MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

pseudo-science

One of the things I like best about this blog is the fact that there is no shortage of comments. Many are excellent but others are quite simply infuriatingly bad. Yet, all of them form important contributions to the attractiveness of the blog.

So, thanks to everyone who has contributed.

And, please, keep up the good work.

Despite their importance, I often do not reply to the comments. Some readers might thus be puzzled by my seemingly paradoxical stance. There are several reasons for it; please let me explain.

You probably noticed that I publish a new post (almost) every day. That means I am quite busy – often too busy to post any replies to your comments. You might have also noticed that there are not just one or two comments from readers. In total, my readers posted well over 60000 comments on my blog. And again, I have to admit that I do often lack the time to formulate my own comments. Rather, I hope that other readers pick up the points someone has made and that, in this way, a constructive debate emerges even without my contribution. To be honest, sometimes the comments are also beyond my area of expertise and, in these instances, I prefer to remain silent.

And then there are the comments that, as mentioned above, are infuriatingly bad. Sometimes they annoy me so much that I spontaneously write a response. More often than I wish, I then come across as rude and unhelpful (for which I apologize). And more often than I want, this error entangles me in an argument that is both futile and unwinnable.

Instead of writing things that I later regret, I should really try to heed the bon mot that is often attributed to Mark Twain:

The ‘Society of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy’  (Gesellschaft der Mediziner und Wissenschaftler für Gesundheit, Freiheit und Demokratie e.V. MWGFD) recently held a press coference where they presented its 10-point plan for a Corona phase-out concept. Here are their 10 demands (my translation):

  1. Immediate cessation of COVID vaccinations and in particular compulsory COVID vaccination.
  2. End all non-evidence-based non-pharmaceutical measures (NPI’s), such as lockdowns, school closures, mandatory masks in public spaces, isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, stand-off rules, as well as RT-PCR and rapid antigen testing of people without symptoms of disease, and immediately open sports venues, restaurants, churches and cultural institutions to all without access conditions
  3. Pandemic management must be sensibly controlled on the basis of science and evidence, including correct testing of the genuinely ill and correct recording of the epidemic situation. Since this has been neglected for two years, we demand the resignation of the previous advisory experts.
  4. Drawing up easily applicable concepts for the prevention and early treatment of COVID-19 and also for the inpatient and, if necessary, intensive medical treatment of severe courses.
  5. The dominance of one single logic, namely the virological logic, must be ended. Other aspects, such as economic, social, psychological, educational and holistic medical considerations must be included.
  6. Reassuring the population about sufficient medical care for all
  7. The media should provide wide-ranging comprehensive information, according to the ethical guidelines for journalists formulated in the Press Code, without creating fear and panic.
  8. Provide programmes to treat the physical and psychological trauma caused by the operations, especially for children and adolescents
  9. Ending the care crisis through appropriate measures
  10. Separation of powers, justice and freedom

Who would put their name to such complete idiocy?

You may well ask!

The members of the MWGFD are:

  • Prof. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi, Facharzt für Mikrobiologie und Infektionsepidemiologie, ehem. Direktor des Instituts für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Hygiene der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
  • Dr. med. Thomas Binder, Kardiologe, Vorstand Aletheia – Medizin und Wissenschaft für Verhältnismässigkeit, Wettingen, Schweiz
  • Prof. Dr. med. Arne Burkhardt, Facharzt für Pathologie, Reutlingen
  • Prof. Dr.-Ing. Aris Christidis, ehem. Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, Giessen Fachbereich Mathematik, Naturwissenschaften und Informatik
  • Andreas Diemer, Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin und Naturheilverfahren, Diplom- Physiker, Musiker, Leiter der Akademie Lebenskunst und Gesundheit, Gernsbach
  • Dr. med. univ. Dr. phil. Christian Fiala, Facharzt für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin, Tropenmedizin, Wien
  • Dr. med. Heinrich Fiechtner, Hämatologe und Internistischer Onkologe, Stuttgart
  • Daniela Folkinger, Psychologische Beraterin, Lehrerin, Thurmansbang
  • Dr. med. Margareta Griesz-Brisson, Neurologin, London und Müllheim, BW
  • Prof. Dr. med. Dr. phil. Martin Haditsch, Facharzt für Mikrobiologie, Virologie und Infektionsepidemiologie, Hannover
  • Dr. Dr. Renate Holzeisen, Rechtsanwältin, Bozen
  • Prof. Dr. rer. hum. biol. Ulrike Kämmerer, Humanbiologin, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg
  • Prof. Dr. Christian Kreiß, Volkswirtschaftler, Hochschule Aalen
  • Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner, Pädagogische Psychologie, Universität Regensburg
  • Prof. Dr. med. Walter Lang, Pathologe, Hannover
  • Werner Möller, Intensivpfleger und Atmungstherapeut, Stuttgart, Gründer der Initiative „Pflege für Aufklärung“
  • Prof. Dr. Werner Müller, Rechnungswesen, Controlling, Steuern, Fachbereich Wirtschaft der Hochschule Mainz
  • Cornelia Reichl, Heilpraktikerin, Passau
  • Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Karina Reiß, Mikrobiologie, Quincke-Forschungszentrum der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
  • Dr. med. Konstantina Rösch, Allgemeinärztin, Graz
  • Prof. Dr. phil. Franz Ruppert, Psychotraumatologie, psychologische Psychotherapie, Psychologie, Katholische Stiftungshochschule München
  • Heiko Schöning, Arzt, Hamburg
  • Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Dr. rer. nat. M. Sc. Christian Schubert, Klinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck.
  • Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab, Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Verfahrens- und Unternehmensrecht, Universität Bielefeld
  • Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Sönnichsen, Abteilung für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin, Medizinische Universität Wien, bis Januar 2021 Vorsitzender des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin,
  • Priv. Doz. Dr. med. Josef Thoma, HNO-Arzt, Berlin.
  • Prof. Dr. Hans-Werner Vohr, Immunologie und Immuntoxikologie, Universität Düsseldorf.
  • Prof. Dr. Dr. Daniel von Wachter, Professor für Philosophie an der Internationalen Akademie für Philosophie im Fürstentum Liechtenstein
  • Prof. Dr. Harald Walach, klinischer Psychologe, Gesundheits-wissenschaftler, Leiter des Change Health Science Instituts, Berlin
  • Dr. med. Ronald Weikl, Facharzt für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Praktischer Arzt, Naturheilverfahren, Passau
  • Ernst Wolff, Autor, Finanzexperte und freier Journalist, Berlin

As we see, the ‘Society of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy’ does not just contain physicians and scientists but also – contrary to its name – simple non-academic loons. And, of course, an important member – the main reason for today blogging about it – it includes SCAM practitioners and – most importantly – Prof Harald Walach who has featured so regularly on this blog.

There has been much discussion recently about the best way to persuade anti-vaxxers to change their minds. As they seem completely resistant to the scientific consensus, this has so far not been an easy task. Many experts tell us that we foremost must not ridicule them. I think the ’10 demands’ show that this is also not necessary because they are so very efficient in doing that themselves.

My second entry into this competition is so special that I will show you its complete, unadulterated abstract. Here it is:

Objective

To compare the safety differences between Chinese medicine (CM) and Western medicine (WM) based on Chinese Spontaneous Reporting Database (CSRD).

Methods

Reports of adverse events (AEs) caused by CM and WM in the CSRD between 2010 and 2011 were selected. The following assessment indicators were constructed: the proportion of serious AEs (PSE), the average number of AEs (ANA), and the coverage rate of AEs (CRA). Further comparisons were also conducted, including the drugs with the most reported serious AEs, the AEs with the biggest report number, and the 5 serious AEs of interest (including death, anaphylactic shock, coma, dyspnea and abnormal liver function).

Results

The PSE, ANA and CRA of WM were 1.09, 8.23 and 2.35 times higher than those of CM, respectively. The top 10 drugs with the most serious AEs were mainly injections for CM and antibiotics for WM. The AEs with the most reports were rash, pruritus, nausea, dizziness and vomiting for both CM and WM. The proportions of CM and WM in anaphylactic shock and coma were similar. For abnormal liver function and death, the proportions of WM were 5.47 and 3.00 times higher than those of CM, respectively.

Conclusion

Based on CSRD, CM was safer than WM at the average level from the perspective of adverse drug reactions.

__________________

Perhaps there will be readers who do not quite understand why I find this paper laughable. Let me try to answer their question by suggesting a few other research subjects of similar farcicality.

  • A comparison of the safety of vitamins and chemotherapy.
  • A study of the relative safety of homeopathic remedies and antibiotics.
  • An investigation into the risks of sky diving in comparison with pullover knitting.
  • A study of the pain caused by an acupuncture needle compared to molar extraction.

In case my point is still not clear: comparing the safety of one intervention to one that is fundamentally different in terms of its nature and efficacy does simply make no sense. If one wanted to conduct such an investigation, it would only be meaningful, if one would consider the risk-benefit balance of both treatments.

The fact that this is not done here discloses the above paper as an embarrassing attempt at promoting Traditional Chinese Medicine.

 

PS

In case you wonder about the affiliations of the authors and their support:

  1. School of Management, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing, 210003, China
    Jian-xiang Wei
  2. School of Internet of Things, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing, 210003, China
    Zhi-qiang Lu, Guan-zhong Feng & Yun-xia Zhu

The review was supported by the Major Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Jiangsu Universities and the Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province, China.

January 27 is ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’, the day to remember the victims of the Third Reich. So, please allow me to reproduce today a (slightly altered and shortened) paper that I published back in 1996 on the role of the German medical profession in the killing of millions:

 

On January 27, 1945, the concentration camp in Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army. By May of the same year about 20 more such camps were discovered. Even today, it is hard to understand how so many terrible atrocities could have happened in a cultured country, and, more specifically, under the eyes of a medical profession that belonged to the world’s finest. Here I will try to explain how many of the worst infamies happened with the active help of Germany’s medical profession.

The pseudoscience of “race hygiene” had strong roots. In the second half of the 19th century, “Social Darwinism” had become increasingly popular throughout Europe. This theory assumed that, just as animal species fight for the survival of the fittest, whole nations struggle in a similar fashion. In this process of natural selection, the fittest nation would be the one that is genetically more pure than its neighbors.

Social Darwinism originated from France (Duke Gobinau), England (Francis Galton), and Germany alike. Its German proponents, however, were to expand it significantly: Alfred Ploetz coined the term “race hygiene” (Rassenhygiene) , Ernst Haeckel first considered selection by killing “weaklings,“’ and the physician Fritz Lenz finally formulated his theory of race inequality. Lenz’s works were read by Hitler during his prison sentence in Landsberg (1924 to 1925). They had a great influence on his race politics of the years to come.’ The ingredient of antisemitism had continually been added to “Social Darwinism” and the diabolic result turned out to be race hygiene.

As the word implies, it was essentially a medical issue. Throughout his credo Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to the Jewish race as a bacillus, a parasite, a disease. The propaganda of the Third Reich adopted these medical analogies. The “biological body of the German people” (Volkskoerper) was threatened. The healer was Hitler, who promised to eradicate this assault to the nation’s health once and for all. The Jewish question had been rendered a medical problem, the therapy of which was to be realized in places like Auschwitz and Dachau.

The medical profession promoted the belief that to cure individuals was one thing, but to heal the nation was incomparably more important. Owing to the popularity of Social Darwinism, a long history of antisemitism, and a powerful Nazi propaganda, the majority of the medical profession adopted the ideas of race hygiene. These were subsequently further perverted with applied racism.

Race hygiene had been initially developed by and was later entrusted to the German medical profession. There was shamefully little resistance from organized medicine, and many have wondered why. One answer is that critical peers who could have constituted opposition within the profession had been quickly eliminated. At the Medical Faculty of Vienna, for instance, some 80% of the faculty were dismissed within weeks of the German take-over. The most frequent reason for the dismissal of doctors at all levels was being of Jewish origin. Vacant posts were filled with new staff known not for their medical expertise but for political trustworthiness. Opposition from peers was thus minimal.

Forced sterilization was introduced in order to secure the freedom of the German nation from the threat of contamination by inferior (Jewish) blood. It was legalized through the “law for the prevention of genetically diseased offspring” (Gesetz zur Verhinderung erbkranken Nachwuchs) as early as July 1933, only 5 months after the Nazis came to power. The swift move was possible because of preparatory work performed during the Weimar Republic, much of which was contributed by the medical profession. The law provided that handicapped individuals were to be identified, examined by a jury of experts who had to write a report, and subsequently sterilized. For this purpose, some 200 Genetic Health Courts were instituted. These were empowered to order involuntary sterilization. An estimated 400,000 individuals became victims of these courts.

At this stage, physicians had assumed an executive position within the Nazi state as “delegated judges” and “guardians over the law.“’ When these medical experts’ reports were evaluated after the war, the overwhelming majority were found to be of unacceptable quality and almost all had recommended sterilization. Yet in the minds of leading proponents of race hygiene, the law did not go far enough but created human “ballast” and an economic burden that had to be eliminated by other means. Therefore, the concept of euthanasia was transformed from voluntary assisted death to involuntary, medically supervised killing.

The Nazi euthanasia program started in various specialized medicine departments in 1939. It was a delicate issue even by Nazi standards. Therefore, an attempt was made to keep it a secret. In theory, the program was aimed at eradicating children suffering from “idiocy, Down’s syndrome, hydrocephalus and other abnormalities.” In practice, however, it was sufficient for physicians to fill in the diagnosis “Jew” to effectively issue a death sentence.”

At the end of 1939, the program was extended to adults “unworthy of living.” It is estimated that more than 70,000 predominantly psychiatric patients fell victim to the program. Psychiatrists became concerned about whether there would be enough patients left to keep their specialty alive.” “Action T4” was the Berlin headquarters of the euthanasia program. It was run by approximately 50 volunteer physicians.

Questionnaires were sent to psychiatric and other hospitals urging the physicians in charge to name candidates for euthanasia. In some cases, the inducement was a financial reward. The victims were then transported to specialized centers where they were gassed or poisoned. Action T4 was therefore responsible for supervised murder. Its true significance, however, lies even beyond this horror.

Hitler himself formally discontinued the program on August 24, 1941, following increasing opposition from both the general population and the clergy. But action T4 turned out to be nothing less than a “pilot project” for the extinction of millions in the concentration camps. The T4 units had thus developed the technology for killing on an “industrial scale.” It was only with this technical know-how that the total extinction of all Jews of the expanding Reich could be anticipated. Most importantly, however, this truly monstrous task required medical know-how and reliability. Almost without exception, those physicians who had worked for T4 went on to take charge of what the Nazis called the Final Solution.

While action T4 had killed thousands, its offspring would eliminate millions under the trained guidance of doctors. The role the medical profession played in the atrocities of the Third Reich was therefore critical and essential. German physicians had been involved at all levels and stages. They had developed and accepted the pseudo-science of race hygiene. They were instrumental in developing it further into applied racism. They had evolved the know-how of mass extinction. Finally, they also performed outrageously cruel and criminal experiments under the guise of scientific inquiry.

The aim of generating pure Aryans had taken precedence over the most fundamental ethical issues in medicine. German doctors had betrayed all the ideals medicine had previously embraced and had become involved in criminal activities to an extent and degree that is unprecedented in the entire history of medicine.

Ironically German science suffered the most: 16 of the Jewish refugees were later awarded Nobel prizes. Many of the brightest Jewish figures, formerly involved in German medicine, made invaluable contributions to the healthcare of the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries.

The memory of what happened during this period should fortify us against similar, future violations. Forced sterilization, and even ethnic cleansing, did not disappear from the world when 7 of the accused Germans were sentenced to death in the Nuremberg Doctor’s Tribunal. Such violations of humanity are a tragic reality even today. Understanding the greatest blot on the record of medicine could and should be a preventive measure. More importantly, perhaps, this story needs to be told and retold to honor those who became its victims.

(References can be found in the original paper)

 

 

PS

Personally, I do not need a ‘memorial day’ for remembering. I believe we must never forget.

Yes, there is a new paper on homeopathic Arnica!

And yes, it arrives at a positive conclusion.

How is this possible?

Let’s have a look.

The authors conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis, following a predefined protocol, of all studies on the use of homeopathic Arnica montana in surgery. They included all randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing homeopathic Arnica to a placebo or to another active comparator and calculated two quantitative meta-analyses and appropriate sensitivity analyses.

Twenty-three publications reported on 29 different comparisons. One study had to be excluded because no data could be extracted, leaving 28 comparisons. Eighteen comparisons used placebo controls, nine comparisons an active control, and in one case Arnica was compared to no treatment. The metaanalysis of the placebo-controlled trials yielded an overall effect size of Hedge’s g = 0.18 (95% confidence interval -0.007/0.373; p = 0.059). Active comparator trials yielded a highly heterogeneous significant effect size of g = 0.26. This is mainly due to the large effect size of non-randomized studies, which converges against zero in the randomized trials.

The authors concluded that homeopathic Arnica has a small effect size over and against placebo in preventing excessive hematoma and other sequelae of surgeries. The effect is comparable to that of anti-inflammatory substances.

This review has many remarkable (or should I say, suspect?) features, e.g.:

  • Its authors are famous (or should I say, infamous) advocates of homeopathy not known for their objectivity (including Prof Walach).
  • Some of the trials included in the analysis are unpublished conference proceedings usually only published as an abstract (ref 29).
  • Others were published in journals such as ‘Allgemeine Homoeopathische Zeitung‘ which is unlikely to manage a decent peer-review system (ref 46).
  • Some trials used Arnica in low potencies that contained active molecules, and nobody doubts that active molecules can have effects (ref 32 and 37).
  • One study seems to be a retrospective case-control study (ref 38).
  • The primary endpoints of several studies were not those evaluated in the review (e.g. ref 42).
  • One study used a combination of herbal and homeopathic arnica in the verum group which means the observed effect cannot be attributed to homeopathy (ref 31).

Perhaps the strangest feature relates to the methodology used by the review authors: “Where data were only available in graphs, data were read off the graph by enlarging the display and reading the figures with a ruler.” I have never before come across this method which must be wide open to bias.

Considering all of these odd features, I think that the small effect size over and against placebo in preventing excessive hematoma and other sequelae of surgeries reported by the review authors is most likely due to a range of factors that have nothing whatsoever to do with homeopathy.

So, does the new review show that homeopathic Arnica is “efficacious”? I don’t think so!

For all of you who, like myself, like the occasional glass or two of wine:

THERE IS GOOD NEWS!

Wine is the latest alternative measure against COVID-19.

This, at least, is what an article sent to me seems to suggest:

At the end of the year, American researchers showed in-vitro that polyphenols in grapes and wine disrupt the way the Sars-Cov2 virus that causes Covid-19 replicates and spreads.

The Taiwan Medical University found that the tannins in wine effectively inhibit the activity of two key enzymes of the virus, which can no longer penetrate cell tissue.

“Of all the natural compounds we have tested in the laboratory, tannic acid is the most effective,” said Mien-Chie Hung, a molecular biologist and president of the university, on TVBS. He also recalled the good results obtained with experimental tannic acid treatments in 2003 during the SARS pandemic.

Now I understand why I haven’t caught the bug yet, I thought to myself, while pouring a large glass of red Bordeaux, my favorite. After yet another glass, I began to feel bad. No, not because of an alcohol overdose. Because I omitted something that might be not unimportant: I should really have told you who sent me the article. It was a source entirely devoted to the promotion of wine, a source related to my wine merchant.

Ah well, I thought, pouring a further glass.

When, many hours later, I had finally sobered up, I decided to conduct a few Medline searches. This is when I found this:

Greatly encouraged, I poured another glass.

 

 

 

PS

As, in my experience, COVID deniers are not the brightest buttons in the drawer, I should point out that THIS POST IS MEANT TO BE SATIRE.

“There’s a sucker born every minute”. This phrase was allegedly coined by P. T. Barnum, an American showman of the mid-19th century pictured below. It describes the tendency of the gullible of us to believe all too readily and therefore to be easily deceived.

Gullibility can be described as a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into a course of action for which there is no plausible evidence. To express it positively, gullible people are naively trusting and thus fall for nonsensical propositions. This renders them easy prey for exploiters.

On this blog, we see our fair share of this phenomenon, e.g.:

  • people who are easily persuaded by anecdotes,
  • who disregard evidence
  • who fall for pseudoscience,
  • who have irrational belief systems,
  • who thrive on fallacies,
  • who cherry-pick the evidence that fits their belief,
  • who are unable to change their views in the face of evidence,
  • who interpret even contradictory facts such that they confirm their belief,
  • who have no ability to think critically,
  • who would do just about anything to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Let me give you just three well-known examples from the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).

  1. Advocates of SCAM believe that natural means safe. Yet the therapies used in SCAM are neither natural nor devoid of risks.
  2. Advocates of SCAM believe that treatments that have a long tradition of usage must be fine. Yet a long history might just signify that the therapy in question is based on obsolete principles.
  3. Advocates of integrative medicine believe that, by adding unproven therapies to our medicine bag, we might improve healthcare. Yet it is clear that such a move can only make it less effective.

If I look back on 30 years of research into SCAM, I have to say that it very much looks as though a sucker is indeed born every minute.

It was, of course, widely reported that the tennis star Djokovic refuses to get vaccinated against COVID.

Why does he insist on such a daft move?

Does he fear side effects?

No, he believes in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)

But maybe there is another, more profane reason.

NoVax Djokovic is the main shareholder of a start-up company called ‘QuantBioRes‘. It was founded only in 2020 and aims to find cures and treatments against bacterial resistance and retroviruses, in particular Covid-19. The start-up is investigating methods of “deactivation” of Sars-CoV-2. In essence, ‘QuantBioRes’ is trying to invent a quantum-bollocks-dased SCAM that would be marketable as a replacement for the current COVID vaccines. The no vax positions of the tennis star might therefore not just be due to his love of SCAM but also to financial reasons.

It emerged that Djokovic owns an 80% stake in ‘QuantBioRes’. “At QuantBioRes, we work in utilizing unique and novel ‘Resonant Recognition Model'”. It is based on the weird notion that “certain periodicities/frequencies within the distribution of energies of free electrons along the protein are critical for protein biological function and interaction with protein receptors and other targets,” the QuantBioRes website states.

According to the Guardian, the company will “soon start testing different treatment approaches”. Prof Peter Collignon, an infectious diseases physician and antimicrobial resistance expert, said the QuantBioRes website used “fancy terms” without providing any evidence of success of the methods it promoted. “They’ve given nothing in the way of data,” he said. “People are looking out for new molecules all the time, but the website describes a way of finding a new molecule without providing any evidence of success.”

The Guardian speculates that the treatment would be akin to homeopathy but the chief executive of QuantBioRes, Ivan Loncarevic, stated: “What we do has absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy. The theory behind homeopathy is that you can transfer information from a chemical to another substance, such as water. What we do is to develop peptides with specific functionality. This is pure, classical science. Of course we are not putting our data on our website for every idiot to look at. We will soon publish an article in a scientific journal that will collect all our clinical testing.” When asked when the article will be published, Loncarevic said: “With a little luck, in two to three months, after peer review.”

I partly agree with Ivan Loncarevic: the method looks nothing like homeopathy. It seems more akin to the Lakhovski oscillator which we discussed some time ago. Whatever it is, it seems to be based on bizarre quantum bollocks and has as much chance to be an effective cure for anything as I have in winning a grand slam.

Tai chi is a meditative exercise therapy based on Traditional Chinese Medicine. On this blog, we have repeatedly discussed this so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It involves meditative movements rooted in both Traditional Chinese Medicine and the martial arts. Tai chi was originally aimed at enhancing mental and physical health; today it has become a popular alternative therapy.

This systematic review assessed the efficiency of tai chi (TC) in different populations’ cognitive function improvement.  Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from the beginning of coverage through October 17, 2020 in English and Chinese were retrieved from many indexing databases. Selected studies were graded according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention 5.1.0. The outcome measures of cognitive function due to traditional TC intervention were obtained. Meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.4 software. We follow the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

Thirty-three RCTs, with a total of 1808 participants, were included. The results showed that TC can progress global cognition when assessed in middle-aged as well as elderly patients suffering from cognitive and executive function impairment. The findings are as follows:

  • Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale: mean difference (MD) = 3.23, 95% CI = 1.88-4.58, p < 0.00001,
  • Mini-Mental State Exam: MD = 3.69, 95% CI = 0.31-7.08, p = 0.03,
  • Trail Making Test-Part B: MD = -13.69, 95% CI = -21.64 to -5.74, p = 0.0007.

The memory function of older adults assessed by the Wechsler Memory Scale was as follows: MD = 23.32, 95% CI = 17.93-28.71, p < 0.00001. The executive function of college students evaluated by E-prime software through the Flanker test was as follows: MD = -16.32, 95% CI = -22.71 to -9.94, p < 0.00001.

The authors concluded that TC might have a positive effect on the improvement of cognitive function in middle-aged and elderly people with cognitive impairment as well as older adults and college students.

These days, I easily get irritated with such conclusions. That TC might improve cognitive function is obvious. If not, there would be no reason to do a review! But does it?

This paper does not provide an answer. All it shows is that TC trials are of lousy quality and that the observed effects might well be due not to TC itself by to non-specific effects.

Yesterday, my new book arrived on my doorstep.

WHAT JOY!

Its full title is CHARLES, THE ALTERNATIVE PRINCE. AN UNAUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY. I guess that it also clarifies its contents. In case you want to know more, here is the full list of topics:

Foreword by Nick Ross v  Charles, The Alternative Prince: An Unauthorised Biography
1. Why this Book? 1
2. Why this Author? 5
3. Words and Meanings 10
4. How Did It All Start? 13
5. Laurens van der Post 17
6. The British Medical Association 25
7. Talking Health 31
8. Osteopathy 37
9. Chiropractic 43
10. The Foundation of Integrated Health 50
11. Open Letter to The Times 56
12. The Model Hospital 62
13. Integrated Medicine 66
14. The Gerson Therapy 73
15. Herbal Medicine 77
16. The Smallwood Report 82
17. World Health Organisation 90
18. Traditional Chinese Medicine 96
19. The ‘GetWellUK’ Study 100
20. Bravewell 106
21. Duchy Originals Detox Tincture 110
22. Charles’ Letters to Health Politicians 115
23. The College of Medicine and Integrated Health 120
24. The Enemy of Enlightenment 126
25. Harmony 132
26. Antibiotic Overuse 142
27. Ayurvedic Medicine 147
28. Social Prescribing 154
29. Homeopathy 160
30. Final Thoughts 169
Glossary 180
End Notes 187
Index 202

In case you want to know more, here is chapter 1 of my book:

Over the past two decades, I have supported efforts to focus healthcare on the particular needs of the individual patient, employing the best and most appropriate forms of treatment from both orthodox and complementary medicine in a more integrated way.[1]

The Prince of Wales 1997

This is a charmingly British understatement, indeed! Charles has been the most persistent champion of alternative medicine in the UK and perhaps even in the world. Since the early 1980s, he has done everything in his power

  • to boost the image of alternative medicine,
  • to improve the status of alternative practitioners,
  • to make alternative therapies more available to the general public,
  • to lobby that it should be paid for by the National Health Service (NHS),
  • to ensure the press reported favourably about the subject,
  • to influence politicians to provide more support for alternative medicine.

He has fought for these aims on a personal, emotional, political, and societal level. He has used his time, his intuition, his influence, and occasionally his money to achieve his goals. In 2010, he even wrote a book, ‘Harmony’, in which he explains his ideas in some detail[2] (discussed in chapter 25, arguably the central chapter of this biography). Charles has thus become the undisputed champion of the realm of alternative medicine. For that he is admired by alternative practitioners across the globe.

Yet, his relentless efforts are not appreciated by everyone (another British understatement!). There are those who view his interventions as counter-productive distractions from the important and never-ending task to improve modern healthcare. There are those who warn that integrating treatments of dubious validity into our medical routine will render healthcare less efficient. There are those who claim that the Prince’s preoccupation with matters that he is not qualified to fully comprehend is a disservice to public health. And there are those who insist that the role of the heir to the throne does not include interfering with health politics.

  • So, are Charles’ ideas new and exciting?
  • Or are they obsolete and irrational?
  • Has Charles become the saviour of UK healthcare?
  • Or has he hindered progress?
  • Is he a role model for medical innovators?
  • Or the laughing stock of the experts?
  • Is he a successful reformer of healthcare?
  • Or are his concepts doomed to failure?

Charles appears to evade critical questions of this nature. Relying on his intuition, he unwaveringly pursues and promotes his personal beliefs, regardless of the evidence (Box 1). He believes strongly in his mission and is, as most observers agree, full of good intentions. If he even notices any criticism, it is merely to reaffirm his resolve and redouble his efforts. He is reported to work tirelessly, and one could easily get the impression that he is obsessed with his idea of integrating alternative medicine into conventional healthcare.

I have observed Charles’ efforts around alternative medicine for the last 30 years. Occasionally, I was involved in some of them. For 19 years, I have headed the world’s most productive team of researchers in alternative medicine. This background puts me in a unique position to write this account of Charles’ ‘love affair’ with alternative medicine. It is not just a simple outline of Charles’ views and actions but also a critical analysis of the evidence that does or does not support them. In writing it, I pursue several aims:

    1. I want to summarise this part of medical history, as it amounts to an important contribution to the recent development of alternative medicine in the UK and beyond.
    2. I hope to explain how Charles and other enthusiasts of alternative medicine think, what motivates them and what logic they follow.
    3. I will contrast Charles’ beliefs with the published evidence as it pertains to each of the alternative modalities (treatments and diagnostic methods) he supports.
    4. I want to stimulate my readers’ ability to think critically about health in general and alternative medicine in particular.

My book will thus provide an opportunity to weigh the arguments for and against alternative medicine. In that way, it might even provide Charles with a substitute for a discussion about his thoughts on alternative medicine which, during almost half a century, he so studiously managed to avoid.

In pursuing these aims there are also issues that I hope to avoid. From the start, I should declare an interest. Charles and I once shared a similar enthusiasm for alternative medicine. But, as new evidence emerged, I changed my mind and he did not. This led to much-publicised tensions and conflicts. Yet it would be too easy to dismiss this book as an act of vengeance. It isn’t. I have tried hard to be objective and dispassionate, setting out Charles’ claims as fairly as I can and comparing them with the most reliable evidence. As much as possible:

    1. I do not want my personal discords with Charles to get in the way of objectivity.
    2. I do not want to be unfairly dismissive of Charles and his ambitions.
    3. I do not want to be disrespectful about anyone’s deeply felt convictions.
    4. I do not aim to weaken the standing of our royal family.

My book follows Charles’ activities in roughly chronological order. Each time we encounter a new type of alternative medicine, I will try to contrast Charles’ perceptions with the scientific evidence that was available at the time. Most chapters of this book are thus divided into four parts

    1. A short introduction
    2. Charles’ views
    3. An outline of the evidence
    4. A comment about the consequences

While writing this book, one question occurred to me regularly: Why has nobody so far written a detailed history of Charles’s passion for alternative medicine? Surely, the account of Charles ‘love affair’ with alternative medicine is fascinating, diverse, revealing, and important!

I hope you agree.

BOX 1

The nature of evidence in medicine and science

  • Evidence is the body of facts, often created through experiments under controlled conditions, that lead to a given conclusion.
  • Evidence must be neutral and give equal weight to data that fail to conform to our expectations.
  • Evidence is normally used towards rejecting or supporting a hypothesis.
  • In alternative medicine, the most relevant hypotheses often relate to the efficacy of a therapy.
  • Such hypotheses are best tested with controlled clinical trials where a group of patients is divided into two subgroups and only one is given the therapy to be tested; subsequently the results of both groups are compared.
  • Experience does not amount to evidence and is a poor indicator of efficacy; it can be influenced by several phenomena, e.g. placebo effects, natural history of the condition, regression towards the mean.
  • If the results of clinical studies are contradictory, the best available evidence is usually a systematic review of the totality of rigorous trials.
  • Systematic reviews are methods to minimise random and selection biases. The most reliable systematic reviews are, according to a broad consensus, those from the Cochrane Collaboration.

[1] https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speech/article-hrh-prince-wales-titled-science-and-homeopathy-must-work-harmony-daily-telegraph

[2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Harmony-New-Way-Looking-World/dp/0007348037

In case you want to know even more – and I hope you do – please get yourself a copy.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories