I did not think that I would be able to write a blog-post today; I was too shocked with the news from America – but now I find myself doing not one but two posts on this sad day. The reason is NATURAL NEWS; they reported well over a year ago that “Donald Trump is more holistic and health oriented than Hillary Clinton.” Here is what they stated:
…What has catapulted Trump to the top of GOP polls? His frank, honest – and admittedly blunt – discussion about illegal immigrants, many of whom he correctly noted were criminals: Rapists, murderers and gang thugs…
But Trump has also distinguished himself from the favored Democratic presidential contender, Hillary Clinton, the latter of whom is having so much difficulty connecting with the party’s progressive base she needs constant re-launches of her campaign just to remain relevant.
For one, “The Donald”, as NaturalNews has reported is a consumer of organic food. His daughter, Ivanka, has said that the whole family consumes mostly fresh, organic meals which she often prepares herself.
In addition, Trump’s children help oversee foods served at the family hotels – meals that include vegan, organic and gluten-free in-room dining choices. And when it can, the hotel chain obtains locally-grown organic foods as a way of giving back to the communities they serve. The family’s diet even has a name: The Trump Wellness Plan, which fits with Trump’s overall health and fitness lifestyle.
As we reported:
For example, a known golf lover, Trump says it’s an ideal way to diminish stress and ponder business tasks while walking. He says, “I find it opens my mind to new possibilities, and I can problem-solve very effectively while I’m on the golf course.”
Clinton, meanwhile, is a Monsanto sycophant and GMO devotee, eschewing the organic, non-genetically modified lifestyle in pursuit of campaign contributions.
In fact, her touting of GMOs and support for the world’s most evil biotech giant is costing her support, at least in early primary states like Iowa. As noted by the Washington Times, some have even dubbed her the “Bride of Frankenfood.”…
END OF QUOTE
Presumably, this is why the scientifically illiterate Trump is concerned about vaccinations – they are not natural, a bit like Frankenfood, he probably feels. He once tweeted: Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism…. More on Trump’s attitude on vaccinations can be found in David Gorski’s excellent article on the subject.
And this may also explain why Trump is involved in a multi-level marketing (MLM) company selling ‘natural’ nutritional supplements and weight loss products. The full story by Britt Marie Hermes is here.
Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, does not seem to be much better: he doesn’t believe that smoking causes cancer. Either that, or he has been paid to claim that cigarettes, although “not good for you,” don’t kill. More on this one can be found here.
Together the two will get rid of ‘Obama-Care’ and replace it with…? Yes, with what? With vitamin pills, cigarettes and anti-vaxx propaganda?
It looks as though we are in for a rough ride!
This press-release just came to my attention:
Today, with the stroke of his pen, Governor Tom Wolf adds Pennsylvania to the list of states that acknowledge the value of alternative healthcare from a qualified professional. Pennsylvania becomes the 21st U.S. jurisdiction to regulate naturopathic medicine. The new law HB516 regulates naturopathic doctors; ensuring patients can trust that their wellness professional holds a graduate degree from an accredited naturopathic medical school.
Heidi Weinhold, N.D. and Legislative Chair of the Pennsylvania Association of Naturopathic Physicians (PANP), says, “This is a historic day for naturopathic medicine. The governor’s approval will throw open the doors for more Pennsylvania students to choose this academic course of study. Then, they can return home from a four-year graduate program to set up a practice as a naturopathic doctor.”
The PANP members worked for the last 16 years with the state legislature to advance the much-needed recognition of this growing medical field. Their goal was to increase the credibility and minimize the confusion between professionals with an advance degree and the self-study practitioner. “Naturopathic professionals also seek to better coordinate and collaborate with medical professionals across the spectrum. We believe in integrative care, and this law gives us the stature we need to work N,” explains Dr. Weinhold.
Under the new law, the terms Naturopathic Doctor and ND will be reserved exclusively for those who have attended four-year, post-graduate level programs at institutions recognized by the United States Department of Education. “This protects the scope-of-work and title for graduates from an accredited N.D. program,” offers Dr. JoAnn Yanez, executive director of the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Colleges.
Naturopathic Doctors are currently practicing at Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia, as well as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers, where they work side by side with medical doctors in an integrative setting. More patients could be served in this manner once naturopathic doctors are registered in this state. Both Penn State Hershey Medical Center and West Penn Allegheny General Hospital have indicated that they would hire Naturopathic Doctors if they were registered in the state.
“The PANP will be working over the next year on implementation of the legislation in order that NDs can begin to register with the Board of Medicine. A number of Representatives and Senators have encouraged us to come back to the legislature next session in order to expand the scope of this bill. We are very encouraged about the future of naturopathic medicine in Pennsylvania,” says Dr. Marie Winters, manager of the Naturopathic Medicine Department of the Cancer Treatment Centers of America and president of PANP.
The law will go into effect January 1, 2018.
Pennsylvania joins these other jurisdictions which regulate naturopathic medicine: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands, and these provinces in Canada: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan.
END OF QUOTE
Here are a few comments and issues that I find remarkable about this announcement:
- Naturopaths are called ‘naturopathic doctors’, yet in the same sentence it is pointed out that they are ‘wellness professionals’. I am not sure what the latter, woolly term is supposed to mean – perhaps that naturopathy cannot effectively treat diseases?
- The document speaks of ‘accredited naturopathic medical schools’. Has anyone checked the utter nonsense that is being taught there? The answer is yes, Britt Marie Hermes has, and her verdict is truly depressing and devastating.
- Naturopaths instantly interpret the new regulation as a ‘governor’s approval’ and ‘recognition’. It shows why alternative practitioners want to be regulated: they foremost crave the APPROVAL and the RECOGNITION they clearly do not deserve.
- Naturopaths believe in ‘integrative care’ – of course they do, because this is nothing but a ploy for smuggling quackery into evidence-based medicine (EBM).
- Naturopaths want to be ‘peer-to-peer with other disciplines’ – but they are unable to show that their interventions generate more good than harm. This effectively is an attempt to place quackery on the same level as EBM.
- Naturopaths already treat cancer patients in the state! Really? Do they use Laetrile, or homeopathy?
- Naturopaths are portrayed as being a benefit to public health. Has anyone considered that the opposite might be the case? See for instance here and here.
Chiropractors (and other alternative practitioners) tend to treat their patients for unnecessarily long periods of time. This, of course, costs money, and even if the treatment in question ever was indicated (which, according to the best evidence, is more than doubtful), this phenomenon would significantly inflate healthcare expenditure.
This sounds perfectly logical to me, but is there any evidence for it? Yes, there is!
The WSJ recently reported that over 80% of the money that Medicare paid to US chiropractors in 2013 went for medically unnecessary procedures. The federal insurance program for senior citizens spent roughly $359 million on unnecessary chiropractic care that year, a review by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) found.
The OIG report was based on a random sample of Medicare spending for 105 chiropractic services in 2013. It included bills submitted to CMS through June 2014. Medicare audit contractors reviewed medical records for patients to determine whether treatment was medically necessary. The OIG called on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to tighten oversight of the payments, noting its analysis was one of several in recent years to find questionable Medicare spending on chiropractic care. “Unless CMS implements strong controls, it is likely to continue to make improper payments to chiropractors,” the OIG said.
Medicare should determine whether there should be a cut-off in visits, the OIG said. Medicare does not pay for “supportive” care, or maintenance therapy. Patients who received more than a dozen treatments are more likely to get medically unnecessary care, the OIG found, and all chiropractic care after the first 30 treatment sessions was unnecessary, the review found. However, a spokesperson for US chiropractors disagreed: “Every patient is different,” he said. “Some patients may require two visits; some may require more.”
I have repeatedly written about the fact that chiropractic is not nearly as cost-effective as chiropractors want us to believe (see for instance here and here). It seems that this evidence is being systematically ignored by them; in fact, the evidence gets in the way of their aim – which often is not to help patients but to maximise their cash-flow.
I have warned you before to be sceptical about Chinese studies. This is what I posted on this blog more than 2 years ago, for instance:
Imagine an area of therapeutics where 100% of all findings of hypothesis-testing research are positive, i.e. come to the conclusion that the treatment in question is effective. Theoretically, this could mean that the therapy is a miracle cure which is useful for every single condition in every single setting. But sadly, there are no miracle cures. Therefore something must be badly and worryingly amiss with the research in an area that generates 100% positive results.
Acupuncture is such an area; we and others have shown that Chinese trials of acupuncture hardly ever produce a negative finding. In other words, one does not need to read the paper, one already knows that it is positive – even more extreme: one does not need to conduct the study, one already knows the result before the research has started. But you might not believe my research nor that of others. We might be chauvinist bastards who want to discredit Chinese science. In this case, you might perhaps believe Chinese researchers.
In this systematic review, all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture published in Chinese journals were identified by a team of Chinese scientists. A total of 840 RCTs were found, including 727 RCTs comparing acupuncture with conventional treatment, 51 RCTs with no treatment controls, and 62 RCTs with sham-acupuncture controls. Among theses 840 RCTs, 838 studies (99.8%) reported positive results from primary outcomes and two trials (0.2%) reported negative results. The percentages of RCTs concealment of the information on withdraws or sample size calculations were 43.7%, 5.9%, 4.9%, 9.9%, and 1.7% respectively.
The authors concluded that publication bias might be major issue in RCTs on acupuncture published in Chinese journals reported, which is related to high risk of bias. We suggest that all trials should be prospectively registered in international trial registry in future.
END OF QUOTE
Now an even more compelling reason emerged for taking evidence from China with a pinch of salt:
A recent survey of clinical trials in China has revealed fraudulent practice on a massive scale. China’s food and drug regulator carried out a one-year review of clinical trials. They concluded that more than 80 percent of clinical data is “fabricated“. The review evaluated data from 1,622 clinical trial programs of new pharmaceutical drugs awaiting regulator approval for mass production. Officials are now warning that further evidence malpractice could still emerge in the scandal.
According to the report, much of the data gathered in clinical trials are incomplete, failed to meet analysis requirements or were untraceable. Some companies were suspected of deliberately hiding or deleting records of adverse effects, and tampering with data that did not meet expectations.
“Clinical data fabrication was an open secret even before the inspection,” the paper quoted an unnamed hospital chief as saying. Contract research organizations seem have become “accomplices in data fabrication due to cutthroat competition and economic motivation.”
A doctor at a top hospital in the northern city of Xian said the problem doesn’t lie with insufficient regulations governing clinical trials data, but with the failure to implement them. “There are national standards for clinical trials in the development of Western pharmaceuticals,” he said. “Clinical trials must be carried out in three phases, and they must be assessed at the very least for safety,” he said. “But I don’t know what happened here.”
Public safety problems in China aren’t limited to the pharmaceutical industry and the figure of 80 percent is unlikely to surprise many in a country where citizens routinely engage in the bulk-buying of overseas-made goods like infant formula powder. Guangdong-based rights activist Mai Ke said there is an all-pervasive culture of fakery across all products made in the country. “It’s not just the medicines,” Mai said. “In China, everything is fake, and if there’s a profit in pharmaceuticals, then someone’s going to fake them too.” He said the problem also extends to traditional Chinese medicines, which are widely used in conjunction with Western pharmaceuticals across the healthcare system.
“It’s just harder to regulate the fakes with traditional medicines than it is with Western pharmaceuticals, which have strict manufacturing guidelines,” he said.
According to Luo, academic ethics is an underdeveloped field in China, leading to an academic culture that is accepting of manipulation of data. “I don’t think that the 80 percent figure is overstated,” Luo said.
And what should we conclude from all this?
I find it very difficult to reach a verdict that does not sound hopelessly chauvinistic but feel that we have little choice but to distrust the evidence that originates from China. At the very minimum, I think, we must scrutinise it thoroughly; whenever it looks too good to be true, we ought to discard it as unreliable and await independent replications.
Bogus claims of alternative therapists are legion, particularly in homeopathy. But bogus claims are neither ethical nor legal. Homeopathy works for no human condition, and therefore any medical claim made for homeopathy is unethical, false, misleading and illegal.
This is not just my view (after studying the subject for more than two decades) but also that of the UK regulators. In case you doubt it, please read the full notice which the UK ‘Advertising Standards Authority’ has just published (dated 29/9/2016):
This week, our sister organisation, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Compliance team has written to homeopaths across the UK to remind them of the rules that govern what they can and can’t say in their marketing materials, including on their websites.
Homeopathy is based on the principle of treating like with like; in other words a substance which causes certain symptoms can also help remove those symptoms when it is diluted heavily in water before being consumed. Practitioners believe that this stimulates the body to heal itself. However, to date, despite having considered a body of evidence, neither us nor CAP has seen robust evidence that homeopathy works. Practitioners should therefore avoid making direct or implied claims that homeopathy can treat medical conditions.
We have no intention of restricting the ability of practitioners to advertise legitimate and legal services, nor do we seek to restrict the right of individuals to choose treatment. However, when advertisers make claims about these products or services, in all sectors, they must hold appropriate evidence to back up those claims. If they do not, then we have a responsibility to intervene to protect consumers by ensuring that those ads are amended or withdrawn.
If you are a practicing homeopath, please ensure that you carefully read CAP’s advice and guidance. It includes a non-exhaustive list of the types of claims you can and can’t make. You will then need to make changes, as necessary, to your marketing materials, including on your website, if you have one.
Further guidance can be found on the Society of Homeopaths’ website. We have worked closely with the Society over the course of the last year, to help them produce detailed guidance to support their members.
I think this notice speaks for itself. All I want to add at this stage is my hope that UK homeopaths comply asap to avoid getting penalised and – much more importantly – to avoid continuing to mislead consumers.
In a recent PJ article, Michael Marshall from the ‘Good Thinking Society’ asked “WHY ON EARTH IS THE NHS SPENDING EVEN A SINGLE PENNY ON HOMEOPATHY?”. A jolly good question, given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, I thought – but one that must be uncomfortable to homeopaths. Sure enough, a proponent of homeopathy, Jeanette Lindsay from Glasgow, has objected to Marshall’s arguments in a short comment which is a fairly typical defence of homeopathy; I therefore take the liberty of reproducing it here (the 12 references in her text were added by me and refer to my footnotes below):
I wonder if people such as Michael Marshall (The Pharmaceutical Journal 2016;297:101), who would refuse  patients the option of NHS homeopathic treatment, have considered the plight of people failed by evidence-based medicine ?  Where are those with chronic, disabling conditions to turn when the medicines available on the NHS do not work, or worse, are positively harmful? 
Take the instance of a woman with multiple drug allergies who has no means of treating her severe inflammatory arthritis and no suitable analgesia.  It has been demonstrated that disease states with immune system involvement are particularly susceptible to the placebo effect but how does one induce this? Current thinking precludes treatment with placebo medicines but it so happens that homeopathic remedies would appear, from the results of clinical trials , to be a good substitute.  Used properly, there is a good chance that in this case homeopathic treatment may achieve a real therapeutic effect. 
Patients who cannot tolerate allopathic  treatment do not just go away because they cannot take the prescribed medicine.  They suffer and surely deserve a better range of options  than those provided by the current obsession with evidence-based medicine.  The availability of homeopathic treatment is important and should not be denied until better alternatives become commonplace.  Michael Marshall does not ‘refuse’ homeopathy on the NHS; that is not in his power. He merely questions whether NHS funds should not be spent on treatments that demonstrably do more good than harm.  I am sure he as carefully considered such patients.  Depending on the exact circumstances, such patients have many options: for instance, they could change their physician, have their diagnosis re-considered, or try a non-drug treatment.  An allergy to one drug is rarely (I would even say never) associated with allergies to all drugs for any given condition. Even if this were the case, there are several non-drug treatments for arthritis or other diseases.  I think this is fantasy; there is no good evidence from clinical trials to show that homeopathy is efficacious for either inflammatory or degenerative arthritis.  Is this an admission that homeopathic remedies are placebos?  I am not aware of sound evidence to support this statement.  ‘Allopathic’ is a derogatory term introduced by Hahnemann to defame conventional medicine.  I have never seen a patient who could not tolerate any prescription medicine. I suspect this is fantasy again.  Patients deserve the optimal therapy available for their conditions – that is a therapy that demonstrably generates more good than harm. Homeopathy is clearly not in this category.  An obsession? Yes, perhaps it is an obsession for some dedicated healthcare professionals to provide the best possible treatments for their patients. But the way it is put here, it sounds as though this was something despicable. I would argue that such an ‘obsession’ would be most commendable.  For practically all conditions, symptoms, illesses and diseases that afflict mankind, better alternatives than homeopathy have been available since about 150 years.
It seems to me that Jeanette Lindsay has been harshly disappointed by conventional medicine. Perhaps this is why, one day, she consulted a homeopath and received the empathy, understanding and compassion that she needed to get better. Many homeopaths excel at these qualities; and this is the main reason why their patients swear by them, even though their remedies are pure placebos.
My advice to such patients is: find a physician who has time, empathy and compassion. They do exist! Once you have found such a doctor, you can benefit from the compassion and empathy just as you may have benefitted from the homeopath’s compassion and empathy. But in addition to these benefits (and contrary to what you got from your homeopath), you will also be able to profit from the efficacy of the treatments prescribed.
To put it simply: homeopaths can help patients via non-specific therapeutic effects; responsible physicians can help patients via non-specific therapeutic effects plus the specific effects of the treatments they prescribe.
According to Wikipedia, Swiss state insurance funding of homeopathy and four other alternative therapies had been withdrawn after a review in 2005, and a 2009 referendum vote called for state backed health insurance to once more pay for these therapies. In 2012 the Swiss government reinstated them for a trial period until 2017, pending an independent investigation of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the therapies. The rules for the registration of homeopathic remedies without a concrete field of application are more liberal in Switzerland than they are in member countries of the EU. For homeopathic medicines based on well-known low-risk substances, Swissmedic, the regulatory authority, offers inexpensive registration by means of a simplified electronic registration procedure.
Several weeks ago, I have commented on the remarkable position of alternative medicine in Switzerland. Now this website offers further information specifically on homeopathy in Switzerland:
According to a report jointly issued by the Swiss Federal Health Office and the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), the annual expenses for homeopathic treatments and medications in Switzerland amount to roughly CHF 50 million and CHF 31 million, respectively. These numbers seem impressive, particularly if we consider how little each homeopathic remedy costs and how ineffective it is.
But the argument that homeopathy somehow defies scientific testing does not seem to die. For instance, SantéSuisse, the umbrella organisation of health insurers, argues that standardised methods used to test conventional treatments cannot be applied to homeopathy. “It would be unfair to homeopathy if we borrowed the methodologies from conventional therapeutic options when evaluating its effectiveness. The potential risk is that these systematic and internationally accepted methods of biomedical science go against the underlying principles of homeopathy,” said SantéSuisse spokesman Christophe Kämpf. I am afraid, he is talking complete tosh – and he should, of course, know better.
The Swiss Federal Health Office admitted in its press release at the end of March that “no evidence has so far been found to prove that complementary and alternative therapies”, including homeopathy, meet the standard criteria for “effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs.” And a Swiss health office spokesman, Daniel Dauwalder, explained that the decision “reflected the will of the people” in a 2009 referendum. “The health insurance system will cover the cost of alternative therapies according to the principle of trust,” Dauwalder explained. He added that, if the standards of effectiveness, suitability and economy are called into question, SantéSuisse have the right to deny payment.
The core of the issue centres on the questions
- How to ensure that the physical conditions of patients will not be compromised by unqualified, self-proclaimed clinicians?
- How can health insurers deal with the potential challenges?
The truth is, alternative treatments will not be unconditionally covered by the basic insurance policies which every Swiss resident must have. Only the costs of treatments administered by certified medical doctors will be considered. Otherwise, the costs incurred can only be reimbursed, if the person insured has purchased supplementary health coverage.
END OF QUOTE
That, however, does not mean that only doctors can practice homeopathy in Switzerland. Lay-homeopaths do exist in the form of Heilpraktiker. While it is true that the national health insurance only covers the treatment by medical doctors, some private health insurances also cover homeopathy by Heilpraktiker.
All this is very different from what some enthusiasts report about homeopathy in Switzerland. Probably the best example for someone obscuring the truth is (yet again) Dana Ullman who stated that “the Swiss government has determined that the very small doses commonly used in homeopathic medicine are both effective and cost-effective.” Little wonder, I might add, because Dana Ullman also keeps on referring to “a remarkable report on homeopathic medicine conducted by and for the government of Switzerland”. He does so despite having been told over and over again that the report in question is firstly utterly unreliable and secondly not by the Swiss government.
Why this odd insistence on disseminating wrong information? Is it because it is good for business, or because homeopaths are not capable of learning (otherwise they would not be homeopaths), or both?
This recent report is worth a mention, I think:
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) is aware that some chiropractors are advertising and attempting to turn breech babies in utero using the “Webster Technique”.
On 7 March 2016, the Chiropractic Board of Australia released the following statement in relation to chiropractic care of pregnant women and their unborn child:
“Care of pregnant patients
Chiropractors are not trained to apply any direct treatment to an unborn child and should not deliver any treatment to the unborn child. Chiropractic care must not be represented or provided as treatment to the unborn child as an obstetric breech correction technique.
RANZCOG supports the Chiropractic Board of Australia in its clear position that chiropractic care must not be represented or provided as a treatment to the unborn child as an obstetric breech correction technique. Chiropractors should not be using the “Webster Technique” or any other inappropriate breech correction technique to facilitate breech version as there is insufficient scientific evidence to support this practice.
In addition, RANZCOG does not support chiropractors treating pregnant women to reduce their risk of caesarean delivery. There is insufficient evidence to make any claims to consumers regarding the benefits of chiropractic treatment to reduce the risk of caesarean delivery. We commend the Chiropractic Board on their statement that:
“Advertisers must ensure that any statements and claims made in relation to chiropractic care are not false, misleading or deceptive or create an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment.”1
Recommendations for the management of a breech baby at term are outlined in the RANZCOG statement, Management of breech presentation at term
External Cephalic Version (ECV) is a procedure where a care provider puts his or her hands on the outside of the mother’s belly and attempts to turn the baby from breech to cephalic presentation. It is recommended that women with a breech presentation at or near term should be informed about external cephalic version (ECV) and offered it if clinically appropriate. Attempting cephalic version at term reduces the chance of non-cephalic presentation at birth, vaginal cephalic birth not achieved and caesarean section. There is not enough evidence from randomised trials to assess complications of ECV at term. Large observational studies suggest that complications are rare. ECV should only be performed by suitably trained health professionals where there is facility for emergency caesarean section. Each institution should have its own documented protocol for offering and performing ECVs.
This communiqué highlights the need for patients to be adequately informed when making health care choices.
END OF QUOTE
These are clear and badly needed words. As we have discussed often on this blog, chiropractors make all sorts of bogus claims. Those directed at children and unborn babies are perhaps the most nonsensical of them all. I applaud the College for their clear statements and hope that other institutions follow this example.
Since several years, there has been an increasingly vociferous movement within the chiropractic profession to obtain limited prescription rights, that is the right to prescribe drugs for musculoskeletal problems. A recent article by Canadian and Swiss chiropractors is an attempt to sum up the arguments for and against this notion. Here I have tried to distil the essence of the pros and contras into short sentences.
1) Arguments in favour of prescription rights for chiropractors
1.1 Such privileges would be in line with current evidence-based practice. Currently, most international guidelines recommend, alongside prescription medication, a course of manual therapy and/or exercise as well as education and reassurance as part of a multi-modal approach to managing various spine-related and other MSK conditions.
1.2 Limited medication prescription privileges would be consistent with chiropractors’ general experience and practice behaviour. Many clinicians tend to recommend OTC medications to their patients in practice.
1.3 A more comprehensive treatment approach offered by chiropractors could potentially lead to a reduction in healthcare costs by providing additional specialized health care options for the treatment of MSK conditions. Namely, if patients consult one central practitioner who can effectively address and provide a range of treatment modalities for MSK pain-related matters, the number of visits to providers might be reduced, thereby resulting in better resource allocation.
1.4 Limited medication prescription rights could lead to improved cultural authority for chiropractors and better integration within the healthcare system.
1.5 With these privileges, chiropractors could have a positive influence on public health. For instance, analgesics and NSAIDs are widely used and potentially misused by the general public, and users are often unaware of the potential side effects that such medication may cause.
2) Arguments against prescription rights for chiropractors
2.1 Chiropractors and their governing bodies would start reaching out to politicians and third-party payers to promote the benefits of making such changes to the existing healthcare system.
2.2 Additional research may be needed to better understand the consequences of such changes and provide leverage for discussions with healthcare stakeholders.
2.3 Existing healthcare legislation needs to be amended in order to regulate medication prescription by chiropractors.
2.4 There is a need to focus on the curriculum of chiropractors. Inadequate knowledge and competence can result in harm to patients; therefore, appropriate and robust continuing education and training would be an absolute requirement.
2.5 Another important issue to consider relates to the divisiveness around this topic within the profession. In fact, some have argued that the right to prescribe medication in chiropractic practice is the profession’s most divisive issue. Some have argued that further incorporation of prescription rights into the chiropractic scope of practice will negatively impact the distinct professional brand and identity of chiropractic.
2.6 Such privileges would increase chiropractors’ professional responsibilities. For example, if given limited prescriptive authority, chiropractors would be required to recognize and monitor medication side effects in their patients.
2.7 Prior to medication prescription rights being incorporated into the chiropractic scope of practice worldwide, further discussions need to take place around the breadth of such privileges for the chiropractic profession.
In my view, some of these arguments are clearly spurious, particularly those in favour of prescription rights. Moreover, the list of arguments against this notion seems a little incomplete. Here are a few additional ones that came to my mind:
- Patients might be put at risk by chiropractors who are less than competent in prescribing medicines.
- More unnecessary NAISDs would be prescribed.
- The vast majority of the drugs in question is already available OTC.
- Healthcare costs would increase (just as plausible as the opposite argument made above, I think).
- Prescribing rights would give more legitimacy to a profession that arguably does not deserve it.
- Chiropractors would then continue their lobby work and soon demand the prescription rights to be extended to other classes of drugs.
I am sure there are plenty of further arguments both pro and contra – and I would be keen to hear them; so please post yours in the comments section below.
The ‘Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung’, a paper for German pharmacists, rarely is the most humorous of publications. However, recently they reported on a battle between the EU and the European producers of homeopathic remedies – a battle over mercury which has, I think, hints of Monty Python and the Flying Circus.
The EU already has strict regulations on the use of mercury, for obvious reasons, they apply particularly to medicines. The law in this area is now 8 years old and is about to be replaced by a new one which is even stricter. A draft has been recently published here.
The new law would prohibit all mercury in medicinal products, except for some used in dentistry. For the homeopathic and anthroposophic manufacturers, this is not good news because they have many remedies on the market that have the word ‘mercury’ on the label. Consequently, they fear that the sale of these products might be impeded or even become impossible in the EU.
„Quecksilber und Quecksilberverbindungen stellen für manche homöopathische und andere traditionelle Arzneimittel einen unverzichtbaren Bestandteil dar“ (Mercury and mercury compounds are an essential ingredient of some homeopathic and other traditional medicines) .. “Es steht keine Quecksilber-freie Alternative zur Verfügung, die als aktiver Bestandteil in der Therapie mit homöopathischen oder anderen traditionellen Arzneimitteln verwendet werden könnte“ (There is no mercury-free alternative that could be used in these medications”) wrote the Dachverband der Arzneimittelhersteller im Bereich der Selbstmedikation (AESGP) (a lobby group of the homeopathic manufacturers) in a comment adding that „Diese Produkte sind seit Dekaden auf dem europäischen Markt und gehören zum Arzneimittel-Werkzeugkoffer” (these products are on the market since decades and belong to the medical tool-kit)… and that these products contain merely tiny amounts of mercury – even the largest manufacturers of these remedies only require a few milligrams for their production.
The plea of the manufacturers therefore is for an exemption from the new law which would allow the trade of mercury-containing remedies in future. They even have the support of some health politicians; for instance Peter Liese CDU favours an exemption for homeopathic medicines. The next meeting of the EU committee on public health will vote on the matter.
Personally, I can imagine the following dialogue between the EU officials (EU) and the lobbyists of the homeopathic industry (LOHI):
EU: We are very sorry but, because of the toxicity of mercury, we will not allow any of it in medicines.
LOHI: But we have always used it and nobody has come to harm.
EU: We don’t know that, and we have to be strict.
LOHI: We appreciate your concern, but we use only very, very tiny amounts; they cannot cause harm.
EU: The law is the law!
LOHI: Actually, the vast majority of our products are so dilute that they do not contain a single molecule of the ingredient on the bottle.
EU: That’s interesting! In this case, they are not medicines and we will have to ban them.
LOHI: NO, no, no – you don’t understand. We potentise our medicines; this means that the ingredient that they no longer contain gets more and more powerful.
EU: Are you sure?
EU: In this case, we will ban not just your mercury products but all your phony remedies. Because either science is right and they are fraudulent, or you are correct and they are dangerous.