and testimonials” (pseudoscience, confirmation bias and cherry picking);
  • “Homeopathic doctors are caring people” (red herring and straw man);
  • “I’ve got much evidence of  patients taking remedies and getting better” (post hoc ergo propter hoc – ‘after this, therefore because of this’ – confusion of coincidence with causation).

The latter most perverse fallacy is the foundation of homeopathic practice, based on identifying a remedy whereby ‘like cures like’ – a principle based on post hoc fallacy for which there is no scientifically credible evidence.

Unless and until medical homeopaths understand the intellectual environment in which they practice, are prepared to properly inform their patients, and obtain consent for treatment having done so, they should not prescribe homeopathic remedies. Fortunately, there is no evidence that patients who are prescribed HP remedies by empathic GMC registered homeopaths have any different outcomes from those prescribed pure sugar pills – even if they are told they are placebos. However, trust in the medical profession can only be maintained if deceptive practices are set aside and full explanations for proposed interventions are offered. Given the scientific consensus, patients have to face up to the fact that to the highest degree of probability, HP remedies have no value. Regrettably, too many patients and even homeopaths are in denial. Medical homeopaths should continue to serve their patients with care, compassion and intellectual honesty, but if they are to comply with the standards required for GMC registration, they should not prescribe homeopathically prepared remedies.

The UK ‘Faculty of Homeopathy’ (FoH) is the professional body of British doctors who specialise in homeopathy. As doctors, FoH members have been to medical school and should know about evidence, science etc., I had always thought. But perhaps I was mistaken?

The FoH has a website with an interesting new post entitled ‘Scientific evidence and Homeopathy’. Here I have copied the section on CLINICAL TRIALS OF HOMEOPATHY. I have read it several times and must admit: it is a masterpiece, in my view – not a masterpiece in accurate reporting, but a masterpiece in misleading the public. The first and most obvious thing that struck me is the fact that is cites not a single clinical trial. But read for yourself (the numbers in round brackets were inserted by me and refer to my comments below):

START OF QUOTE

By August 2017 1,138 clinical trials of homeopathy had been published (1). Details can be found on the CORE-HOM database also maintained by the Carstens Foundation and accessible without charge: http://archiv.carstens-stiftung.de/core-hom

Four (2) systematic review/meta-analyses of homeopathy for all conditions have been published.[26],[27],[28]  Of these, three (3) reached a positive conclusion: that there is evidence that homeopathy is clinically effective (4). The exception is the review by Shang et al.46  This meta-analysis was controversial, particularly because its conclusions were based on only eight clinical trials whose identity was concealed until several months after the publication, precluding informed examination of its results (5) (6). The only undisputed conclusion (7) of this paper is that clinical trials of homeopathy are of higher quality than matched trials of conventional medicine: of 110 clinical trials each of homeopathy and conventional medicine, 21 trials of homeopathy but only 9 trials of conventional medicine were of ‘higher quality’.[29] [30]

A leading Swedish medical researcher (8) remarked: To conclude that homeopathy lacks clinical effect, more than 90% of the available clinical trials had to be dis­regarded.  Alternatively, flawed statistical methods had to be applied.”[31] Higher quality equates to less risk of bias, Mathie et al analysed randomized clinical trials of individualized homeopathy, showing that the highest quality trials yielded positive results (9).[32]

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy in specific clinical situations have also yielded positive results, including: allergies and upper respiratory tract infections (2 systematic reviews),[33],[34] (10) (11) Arnica in knee surgery,[35] (12) Childhood diarrhoea,[36] Post-operative ileus,[37] (13) Rheumatic diseases,[38] (14) Seasonal allergic rhinitis (hay fever) (2 systematic reviews),[39] [40] (15) (16) and vertigo.[41] (17)

END OF QUOTE

MY COMMENTS:

  1. This is a wild exaggeration which was made possible by counting all sorts of clinical reports as ‘clinical trials’. A clinical trial  “follows a pre-defined plan or protocol to evaluate the effects of a medical or behavioral intervention on health outcomes.” This would exclude most observational studies, case series, case reports. However, the figure cited here includes such reports.
  2. The author cites only three!
  3. Does the author mean ‘two’?
  4. This is not quite true! I have dedicated an entire post to this issue.
  5. True, the Shang meta-analysis has been criticised – but exclusively by homeopaths who, for obvious reasons, were unable to accept its negative findings. In fact, it is a solid piece of research.
  6. Why does the author not mention the most recent systematic review of homeopathy?  Perhaps because it concluded: Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.
  7. Really? Undisputed? Even by the logic of the author’s last sentence, this would be disputed.
  8. The ‘leading researcher’ is Prof Hahn who has featured many times on my blog. He seems to be more than a little unhinged when it comes to the topic of homeopathy.
  9. The author forgot to mention that Mathie – who was sponsored by the British Homeopathic Association – included this little caveat in his conclusions: The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings.
  10. Reference 33 is the infamous ‘Swiss report’ that has been shown to be fatally flawed over and over again.
  11. Reference 34 refers to a review that fails to adhere to almost all the criteria of a systematic review.
  12. This review concluded: In all three trials, patients receiving homeopathic arnica showed a trend towards less postoperative swelling compared to patients receiving placebo. However, a significant difference in favour of homeopathic arnica was only found in the CLR trial. Only a deluded homeopath can call this a ‘positive result’.
  13. This is a systematic review by my team. It showed that several flawed trials produced a false positive result, while the only large multicentre trial was negative. Our conclusions therefore include the statement that  several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. Only a deluded homeopath can call this a ‘positive result’.
  14. This reference refers to the following abstract: Despite a growing interest in uncovering the basic mechanisms of arthritis, medical treatment remains symptomatic. Current medical treatments do not consistently halt the long-term progression of these diseases, and surgery may still be needed to restore mechanical function in large joints. Patients with rheumatic syndromes often seek alternative therapies, with homeopathy being one of the most frequent. Homeopathy is one of the most frequently used complementary therapies worldwide. Only a deluded homeopath can call this a ‘positive result’.
  15. The first reference refers to a paper where the author analysed three of his own studies.
  16. Reference 40 refers to a review that fails to adhere to almost all the criteria of a systematic review.
  17. This reference refers to a review of Vertigoheel@ that includes observational studies. One of its authors was an employee of the manufacturer of the product. Vertigoheel is not a homeopathic remedy (it does not adhere to the ‘like cures like’ principle) but a homotoxicologic product. Homotoxicology is a method inspired by homeopathy which was developed by Hans Heinrich Reckeweg (1905 – 1985). He believed that all or most illness is caused by an overload of toxins in the body. The toxins originate, according to Reckeweg, both from the environment and from the malfunction of physiological processes within the body. His treatment consists mainly in applying homeopathic remedies which usually consist of combinations of single remedies, because health cannot be achieved without ridding the body of toxins. The largest manufacturer and promoter of remedies used in homotoxicology is the German firm Heel. Our own systematic review of RCTs of homotoxicology included 7 trials which were mostly of a high methodological standard, according to the Jadad score. The trials tested the efficacy of seven different medicines for seven different indications. The results were positive in all but one study. Important flaws were found in all trials. These render the results of the primary studies less reliable than their high Jadad scores might suggest. Despite mostly positive findings and high ratings on the Jadad score, the placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials of homotoxicology fail to demonstrate the efficacy of this therapeutic approach.

So!

What do we make of all this?

To say that it is disappointing would, I think, be an understatement. The FoH is not supposed to be a lobby group of amateurs ignorant of science and evidence; it is a recognised professional organisation who must behave ethically. Patients and consumers should be able to trust the FoH. The fact that the FoH publish misinformation on such a scale should, in my view, be a matter for the General Medical Council.

I have mentioned the German alt med phenomenon of the ‘Heilpraktiker’ before. For instance, a year ago I wrote this:

…The German ‘Heilpraktiker’ (literally translated: healing practitioner) is perhaps best understood by its fascinating history. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, German health care was dominated by lay practitioners who were organised in multiple organisations struggling for recognition. The Nazis felt the need to re-organise this situation to bring it under their control. At the same time, the Nazis promoted their concept of ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’ (New German Medicine) which entailed the integration – perhaps more a shot-gun marriage – of conventional and alternative medicine. I have published about the rather bizarre history of the ‘New German Medicine’ in 2001:

The aim of this article is to discuss complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) in the Third Reich. Based on a general movement towards all things natural, a powerful trend towards natural ways of healing had developed in the 19(th)century. By 1930 this had led to a situation where roughly as many lay practitioners of CAM existed in Germany as doctors. To re-unify German medicine under the banner of ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’, the Nazi officials created the ‘Heilpraktiker‘ – a profession which was meant to become extinct within one generation. The ‘flag ship’ of the ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’ was the ‘Rudolf Hess Krankenhaus’ in Dresden. It represented a full integration of CAM and orthodox medicine. An example of systematic research into CAM is the Nazi government’s project to validate homoeopathy. Even though the data are now lost, the results of this research seem to have been negative. Even though there are some striking similarities between today’s CAM and yesterday’s ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’ there are important differences. Most importantly, perhaps, today’s CAM is concerned with the welfare of the individual, whereas the ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’ was aimed at ensuring the dominance of the Aryan race.

The Nazis thus offered to grant all alternative practitioners official recognition by establishing them under the newly created umbrella of ‘Heilpraktiker’. To please the powerful lobby of conventional doctors, they decreed that the ‘Heilpraktiker’ was barred from educating a second generation of this profession. Therefore, the Heilpraktiker was destined to become extinct within decades.

Several of the Nazi rulers were staunch supporters of homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine. They hoped that alternative medicine would soon have become an established part of ‘New German Medicine’. For a range of reasons, this never happened.

After the war, the Heilpraktiker went to court and won the right to educate their own students. Today they are a profession that uses homeopathy extensively. The German Heilpraktiker has no mandatory medical training; a simple test to show that they know the legal limits of their profession suffices for receiving an almost unrestricted licence for practicing medicine as long as they want…

END OF QUOTE

Since about two years, a group of German scientists, clinicians and various other experts (I was a member of the panel), led by a prominent ethicist, worked on a document that was published this week. Here are its conclusions (in German):

Medizinische Parallelwelten mit radikal divergierenden Qualitätsstandards, wie sie aktuell im deutschen Gesundheitswesen in Form von Doppelstandards bei Ergebnisbewertung und Qualitäts kontrolle bestehen, sind für eine aufgeklärte Gesellschaft nicht akzeptabel. Bei Heilpraktikern stehen aufgrund ihrer ungenügenden, kaum regulierten Ausbildung die Qualifikationen und Tätigkeitsbefugnisse in einem eklatanten Missverhältnis. Heilpraktiker bieten schwer punktmäßig alternativ­ oder komplementärmedizinische Verfahren an, die in den meisten Fällen wissenschaftlich unhaltbar sind. Dies führt zu einer Gefährdung von Patienten. Abhilfe verspricht nur ein gleichzeitiges Vorgehen auf mehreren Ebenen:

(1.) eine einheitliche Bewertung der Patientendienlichkeit in allen Bereichen der Medizin;

(2.) ein verstärktes Engagement für die Erfordernisse einer gelingenden Kommunikation mit Patienten;

(3.) eine verstärkte Förderung wissenschaftstheoretischer Kompetenzen in Ausbildung und Studium gesundheitsbezogener Berufe; sowie

(4.) eine Abschaffung des Heilpraktikerwesens oder eine radikale Anhebung und Sicherstellung des Kompetenzniveaus von Heilpraktikern.

Wir haben uns hier auf die Reform des Heilpraktikerwesens konzentriert und dafür zwei Lösungsvorschläge skizziert: Wir empfehlen entweder die gänzliche Abschaffung des Heilpraktikerberufs oder dessen Ablösung durch die Einführung spezialisierter „Fach­Heilpraktiker“ als Zusatzqualifikation für bestehende Gesundheitsfachberufe. Für die Übergangsphase empfehlen wir eine gesetzliche Beschränkung des Heilpraktikerwesens auf weitgehend gefahrlose Tätigkeiten. Auf diese Weise ließen sich die Gefahren für Patienten reduzieren und die Patientenversorgung langfristig wesentlich verbessern.

END OF QUOTE

Essentially, we are saying that, the Heilpraktiker has introduced two hugely different quality standards into the German healthcare system. In the interest of the patient and of good healthcare, this double standard must be addressed. We are demanding the profession of the Heilpraktiker either is completely abolished, or is reformed such that it no longer poses a threat to public health in Germany. Our document makes concrete suggestions for such reforms.

Our suggestions have already received lots of attention in Germany, and we are therefore hopeful that they will be taken seriously, start a much-needed debate and eventually bring about progress.

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.

1 2 3 32

Gravityscan Badge

Recent Comments

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


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories