This post is dedicated to Mel Koppelman.
Those who followed the recent discussions about acupuncture on this blog will probably know her; she is an acupuncturist who (thinks she) knows a lot about research because she has several higher qualifications (but was unable to show us any research published by herself). Mel seems very quick in lecturing others about research methodology. Yesterday, she posted this comment in relation to my previous post on a study of aromatherapy and reflexology:
Professor Ernst, This post affirms yet again a rather poor understanding of clinical trial methodology. A pragmatic trial such as this one with a wait-list control makes no attempt to look for specific effects. You say “it is quite simply wrong to assume that this outcome is specifically related to the two treatments.” Where have specific effects been tested or assumed in this study? Your statement in no way, shape or form negates the author’s conclusions that “aromatherapy massage and reflexology are simple and effective non-pharmacologic nursing interventions.” Effectiveness is not a measure of specific effects.
I am most grateful for this comment because it highlights an issue that I had wanted to address for some time: The meanings of the two terms ‘efficacy and effectiveness’ and their differences as seen by scientists and by alternative practitioners/researchers.
Let’s start with the definitions.
I often use the excellent book of Alan Earl-Slater entitled THE HANDBOOK OF CLINICAL TRIALS AND OTHER RESEARCH. In it, EFFICACY is defined as ‘the degree to which an intervention does what it is intended to do under ideal conditions. EFFECTIVENESS is the degree to which a treatment works under real life conditions. An EFFECTIVENESS TRIAL is a trial that ‘is said to approximate reality (i. e. clinical practice). It is sometimes called a pragmatic trial’. An EFFICACY TRIAL ‘is a clinical trial that is said to take place under ideal conditions.’
In other words, an efficacy trial investigates the question, ‘can the therapy work?’, and an effectiveness trial asks, ‘does this therapy work?’ In both cases, the question relate to the therapy per se and not to the plethora of phenomena which are not directly related to it. It seems logical that, where possible, the first question would need to be addressed before the second – it does make little sense to test for effectiveness, if efficacy has not been ascertained, and effectiveness without efficacy does not seem to be possible.
In my 2007 book entitled UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH IN COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (written especially for alternative therapists like Mel), I adopted these definitions and added: “It is conceivable that a given therapy works only under optimal conditions but not in everyday practice. For instance, in clinical practice patients may not comply with a therapy because it causes adverse effects.” I should have added perhaps that adverse effects are by no means the only reason for non-compliance, and that non-compliance is not the only reason why an efficacious treatment might not be effective.
Most scientists would agree with the above definitions. In fact, I am not aware of a debate about them in scientific circles. But they are not something alternative practitioners tend to like. Why? Because, using these strict definitions, many alternative therapies are neither of proven efficacy nor effectiveness.
What can be done about this unfortunate situation?
Simple! Let’s re-formulate the definitions of efficacy and effectiveness!
Efficacy, according to some alternative medicine proponents, refers to the therapeutic effects of the therapy per se, in other words, its specific effects. (That coincides almost with the scientific definition of this term – except, of course, it fails to tell us anything about the boundary conditions [optimal or real-life conditions].)
Effectiveness, according to the advocates of alternative therapies, refers to its specific effects plus its non-specific effects. Some researchers have even introduced the term ‘real-life effectiveness’ for this.
This is why, the authors of the study discussed in my previous post, could conclude that “aromatherapy massage and reflexology are simple… effective… interventions… to help manage pain and fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.” Based on their data, neither aromatherapy nor reflexology has been shown to be effective. They might appear to be effective because patients expected to get better, or patients in the no-treatment control group felt worse for not getting the extra care. Based on studies of this nature, giving patients £10 or a box of chocolate might also turn out to be “simple… effective… interventions… to help manage pain and fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.” Based on these definitions of efficacy and effectiveness, there are hardly any limits to bogus claims for any old quackery.
Such obfuscation suits proponents of alternative therapies fine because, using such definitions, virtually every treatment anyone might ever think of can be shown to be effective! Wishful thinking, it seems, can fulfil almost any dream, it can even turn the truth upside down.
Or can anyone name an alternative treatment that cannot even generate a placebo response when administered with empathy, sympathy and care? Compared to doing nothing, virtually every ineffective therapy might generate outcomes that make the treatment look effective. Even the anticipation of an effect alone might do the trick. How often have you had a tooth-ache, went to the dentist, and discovered sitting in the waiting room that the pain had gone? Does that mean that sitting in a waiting room is an effective treatment for dental pain?
In fact, some enthusiasts of alternative medicine could soon begin to argue that, with their new definition of ‘effectiveness’, we no longer need controlled clinical trials at all, if we want to demonstrate how effective alternative therapies truly are. We can just do observational studies without a control group, note that lots of patients get better, and ‘Bob is your uncle’!!! This is much faster, saves money, time and effort, and has the undeniable advantage of never generating a negative result.
To most outsiders, all this might seem a bit like splitting hair. However, I fear that it is far from that. In fact, it turns out to be a fairly fundamental issue in almost any discussion about the value or otherwise of alternative medicine. And, I think, it is also a matter of principle that reaches far beyond alternative medicine: if we allow various interest groups, lobbyists, sects, cults etc. to use their own definitions of fundamentally important terms, any dialogue, understanding or progress becomes almost impossible.
WHAT IS THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN TO HOMEOPATHS?
This might seem like a strange question, but I think it is quite interesting… bear with me.
The worse, you might think, is that the we all agree that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. Apart from the fact that this already is a broad consensus shared by virtually everyone in healthcare (except the homeopaths, of course), I think this is not the worst that could happen to homeopaths. They simply ignore the consensus, continue much as before and carry on earning a living by fooling the public (and often themselves as well).
No, the worse is the opposite of the above. The worse is that we all accept the homeopaths’ view. The worse is to say: Very well, we agree for the moment that your remedies are highly effective. And therefore we need to regulate them just as any other medicine.
Wenn dies für Homöopathen also so eindeutig ist, dann können die zuständigen Institutionen in den Arzneimittel-Gesellschaften (BfArM, AMG) Homöopathika genau so bewerten wie normale Medikamente… die Politik sollte die Homöopathen bei ihrem eigenen Wort nehmen und sie denselben Prüfverfahren unterwerfen wie alle anderen Behandlungsverfahren auch.
And this is my (somewhat liberal) translation:
If homeopathy’s effectiveness is so crystal clear, the regulators should assess homeopathic remedies just like normal drugs… politicians and regulators should take homeopaths by their own word and should apply the same standards as for all other medicines.
In the past, homeopaths have always wanted the cake and eat it; they pleaded that their remedies are so special and therefore they need special regulations and extra considerations. Because of these, they were sheltered and escaped any legal or ethical obligations to demonstrate effectiveness. This introduced an unjustified and regressive double standard with was detrimental to good healthcare, medical ethics and scientific progress.
Now that homeopaths (the Germans are merely an example, other countries’ homeopaths are much the same) have agreed on what they think is solid scientific proof, it is right and necessary to remove the special protection which homeopathy used to enjoy. Let’s for the moment accept the homeopaths’ argument (‘homeopathy is effective just like other medicines) and then force them to deliver the proof of their opinion according to the standards all medicines must be judged by!
That would surely be the end of all this nonsense, and homeopaths would find themselves hoisted by their own petard.
Ad hominem attacks, I have previously pointed out, are victories of reason over unreason. And they are used frequently by supporters of alternative medicine!
If you doubt it, see for yourself.
I recently posted a comment on new Nice guidelines. It generated lots of comments, and mostly they were rational discussions of the issues involved. This changed abruptly when, on 16 May, Mel’s comment started a new, concerted wave of discussion at a time when the usual debate had already subsided. In the course of this new and heated debate, I was repeatedly accused of being rude.
As I have stated repeatedly on this blog, I try to keep rudeness out of the comments as much as I can. Therefore, the claim surprised me and today I reviewed the entire comment section selecting all potential ad hominem attacks. Here are the results:
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AGAINST ME
Peter Deadman on Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 12:55 Edward Ernst, I always thought you were a bully and a fraud. You’re very macho when it comes to slapping down people who may have experiential reasons for supporting acupuncture and other therapies but don’t have the skill to challenge you on the clinical evidence. Now as soon as somebody does, you back off, cry ‘enough’, say you can’t possibly comment till some undetermined future date and generally act like a wuss. I say put up or shut up. I’d prefer the former because it would be good to see you eat crow but I lean towards the latter because of the substantial harm you are causing and the beautiful silence that would ensue if you did indeed go quiet.
tonto on Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 13:19 You appear as weak in your arguments, as some pendulum swinging, new age dowser, who vainly holds sticks to their guns, not because they can back their position up with scientific evidence, but because it is what they “believe”.
Jill Onyett on Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 14:29 …an unfortunate creature too keen on the sound of his own voice.
Tracey Phillips on Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 13:16 …to date you have been fairly opinionated …
Peter Deadman on Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 16:34 I made an ad hominem response because your blog is all about you as a person. You are constantly rude to others and bypass or ignore responses that you don’t like. It’s you who makes it hominem.
Peter Deadman on Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 16:52 You are hyper-emotional, extremely biased, hostile and contemptuous of anyone you think ‘beneath you’. You gloat over people’s real or imagined inconsistencies and generally come across as a nasty piece of work.
Peter Deadman on Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 19:30 How can such a childish provocateur remain in his post. It demeans the University and it’s time they let him go.
Kylee Junghans on Wednesday 18 May 2016 at 08:42 …you, kind Sir, with your rhetoric and tantrums, are exhibiting a prime example of confirmation bias.
Peter Deadman on Wednesday 18 May 2016 at 08:48 [Ernst] professes a scholarly detachment, a commitment to evidence and an open mind, but in fact is deeply biased… He clearly loves his childish provocative stance and is as far from a disinterested observer as it’s possible to be. I wouldn’t waste my time or breath on him if he didn’t have an influence that far exceeds his worth.
Carol Cooke on Wednesday 18 May 2016 at 09:27 I have followed this discussion with interest. Some of the rudest and most discourteous posts I can see are from Mr Ernst himself. But I get that, I imagine you seek to maintain a bold and authoritative tone simply by dismissing others. Being a bit controversial in your discourse has obviously served you well in that you have built a media profile on it.
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL AD HOMINEM ATTACKS BY MYSELF
Edzard on Wednesday 18 May 2016 at 09:18 “it is also difficult to get a man to read something, when he is foaming from his mouth”.
I know, this is not really ‘ad hominem’ but I could not find anything more dramatic. Surely, some will disagree this me here, and I do invite them to cite my rudeness from this threat, if they spot it. You are more than welcome!
You may think this is a bit trivial, but I disagree. The main reason I did this little exercise is to demonstrate a point which I think is important and carries a relevant lesson for future comments and discussions:
- WHEN I OR ANYONE ELSE DEFENDING RATIONALITY GET AGGRESSED, WE NATURALLY TEND TO RESPOND SLIGHTLY MORE FORCEFULLY.
- SUBSEQUENTLY, THE OTHER SIDE OFTEN REACTS BY ATTACKING US PERSONALLY.
- THIS OFTEN LEADS TO AN ESCALATION OF TONE.
- EVENTUALLY THE OTHER SIDE CLAIMS WITH INDIGNATION THAT WE ARE THE ONES DOING THE PERSONAL ATTACKS.
- IT IS A TACTIC THAT IS EFFECTIVE BUT DISHONEST, IN MY VIEW.
- THE LESSON IS SIMPLE: DO NOT LET YOURSELF GET PROVOKED INTO ISSUING AD HOMINEM ATTACKS, BE POLITE AND PATIENT.
I know this sounds simpler than it is, and I am far from being immune to the problem, but we owe it to reason to give it a try.
It has been reported in most newspapers that Prince Charles has proposed a solution to the problem of antibiotic over-use in animals and humans. He told an international gathering of scientists and government officials in London that he treats his own cows and sheep with homeopathy. Many people reacted with dismay. I, however, plead for more understanding of this thoroughly good-willed man.
In fact, I intend to go one step further.
We have often heard that he is a considerate and caring man. We ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. I have tried therefore to empathise with his situation, put myself into his shoes and repeat the considerations that made him say what he said. My empathy went so far that I tried to re-live and formulate his thoughts in the first person singular (or should I have used the ‘Royal We’?). The result is the following little monologue where I categorised the considerations under 7 headings.
I wonder why they invited me to give a speech. True, I am a farmer at heart and I know all about husbandry, but I have no real expertise in the field of antibiotics.
Perhaps it is an occasion to tell them a bit about homeopathy. Yes, that subject would surely fascinate the audience!
THE INTELLECTUAL ENVIRONMENT
They tell me that the conference will be packed with very bright people. That sort of thing always makes me a bit self-conscious. Perhaps I should decline the invitation after all? Sometimes, I have the impression that people make fun at me.
No, I must not think like that – after all, I have had a very expensive education too, and I know my stuff.
Homeopathy is such a wonderful subject. I must try to win them over and make them appreciate its beauty. These experts should realize that homeopathy is the future.
I have heard rumours that some blinkered scientists doubt that homeopathy works. But my advisors tell me that it is best to ignore this sort of thing. And my advisors know their stuff even better than I.
This conference is going to have a very high impact. The press will be there. It will be reported across the world. And government’s chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies (why can we not have more holistic doctors in position like these; I must remember to discuss this with Michael Dixon asap); she once called homeopathy ‘rubbish’ – enough to throw her in the Tower!
Mustn’t think like that! On the contrary, I will make sure they all get the message. I will bowl them over! The press will surely be on my side. This will be a victory for homeopathy.
Mother might be upset; she does not like me to stick my neck out like that…goes on about constitutional role and such trivia…she thinks we should not put our nose into things that are none of our business. And the Royal PR team will not like it either. They do what they can to distract from the image of ‘THE MEDDLING PRINCE’ might think that my speech is a hindrance to their efforts. I better don’t tell anyone in advance about this, they might try to stop me.
But now I feel quite unstoppable.
This is what I will tell them about homeopathy: “It was one of the reasons I converted my farming operation to an organic – or agro-ecological – system over 30 years ago and why we have been successfully using homeopathic – yes, homeopathic – treatments for my cattle and sheep as part of a programme to reduce the use of antibiotics.” I think this will convince everyone. Who needs science when there is powerful rhetoric like this?
What if it does not go well? They will not dare to contradict me, I am the future King, for heaven’s sake! Even if they disagree, they will not show it. They just don’t have the guts. And anyway, I will not take questions, I never do enter into any debate on homeopathy. It is simply too tedious to argue with people who do not understand the issues involved.
It is decided – I’ll do it. I’ll do it for homeopathy and for the good of mankind. If they then chose to misunderstand me, that’s their problem, and my people will issue a statement for the press saying “Homeopathy is used on a case-by-case basis at Home Farm, in combination with more conventional medicine, to minimise dependence on antibiotics.”
*In case you are a lawyer hired by HRH to check out this post: it is pure satire through and through, there is not a factual sentence here; if you want to sue me, please find another reason.
In a previous post, I asked this important question: how can research into alternative medicine ever save a single life?
The answer I suggested was as follows:
Since about 20 years, I am regularly pointing out that the most important research questions in my field relate to the risks of alternative medicine. I have continually published articles about these issues in the medical literature and, more recently, I have also made a conscious effort to step out of the ivory towers of academia and started writing for a much wider lay-audience (hence also this blog). Important landmarks on this journey include:
Alternative medicine is cleverly, heavily and incessantly promoted as being natural and hence harmless. Several of my previous posts and the ensuing discussions on this blog strongly suggest that some chiropractors deny that their neck manipulations can cause a stroke. Similarly, some homeopaths are convinced that they can do no harm; some acupuncturists insist that their needles are entirely safe; some herbalists think that their medicines are risk-free, etc. All of them tend to agree that the risks are non-existent or so small that they are dwarfed by those of conventional medicine, thus ignoring that the potential risks of any treatment must be seen in relation to their proven benefit.
For 20 years, I have tried my best to dispel these dangerous myths and fallacies. In doing so, I had to fight many tough battles (sometimes even with the people who should have protected me, e.g. my peers at Exeter university), and I have the scars to prove it. If, however, I did save just one life by conducting my research into the risks of alternative medicine and by writing about it, the effort was well worth it.
END OF QUOTE FROM MY PREVIOUS POST
Just now, I received an email from someone who clearly and vehemently disagrees with any of the above. As this blog is a forum where all sorts of opinions can and should be voiced, I thought I share this communication with you. Here it is:
Having been out of chiropractic practice for a while, I was thrilled to hear that you have been forced into early retirement on today’s Radio 4 programme. You have caused so many good people anguish and pain and your tunnel-visioned arrogance is staggering and detrimental to humanity. You REALLY think modern science has all the answers? Wow.
The question I ask myself is who is correct, the (ex-)chiropractor or I?
- Have I caused anguish and pain to many?
- Do I suffer from tunnel-vision?
- Am I arrogant?
- Is my work detrimental to humanity?
- Do I believe that modern science has all the answers?
Here is what I think about these specific questions:
- I have probably caused anguish (but no pain, as far as I am aware). This sadly is unavoidable if one seeks the truth in an area as alternative medicine.
- I am not the best person to judge this.
- Possibly; again I cannot judge.
- I truly don’t see this at all.
- No, not for one second.
In case you wonder what programme the author of the above email had been listening to, you can find it here.
Is there a bottom line? I am not sure. Perhaps this: whenever strong believes clash with scientific facts, some people are going to be unhappy. If we want to make progress, this seems to be almost unavoidable; all we can try to do is to minimize the anguish by being humble and by showing human decency.
In 2010, we published an investigation of 200 chiropractor websites and 9 chiropractic associations’ World Wide Web claims in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The outcome measure was claims (either direct or indirect) regarding the eight reviewed conditions, made in the context of chiropractic treatment.
We found evidence that 190 (95%) chiropractor websites made unsubstantiated claims regarding at least one of the conditions. When colic and infant colic data were collapsed into one heading, there was evidence that 76 (38%) chiropractor websites made unsubstantiated claims about all the conditions not supported by sound evidence. Fifty-six (28%) websites and 4 of the 9 (44%) associations made claims about lower back pain, whereas 179 (90%) websites and all 9 associations made unsubstantiated claims about headache/migraine. Unsubstantiated claims were made about asthma, ear infection/earache/otitis media, neck pain.
At the time, we concluded that the majority of chiropractors and their associations in the English-speaking world seem to make therapeutic claims that are not supported by sound evidence, whilst only 28% of chiropractor websites promote lower back pain, which is supported by some evidence. We suggest the ubiquity of the unsubstantiated claims constitutes an ethical and public health issue.
Have things changed since?
I fear not! I regularly come across websites of chiropractors where they happily make bogus claims. On this website, for instance, chiropractor Karen Smith claims that muscles in the upper neck affect the ear canals. “We don’t actually treat the ear infection, or the symptoms. What we do is, we assist the body’s natural healing ability,” says Smith. “So if there’s something going on with the joints and the muscles soft tissue, the nerves coming out that supply those muscles, those muscles can’t relax, so then they’re almost tight and in spasm, so that can’t allow the drainage to happen properly.”
When fluid builds up in the ears, it’s a breeding ground for bacteria and infection. Smith says specific, gentle adjustments, can help the body drain those fluids through the nose. “What we do is we get some motion in the upper neck, with my hands, or I might use an instrument as well,” says Smith. “There’s a few other techniques that we can do. We can do some sinus drainage. We can drain some of the fluid in the ear.”
A simple ear pull technique can also help. “So what we do is, we just take the ear of the child and we do a little pull and that can actually drain the fluid as well,” says Smith. Smith says a child’s overall health and immune system impacts how quickly they see results from the treatment. In some cases, relief can be instant. “What we notice right after an adjustment is a lot of times you’ll actually see the fluid drain through the nose,” says Smith… Smith says she also treats adults who have had chronic ear issues as a child or who are experiencing pain in the ear.
When I or others expose such nonsense, the apologists say that these are just a few ‘rotten apples’, and that the chiropractic profession is fast progressing. Yet, I very much doubt this claim. For any fast progression, one would want to see the profession taking decisive and effective action against the ‘rotten apples’. This is clearly not happening, at least not to an extend that would stop such dangerous quackery.
What practical lesson can be learnt from such insights?
The only responsible advice I can think of is this: IF YOU OR YOUR CHILD IS ILL, AVOID CONSULTING A CHIROPRACTOR.
I just came across this article which I find remarkable in several ways. Here is the abstract:
The purpose of this report is to describe 2 patients with coronary artery disease presenting with musculoskeletal symptoms to a chiropractic clinic.
A 48-year-old male new patient had thoracic spine pain aggravated by physical exertion. A 61-year-old man under routine care for low back pain experienced a secondary complaint of acute chest pain during a reevaluation.
INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME:
In both cases, the patients were strongly encouraged to consult their medical physician and were subsequently diagnosed with coronary artery disease. Following their diagnoses, each patient underwent surgical angioplasty procedures with stenting.
Patients may present for chiropractic care with what appears to be musculoskeletal chest pain when the pain may be generating from coronary artery disease necessitating medical and possibly emergency care.
I FIND THIS REMARKABLE FOR AT LEAST 3 REASONS:
- I don’t remember coming across the term ‘medical physician’ before. It is clear what the author meant by it. But it is also quite clear that such phraseology is nonsensical. My Oxford Dictionary defines ‘physician’ as: “A person qualified to practise medicine, especially one who specializes in diagnosis and medical treatment as distinct from surgery.” Therefore, a ‘medical physician’ would be ‘a medical person qualified to practise medicine.’ This begs the question why this term is used in a chiro-journal. The answer is probably quite simple: they want to arrive at a point where we all accept that there are two types of physicians: medical and chiropractic. But, using again my dictionary, this would be not just a little confusing. A chiropractic physician would be ‘a chiropractor qualified to practice medicine.’ And for that you need to go not to chiro-college but to medical school.
- The two case reports are remarkable in themselves, I find. They show that “patients may present for chiropractic care with what appears to be musculoskeletal chest pain when the pain may be generating from coronary artery disease necessitating medical and possibly emergency care.” The remarkable thing about this is that such basic knowledge ever merited a mention and publication in a journal. It should be clear to anyone who is in healthcare! I even know shop assistants who have called an ambulance because a customer suffered from what might have been misdiagnosed as a muscular problem in the left arm but was in truth due to coronary hear disease. The fact that chiros and editors of their journals feel that it worthy of publication seems a bit worrying and begs the question: how many other elementary things about the human body (known even to shop assistants) are unknown to the average chiro?
- Lastly, I must praise the chiro-profession for the progress they now seem to start making. About 120 years ago, DD Palmer, the founding father of chiropractic, famously treated a man with coronary heart disease by adjusting his spine. The author of the above article did not do that! Yes, progress was painfully slow, but the above article seems to indicate that at least some chiros have come around to agreeing with real physicians that the Palmer-gospel is based on little more than wishful thinking.
On their website, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) recently updated its members on their lobbying activities aimed at having US chiropractors recognised as primary care physicians. The president of the ACA posted the following letter to ACA members:
For much of this past year, ACA’s staff and key volunteers have been laying the groundwork to achieve just that — quietly spending time building key support on Capitol Hill for this important legislative change. As you know, our progress advanced to the point where we were able on Oct. 27 to publically launch our grassroots campaign centered on the widespread circulation of our National Medicare Equality Petition.
Since the launch of our campaign, through very public and transparent means, ACA has received the support of various organizations and individuals within the profession. These supporters fully understand the importance of eliminating any and all provider discrimination by CMS. Further they fully understand and agree with the soundness of the strategic and tactical decisions we have made and continue to make an effort to achieve the desired reformation in Medicare.
Towards building a unified consensus within the profession for our objectives and plans to accomplish them, we have engaged in prolonged discussions, mostly via the Chiropractic Summit Steering Committee and Roundtable process that includes ACA, COCSA, ACC, ICA, NBCE, FCLB and CCE. Throughout this process we have provided for them written legal opinions and analyses relative to the precise legislative language needed to achieve the full-physician status we seek. We have outlined our strategy numerous times; have shared our materials and updates with any group wishing to review them; and have repeatedly urged state chiropractic associations, chiropractic colleges, corporate partners and individual DCs to join with us and enthusiastically support this reformation campaign.
While there was high consensus on the objective of Medicare reform during the Summit Roundtable process, there was much discussion surrounding the proposed legislative language. Specifically, whether or not “detection and correction of subluxation of the spine through manual manipulation” would need to be eliminated and replaced with language simply designating DCs as physician level providers on the same level as MDs and DOs who report/bill services to Medicare based on their individual state laws.
ACA is of the opinion that nothing less than removal of the “subluxation” language in the definition of physician section will accomplish our objectives. Historically, the facts are that this language has proven to be the major barrier within HHS and CMS when we advocated for regulatory remedies expanding our reimbursement and coverage for the full range of services provided by a DC. ACA (and our profession) has expended massive resources over the past decade or longer to no avail through regulatory channels (HHS, CMS). Based on these experiences, the only reasonable recourse to eliminate 40+ years of Medicare discrimination is through a thoughtful profession-wide legislative effort.
During the Roundtable discussions, compromise language was reached placing the current “subluxation language” into the preamble of a proposed law stating that DCs must continue to have the ability to detect and correct subluxations of the spine for Medicare beneficiaries. Six of seven Summit Roundtable organizations voted in favor of this language that was offered by the Association of Chiropractic Colleges.
ACA`s intent on removing the “subluxation” reference in the Social Security Administrative statute is in no way an attempt to quash our ability to perform those services that so many of the Medicare population need and deserve. Rather, the ultimate goal of this historic effort is to gain the privilege to manage our Medicare patients within state scopes of practice and allow reimbursement for all those services that the Medicare beneficiaries are currently forced to pay out of pocket. ACA supports fully our continued ability to correct subluxations through appropriate active care and, in fact, achieve coverage for manipulation of all areas, not simply limited to the spine.
Expanding Medicare scope reimbursement will allow our profession to practice contemporary chiropractic and to potentially increase utilization of our services to the ever-increasing aging population. Expansion and reformation will also place DCs in a position to participate in alternative payment models, quality healthcare initiatives, community health centers, hospitals and other integrated settings which are vital to professional growth.
In conclusion, should you as an HOD member be questioned on our intent you should be able to answer unequivocally that ACA supports the right to manage our patients as dictated by our training and competencies based on state scopes of practice. Further, we support those who wish to provide necessary active subluxation care for the Medicare population. Please support this initiative and let’s join together to encourage your state association, colleges and universities, corporate partners, patients and individual DCs to become true partners in order to make this a success for our patients and for our grand profession.
A list of talking points will be distributed in the coming days.
Sincerely, Tony Hamm, DC President, ACA
Do I read this correctly?
The term subluxation is a hindrance to business. Therefore chiros need to do something about it. Never mind that the principle of subluxation as used in the realm of chiropractic is nonsense!
This might throw an entirely different light on those chiros who want to get rid of the term ‘subluxation’.
And what about chiros as primary care physicians?
Recently Dave Newell posted on this blog: “chiropractors in the UK … are primary care clinicians”. I objected and he insisted to be correct because “Primary Care is defined as a clinician that is the first port of call for patients seeking help.” Frank Odds then countered: “This business of “primary care provider” is becoming enervating! Edzard has now spelt out the meaning of the term as defined by Wikipedia. You are quite right that a dentist is a primary care provider: people go to a dentist when they have symptoms affecting their mouth in general — more often their teeth and gums in particular. They know that’s what dentists deal with. A general practitioner is a primary care provider: people go to a GP when they have symptoms anywhere. They know that’s what GPs deal with. A chiropractor is indeed a primary care provider: of chiropractic. ”
I think that primary care physicians are doctors who are capable of handling everything or at least most of what primary care may present to them. Chiros do not fulfil this criterion, I think.
I would be interested what you feel on this important issue.
The Independent asked me yesterday to write a 500-word piece on homeopathy. I accepted with pleasure. About two hours after I had sent it, my article appeared on their website. As I had not even seen their edited version, I was surprised how much they changed without my permission.
No, I am not cross about this – I know by now how journalists function. Yet I think that some of their changes did change my meaning, and therefore I have decided to post here the original. Since I did not get paid nor sign a copyright transfer, I think I am perfectly entitled to do that.
HERE IT IS
Time to get real about homeopathy
EDZARD ERNST, EMERITUS PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia recently published what might be the most thorough evaluation of homeopathy in the 200-year long history of this therapy. They assessed a total of 57 systematic reviews summarizing 176 individual clinical trials focused on 68 different conditions. They concluded that, firstly, there is no evidence that homeopathy works better than placebo, and, secondly, that patients may harm themselves, if they nevertheless employ homeopathy instead of effective therapies. Already in 2002, on the basis of a similar but less comprehensive analysis, I concluded that “the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice” [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492603]. Yet homeopaths around the world seemed shocked by this news and are now on the war-path to rubbish or suppress it.
This reaction is as surprising as it is ridiculous. The conclusion that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos had already been derived from the utter implausibility of Hahnemann’s theories that like cures like and that diluting a remedy would render it not weaker but stronger. Oliver Wendell Holmes, for instance, famously wrote in 1842 that homeopathy is “a mingled mass of perverse ingenuity, of tinsel erudition, of imbecile credulity, and of artful misinterpretation, too often mingled in practice…with heartless and shameless imposition.”
Homeopaths, however, claimed for the last 200 years that science was not yet able to explain how homeopathy works, in other words, that homeopaths are ahead of their time. The fact, however, is that scientists have always been perfectly able to affirm that there cannot be an explanation for homeopathy that does not fly in the face of science.
“The proof is in the pudding”, homeopaths countered, “if patients benefit from homeopathy, it works regardless what the science tells us!” This argument too has long been shown to be based on little more than the delusion of homeopaths. Patients benefit from the therapeutic encounter, from the placebo-effect and from other phenomena that are unrelated to the sugar pills dished out by homeopaths. To convey such benefits to their patients, clinicians do not need placebos. Administering truly effective treatments with compassion will make them benefit from both the specific and the non-specific effects of the therapy in question. This means that just using placebos like homeopathics is unethical and amounts to cheating the patient.
Given the overwhelming evidence against homeopathy it seems now time to act. There is no reason any longer for consumers, patients, politicians, journalists etc. to believe in homeopathy. Pretending there is room for a legitimate debate is merely misleading the public. There is also no reason to have homeopathy on the NHS, to pay for homeopathic hospitals or to invest into further research. After researching the subject for more than two decades, I am convinced that the only legitimate place for homeopathy is in the history books.
Germany is, as we all know, the home of homeopathy. Here it has an unbroken popularity, plenty of high level support and embarrassingly little opposition. The argument that homeopathy has repeatedly been shown to merely rely on placebo effects seems to count for nothing in Germany.
Perhaps this is going to change now. On January 30, a group of experts from all walks of life have met in Freiburg to discuss ways of informing the public responsibly and countering the plethora of misinformation that Germans are regularly exposed to on the subject of homeopathy. They founded the ‘Information Network Homeopathy’ and decided on a range of actions.
No doubt, some will ask where does their financial support come from? And no doubt, some will claim that we are on the payroll of ‘Big Pharma’. The truth is that we have no funding; everyone gives his/her own time free of charge and pays for his/her own expenses etc. And why? Because we believe in progress and feel strongly that it is time to improve healthcare by relegating homeopathy to the history books.
One of the first fruits of the network’s endeavours is the ‘Freiburger Erklärung zur Homöopathie’, the ‘Freiburg Declaration on Homeopathy’. I have the permission to reproduce the document here in full (the translation is mine):
HOMEOPATHY IS NEITHER NATUROPATHY NOR MEDICINE
Despite the support of politicians and the silence of those who should know better, homeopathy has remained a method which is in clear opposition to the proven basics of science. The members and supporter of the ‘Information Network Homeopathy’ view homeopathy as a stubbornly surviving belief system, which cannot be accepted as part of naturopathy nor medicine. The information network is an association of physicians, pharmacists, veterinarians, biologists, scientists and other critics of homeopathy who are united in their aim to disclose this fact more openly and make the public more aware of it.
NO SPECIAL STATUS FOR HOMEOPATHY
During the more than 200 years of its existence, homeopathy has not managed to demonstrate its specific effectiveness. Homeopathy only survives because it has been granted special status in the German healthcare system which is, in the opinion of the experts of the network, unjustified. Drugs have to prove their effectiveness according to objective criteria, but homeopathics are exempt from this obligation. We oppose such double standards in medicine.
Homeopathy has also not managed to demonstrate a plausible mode of action. Instead its proponents pretend that there are uncertainties which need to be clarified. We oppose such notions vehemently. Homeopathy is not an unconventional method that requires further scientific study. Its basis consists of long disproven theories such as the ‘law of similars’, ‘vital force’ or ‘potentisation by dilution’.
SELF-DECEPTION OF PATIENT AND THERAPIST
We do not dispute the therapeutic effects of a homeopathic treatment. But they are unrelated to the specific homeopathic remedy. The perceived effectiveness of homeopathics is due to suggestion and auto-suggestion of the patient and the therapist. The mechanisms of such (self-) deceit are multi-fold but well-known and researched. Symptomatic improvements caused by context-effects must not be causally associated with the homeopathic remedy. We assume that many physicians and alternative practitioners using homeopathy are unaware of the existence and multitude of such mechanisms and are acting in good faith. This, however, does not alter the fact that their conclusions are wrong and thus potentially harmful.
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE
We do not claim that the scientific method which we uphold can currently research and explain everything. However, it enables us to explain that homeopathy cannot explain itself. The scientific method shows the best way we have for differentiating effective from ineffective treatments. A popular belief in therapeutic claims nourished by politicians and journalists can never be a guide for medical activities.
AIM OF THIS DECLARATION
Our criticism is not aimed at needy patients or practising homeopathic clinicians; it is aimed at the school of homeopathy and the healthcare institutions which could have long recognised the nonsensical nature of homeopathy, but have chosen not to interfere. We ask the players within our science-based healthcare system to finally reject homeopathy and other pseudoscientific methods and to return to what should be self-evident: scientifically validated, fair and generally reproducible rules promoting top-quality medicine for he benefit of the patient.
Dr.-Ing. Norbert Aust, Initiator Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie
Dr. med. Natalie Grams, Leiterin Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie
Amardeo Sarma, GWUP Vorsitzender und Fellow von CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry)
Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor, Universität Exeter, UK
Prof. Dr. Rudolf Happle, Verfasser der Marburger Erklärung zur Homöopathie
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hell, Vorsitzender des Wissenschaftsrates der GWUP
Prof. Norbert Schmacke, Institut für Public Health und Pflegeforschung, Universität Bremen
Dr. rer. nat. Christian Weymayr, freier Medizinjournalist