research
Acute Otitis Media (AOM) is one of the most common acute infections in children and often injudiciously treated by antibiotics. Homeopathy has been claimed to work but is it really effective?
This open label, randomized, controlled, parallel arm trial was conducted on children (aged 0–12 years), suffering from AOM. The primary outcome was changes in Tympanic Membrane Examination scale (TMES) and Acute Otitis Media-Severity of Symptoms (AOM-SOS) scale, time to improvement in pain through Facial Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) over 10 days. The need for antibiotics in both groups and the recurrence of subsequent episodes of AOM over 12 months were also compared.
Intention-to-treat analysis was performed on 222 children; Homeopathy (n = 117) (H-group), Allopathy (A-group) (n = 105). There was a statistically significant reduction of scores in H-group compared with A-group at each time point: at day 3 (mean diff. ± sd: 1.71 ± 0.19; 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.07; p = 0.0001), at day 7 (mean diff. ± sd: 1.29 ± 0.24; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.76; p = 0.0001) and at day 10 (mean diff. ± sd: 1.23 ± 0.25; 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.71; p = 0.0001) favoring homeopathy. Clinical failure by the third day of treatment was observed in 11% and 24% of children in H-group vs A-group (OR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.001 to 0.52; p = 0.03). None of the children in the H-group required antibiotics, whereas 14 children in the A-group did.
The authors concluded that both therapies seemed to produce comparable effects and appeared safe. The study consolidated the findings observed during a pilot study, i.e., homeopathy is non-inferior to allopathy in managing AOM in children and antibiotics in children can be avoided.
This study was published in the journal ‘Homeopathy’ and originates from the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, New Delhi, India. Sadly, I do not have the full text of the paper and cannot therefore scrutinize it adequately.
Let me just mention these three facts:
- The journal ‘Homeopathy’ never publishes negative results.
- Indian researchers of homeopathy publish as good as no negative results.
- As far as I can see, the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, New Delhi, has never published a negative result.
These points do, of course, not necessarily mean that the study is false-positive, but they do not inspire me with confidence. In any case, it seems wise to insist on better evidence. To render it credible, we would need:
- Several rigorous RCTs that test homeopathy for AOM against placebo.
- If (and only then) they show that homeopathy is better than placebo, at least one independent replication of the present study.
As the biological plausibility of all this is close to zero, the chances that this will happen are also zero.
I have left the German skeptics organisation , GWUP, two days ago. This led to many questions and confusion. I therefore feel that I owe it to those skeptics who I may have upset or unsettled to offer a few clarifications (I do appologise, if this does not make much sense to those readers who were unable to follow the various disputes and discussions that took place, mostly in German, on Twitter).
1. Clarification – accusation of antisemitism: This accusation is completely absurd! In my opinion, the 1st re-Tweet that Bartoschek is using is not anti-Semitic. I have posted thousands of tweets, many of which are the opposite of anti-Semitic, as anyone can verify. Moreover, I have worked for the last 30 years to fight antisemitism and can probably show more results of this endeavor than my accuser.
2. Clarification – I can’t find the 2nd re-tweet that Bartoschek exhibits. No idea who found it and where! I can’t remember the text (but I do vaguely remember the graphic), and I certainly didn’t delete anything. I would delete if, if I could find it and be open about it. If it turns out that I am nevertheless at fault, I can only apologise.
3. Clarification – peer-review publications by Hirsch, Huemmler, Bartoschek (who I sarcastically called ‘the GWUP-elite’). After watching a long video of these gentlemen, I began to doubt whether they are true scientists (or even skeptics) at all. Hence my legitimate question. The answer seems to be largely negative.
4. Clarification – Bartoschek claims “Prof Ernst is on the side of the “anti-woke”. However, I have repeatedly emphasised that I do not believe in and even detest both ‘woke’ and ‘anti-woke’.
5. Clarification – Mr Hirsch is the ‘social media manager’ of the GWUP commissioned by Huemmler, the current chair of the GWUP. The fact that he spreads aggressive nonsense in this role under the pseudonym ‘Endgegner der Kommentarspalten’ is inadmissible.
6. Clarification – I have not gained the impression that the current division of the GWUP is primarily idiological in nature (both sides are not far apart in this respect), but believe that it is a rather ridiculous power struggle on a personal level.
7. Clarification – I have left the GWUP because I am sure that I can do my work better without it, because the current tone amongst GWUP members is unacceptable, because the GWUP is currently not converting its membership fees (I estimate ~200 000 per year) into meaningful activities, because the current GWUP ‘elite’ behaves neither as genuine sceptics nor as true scientists, and because I fear that things will only get worse after the AGM in May.
_________________________
My hope is that this is the last time I have to mention this sorry story here on my blog.
Jennifer Jacobs started publishing peer-reviewed papers on homeopathy in the early 1990s. This happens to be around the same time as I did. So, we both have about 30 years of research into homeopathy behind us.
Jennifer just authored a paper entitled “Thirty Years of Homeopathic Research – Lessons Learned“. Here is its abstract:
Conducting double-blind randomized controlled trials is difficult, even in the allopathic medical system. Doing so within the paradigm of classical homeopathy is even more challenging. More than thirty years of experience in carrying out such trials has taught me much about the pitfalls to avoid as well as the factors that can lead to success. The initial steps of putting together a research protocol, securing funding, and obtaining human subjects’ approval can be daunting. After that comes developing questionnaires and surveys, hiring study personnel, and recruitment of subjects. The actual implementation of the research comes with its own set of possible missteps. Sample size determination, entry criteria, as well as type, frequency and duration of treatment are all crucial. Finally, statistical analysis must be performed to a high standard and a manuscript prepared to submit for publication. Even then there can be one or more manuscript revisions to make, based on feedback from reviewers, before a study is actually published. The entire process can take at least two years and is usually much longer.
Mistakes at any one of these steps can damage the outcome, as well as the impact of the study. With examples from my body of research, I will discuss some of the things that I wish I had done differently, as well as those that turned out to be correct. Homeopathic research is held to a much higher standard than conventional trials. Any flaws in study design, implementation, and analysis can be used by critics to negate the results. I am hopeful that the next generation of homeopathic researchers will learn from my experiences and carry on with great success.
Jennifer’s example motivated me to follow suit and contribute some very brief thoughts about my 30 years of homeopathy research and the lessons I have learnt:
Conducting double-blind randomized controlled trials is difficult in any area of medicine. Yet these types of studies are by far the best way to find out which treatments work and which don’t. Therefore, they need doing, regardless of the obstacles they may pose.
In homeopathy, we now have a large body of such trials. Sadly, not all of them are reliable. Those that are, according to accepted criteria, tend to fail to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Understandably, homeopaths are disappointed with this overall result and have made numerous attempts to invalidate it.
The main problem with research into homeopathy is not the research methodology. It is well established for clinical trials and can be easily modified to fit all the demands made by individualised treatment or other pecularities that may apply to homeopathy. The main problem is the homeopath who finds it impossible to accept the truth, namely that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos and any observed benefits of homeopathy are due to non-specific effects such as the empathetic encounter or a placebo response.
The lesson to be learned from the past is that, in medicine, even the most obsessive belief, conviction or wishful thinking will eventually have to give way to the scientific evidence. In the case of homeopathy, this process has taken an extraordinary amount of time and effort but, finally, we are almost there and the writing is on the wall for everyone to see.
Two resumes of 30 years of work, research and experience!
And what a difference between them!
Who do you think gets closer to the truth,
Jennifer or I?
I have been called just about everything during my professional life (not to mention the private one). Yesterday, a new addition arrived: a German psychologist who chose to misunderstand a re-Tweet (or is that re-X these days?), Sebastian Bartoschek, implied I am an anti-Semite.
My re-Tweet quoted without any comment by me a Holocaust survivor stating “The Nazis made me afraid to be a Jew, and the Israelis made me ashamed to be a Jew”.
My re-Tweet was meant to make people reflect critical about the horrendous atrocities that is currently happening in Gaza. However, Bartoschek decided it was anti-semitism and demanded I explain myself. As I had previously had an unpleasantly unproductive encounter over an entirely different matter with him, I did not quite see why I should comply to the wishes of this guy. What followed was a rather ridiculous triade by Bartoschek. It included him alerting DIE WELT that someone who sometimes writes for the paper propagates anti-semitism.
A third party (I don’t know who) must have suggested that this amounts to denunciation. Bartoschek replied: “If asking someone why they share anti-Semitic content is denunciation for you, then so be it.” Eventually he sent me this Tweet:
To EdzardErnst – I’ll wait until 11 a.m. tomorrow, Sunday, for a statement. After that, I’ll write about it without it.
This is why I feel that I am blackmailed. Either I explain what I feel is too obvious to explain, or he will write about the matter in what can be expected to be a defaming way.
Well, I prefer to write about it myself by stating categorically that I am definitely not an anti-semite. What is more, I can prove it. I have since many years published numerous articles (around 30, I guess) that make my position entirely clear; to mention just three:
- The most important paper I ever published
- Killing in the name of healing: the active role of the German medical profession during the Third Reich – PubMed (nih.gov)
- Die grauenhaften Verbrechen des Doktor Karl Brandt – Zeit – derStandard.at › Wissenschaft
So, now it will be great fun to see whether Bartoschek has lost his marbles and what version of the truth he will tell in his own write-up of the story.
WATCH THIS SPACE.
A recent post of mine started an interesting discussion about the research of the NCCIH. Richard Rasker made the following comment:
The NCCIH was initially established as the Office for Alternative Medicine (OAM) for mostly the same reason that Edzard’s department at Exeter was founded, i.e. to study alternative modalities, and determine once and for all which ones were effective and which ones weren’t. Unfortunately, OAM and its subsequent incarnations were taken over by SCAM proponents almost right away, with its core mission changed into validating (NOT ‘studying’) SCAM modalities – a small but crucial difference that will all but guarantee that even long-obsolete and totally ineffective quackery will continue to be ‘researched’ and promoted.
So what’s the score now, after more than 30 years and well over 4 billion dollars in taxpayers’ money? How many SCAM modalities have they managed to ‘validate’, i.e. definitively proven to be effective? The answer is: none, for all intents and purposes. Even their research into herbal medicine – one of the most effective (or should I say: least ineffective) SCAMs out there – is best described as woefully lacking. Their list of herbs and plants names just 55 species of plants, and the individual descriptions are mostly to the tune of ‘a lot of research was done, but we can’t say anything definite’.
I think I can contribute meaningfully to this important comment and topic. Several years ago, my Exeter team – together with several other researches – systematically reviewed the NCCIH (formerly NCCAM)-sponsored clinical trials. Specifically, we focussed on 4 different subject areas. Here are the conclusions of our articles reporting the findings:
-
-
- ACUPUNCTURE
-
Seven RCTs had a low risk of bias. Numerous methodological shortcomings were identified. Many NCCAM-funded RCTs of acupuncture have important limitations. These findings might improve future studies of acupuncture and could be considered in the ongoing debate regarding NCCAM-funding. [Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies Volume 17(1) March 2012 15–21]
2. HERBAL MEDICINE
This independent assessment revealed a plethora of serious concerns related to NCCAM studies of herbal medicine. [Perfusion 2011; 24: 89-102]
3. ENERGY MEDICINE
In conclusion, the NCCAM-funded RCTs of energy medicine are prime examples of misguided investments into research. In our opinion, NCCAM should not be funding poor-quality studies of implausible practices. The impact of any future studies of energy medicine would be negligible or even detrimental. [Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies Volume 16(2) June 2011 106–109 ]
4. CHIROPRACTIC
In conclusion, our review demonstrates that several RCTs of chiropractic have been funded by the NCCAM. It raises numerous concerns in relation to these studies; in particular, it suggests that many of these studies are seriously flawed. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21207089]
The overall conclusion that comes to my mind is this:
The NCCIH has managed to spend more money on SCAM research than any other institution in the world (in the 20 years that I ran the Exeter research unit, we spent around £2 million in total). The NCCIH has wasted precious funds on plenty of dubious studies; arguably, this is unethical. It has misappropriated its role from testing to validating SCAMs. And it has validated none.
PS
As some of the above-cited papers are not easily accessible, I offer to send copies to interested individuals on request.
A recent post of mine seems to have galvanized concerns about my image and general attitude towards so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Here are the comments I am referring to:
Hanjo Lehmann
…you should take care of your image: not being a man who just hates anything that smells like “alternative medicine” but rather an experienced scientist and physician who sees things with appropriate skepticism.
Eelco_G
Edzard preaches for his own parish and does not reach the people he would like to reach. A little more wisdom and ability to put things into perspective would earn him much more respect.
Mike Grant
Hanjo made some valid points Edzard. Perhaps you should suppress your ego?
Socrates
If you want to persuade people it’s not enough just to be right. There are times to be antagonistic and times to be more understanding. And sweeping generalisations can get people’s backs up unnecessarily.
Please allow me to take this opportunity to explain my attitude, motivation, image, etc. a little better.
After SCAM and SCAM-research had previously been a mere hobby of mine, I took the Exeter chair in ‘complementary medicine’ in 1993. Ever since, I spent my time studying the subject. Between 1993 and 2012, I headed the worldwide most productive department of SCAM research. My team published several books for healthcare professionals and well over 1 000 peer-reviewed papers on SCAM. I personally gave about 500 lectures on SCAM to all sorts of audiences all over the world. None of these books, papers, lectures, etc. are in any way dismissive of SCAM. They are, I hope, rigorously scientific.
What I am trying to point out is this: for 20 odd years I have done more that anyone else to persuade, to be understanding, to promote sound evidence, to abstain from opinion, to suppress my “ego”, to reach people interested in SCAM, to see things with “appropriate skepticism”, to be polite, to avoid stepping on anyone’s toes, to be politically correct – while conducting the best science that the circumstances allowed.
What did it get me?
Was my work acclaimed by the SCAM community?
No.
Did my research receive the funding I had been promised?
No.
Did I manage to persuade the SCAM-community to think more critically?
No.
Did even my own university show any appreciation?
No, more than once, my peers even tried to influence the nature and/or direction of my research.
In 2012, I retired from my Exeter post because Charles’ intervention had been allowed to completely destroy my department.
Was I disappointed?
Yes, the only department worldwide that independently and critically investigated SCAM had ceased to exist. This certainly is disappointing!
Was I bitter?
No, on the contrary, I had voluntarily taken the decision to retire and I soon felt relieved to no longer have anyone breathing down my neck. I was looking forward to carrying on my work, free of the pressures and irritating voices trying to tell me what outcomes were expected of me. I was delighted to be free of the tedious task to fund-raise. I was happy to be relieved of all the tedious amount of admin.
Now, more than 10 years later, my work gives me great fun every day and often laugh tears about certain aspects of SCAM. Those who think or hope that I am a bitter old fool I must disappoint bitterly.
After retiring, I wrote a series of books and started this blog. On the very first post, dated 14/10/2012, I explained my decision:
Why another blog offering critical analyses of the weird and wonderful stuff that is going on in the world of alternative medicine? The answer is simple: compared to the plethora of uncritical misinformation on this topic, the few blogs that do try to convey more reflected, sceptical views are much needed; and the more we have of them, the better.
I am telling you all this to explain that
- I have little patience with people who feel compelled to tell me what to do.
- For me a blog is something entirely different than a peer-reviewed paper – the former is written quickly and tends to be be light-hearted, ironic, sarcastic, provocative, exaggerated, journalistic, etc., while the latter usually is carefully worded, scientific and bone-dry.
- With my blog, I try to create an entertaining counterbalance to the plethora of uncritical misinformation on SCAM.
- Therefore, I am deliberately critical of SCAM.
- I do not hate anyone or anything.
- I am not in the slightest concerned about my image.
- I know very well what I am doing and quite confident that, during the last 30 years, I have reflected on issues around SCAM more deeply than most.
So, to those who still are concerned about my image or my approach to SCAM I say THANKS for your advice – but no thanks. And of those who doubt my science I ask, please study my peer-reviewed papers.
PS
Of course, none of this means that I make no mistakes, or that am not frequently troubled by self-doubt. So, please do carry on criticising me and my work, but don’t assume that I worry about my image.
As we have often discussed on this blog, chiropractic spinal manipulations can lead to several complications and can result in vascular injury, including traumatic dissection of the vertebral arteries with often dire consequences – see, for instance, here:
- Chiropractor caused a Vertebral Artery Dissection from a completely unnecessary neck adjustment
- Associations between cervical artery dissection and spinal manipulation
- Chiropractic spinal manipulation is a risk factor for cranio-cervical artery dissection
- Double-sided vertebral artery dissection in a 33-year-old man. The chiropractor is not guilty?
- Vertebral artery dissection in a pregnant woman after cervical spine manipulation
- Chiropractic manipulations are a risk factor for vertebral artery dissections
- Cervical artery dissection and stroke related to chiropractic manipulation
- Vertebral artery dissection after chiropractic manipulation: yet another case
- Pseudoaneurysm of Neck External Carotid Artery Related to Chiropractic Manipulation
- Cervical Arterial Dissections and Association With Cervical Manipulative Therapy
- Chiropractic adjustments are causing more and more strokes in younger adults
- Another case of stroke due to chiropractic
- More about the dangers of chiropractic
- The incidence of severe adverse events after chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy
- Catastrophic injuries after chiropractic treatment
- “As soon as the chiropractor manipulated my neck, everything went black”
This recent paper is a most unusual addition to the list. It is a case report of a 43-year-old woman who was admitted to the emergency department after performing a self-chiropractic spinal manipulation. She experienced headache and vomiting and was unresponsive with severe hypertension at the time of hospital admission. Clinical computerized tomography angiography showed narrowing of the right vertebral artery but was inconclusive for dissection or thrombosis.
The patient died a short while later. At autopsy, subacute dissection of the right vertebral artery was identified along with cerebral edema and herniation. A small peripheral pulmonary thromboembolism in the right lung was also seen. Neuropathology consultation confirmed the presence of diffuse cerebral edema and acute hypoxic-ischemic changes, with multifocal acute subarachnoid and intraparenchymal hemorrhage of the brain and spinal cord.
The authors concluded that this case presents a unique circumstance of a fatal vertebral artery dissection after self-chiropractic manipulation that, to the best of our knowledge, has not been previously described in the medical literature.
Medical Acupuncture is the name of a quarterly journal published for the ‘American Academy of Medical Acupuncture’ that publishes around 60 pro-acupuncture articles every year. Its editor is Richard C. Niemtzow, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H. Richard is a retired US Air Force colonel who was the first full-time physician acupuncturist in the US Armed Forces. He is probably best known for his invention called ‘BATTLE FIELD ACUPUNCTURE’, a form of ear-acupuncture allegedly reducing pain in emergency situations.
Medline lists 79 papers (mostly published in 3rd class journals such as ‘Medical Acupuncture’) in Niemtzow’s name. Only one of them – 21 years ago – was a clinical trial. Here it is:
Purpose: We performed a pilot trial to assess the response of lower urinary tract symptoms and prostate specific antigen (PSA) to acupuncture in a population of patients biopsy negative for prostate cancer.
Materials and methods: A total of 30 patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 study groups, including observation for 3 months with 6 blood samples for PSA at set intervals, 9 sessions of acupuncture in 3 months to points of the kidney-bladder distinct meridian expected to treat the prostate with 6 blood samples for PSA at set intervals and 9 sessions of acupuncture in 3 months to points not expected to treat the prostate with 6 blood samples for PSA at set intervals. The effect of acupuncture on lower urinary tract symptoms was assessed monthly using the International Prostate Symptom Score.
Results: Trend analysis (repeated measures ANOVA) revealed no significant changes in the 3-month period in the randomized arms. Statistical analysis showed p = 0.063 for the International Prostate Symptom Score, p = 0.945 for PSA and p = 0.37 for the free-to-total PSA ratio.
Conclusions: Acupuncture to the kidney-bladder distinct meridian neither relieves lower urinary tract symptoms nor impacts PSA.
Yes, an acupuncture study with a negative result!
Niemtzow has, as far as I can see, never himself conducted a study of ‘battle field acupuncture’. In fact, there only very few trials of ‘battle field acupuncture‘. The most recent (albeit lousy) study even suggest that it is less effective than electroacupuncture (EA): EA was more effective than ‘battle field auricular acupuncture’ at reducing pain severity, but both similarly improved physical and mental health scores.
This does not stop Niemtzow to continue praising acupuncture in dozens of papers, particularly his ‘battle field’ version and especially in his ‘own’ journal. The most recent example has just been published; allow me to present an excerpt to you:
In December of 2023, I had the opportunity to visit the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. The only day I had for this visit was characterized by a pouring and chilling rain. This did not stop the crowds of people visiting this famous exhibition. I reminded myself that Van Gogh was a troubled spirit. He lived a short tumultuous life characterized by cutting off his left ear lobe and he spent a sojourn in an asylum. Yet, his art emerged in all its beauty and splendor to become famous in the world. Despite all his troubles, he contributed a precious collection of magnificent art. Many individuals would not have surfaced out of personal disorders to produce such a wonderful gift to society. However, history tells us that many sensational contributions originated from people embroiled in mental health illnesses.
Medical Acupuncture published more than 13 years ago the acupuncture ‘‘diagnosis’’ of Vincent Van Gogh. The article, which is worth rereading, discussed the Five-Element pattern associated with the artist’s hallucinations, alcoholism, severe depression, insomnia, anxiety, dizziness, headaches, nightmares, etc. The author, Vera Kaikobad, LAc, stated: ‘‘It is poignant to realize that a few needles in the hands of a skilled acupuncturist may have spared this great artist such torment and perhaps saved his life.’’ Feasibly, in 2024 we should not only examine our patients for their physical complaints; we should venture into their mental health status as well. A back or neck pain is important, but so is anxiety, insomnia, etc. In promoting mental health, we may assist many patients who are perhaps capable of contributing to the well-being of the world. It is our responsibility as acupuncturists not to think of our patients as a neck or back pain, etc.; instead, we must see them as whole persons having spiritual and physical needs that must be addressed.
I feel that, overall, this remarkable effort justifies Niemtzow’s admission to my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME.
WELCOME, RICHARD!
And let me introduce you to the rest of the 24 laureates:
- Helmut Kiene (anthroposophical medicine)
- Helge Franke (osteopathy, Germany)
- Tery Oleson (acupressure , US)
- Jorge Vas (acupuncture, Spain)
- Wane Jonas (homeopathy, US)
- Harald Walach (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Andreas Michalsen ( various SCAMs, Germany)
- Jennifer Jacobs (homeopath, US)
- Jenise Pellow (homeopath, South Africa)
- Adrian White (acupuncturist, UK)
- Michael Frass (homeopath, Austria)
- Jens Behnke (research officer, Germany)
- John Weeks (editor of JCAM, US)
- Deepak Chopra (entrepreneur, US)
- Cheryl Hawk (chiropractor, US)
- David Peters (osteopathy, homeopathy, UK)
- Nicola Robinson (TCM, UK)
- Peter Fisher (homeopathy, UK)
- Simon Mills (herbal medicine, UK)
- Gustav Dobos (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Claudia Witt (homeopathy, Germany/Switzerland)
- George Lewith (acupuncture, UK)
- John Licciardone (osteopathy, US)
If I had a £ for each time I was asked during the last few days whether King Charles is going to treat his cancer with homeopathy, I would have my pockets full of cash. The question seems reasonable because he has been singing the praise of homeopathy for decades. But, as I have pointed out previously, he is unlikely to use homeopathy or any other unproven cancer cure; on the contrary he will certainly receive the most effective therapies available today.
In any case, the homeopathic treatment of cancer is currently a most popular topic. As if on command, an article appeared on my screen that promises to address the subject:
“Homoeopathy and Cancer – An Alternative Approach towards the path of Healing”
Here is the abstract of this remarkable paper:
Homoeopathy is a holistic system of medicine rooted on the principle of “Similia Similibus Curentur”. It has gained attention for its potential therapeutic benefits. It offers a holistic approach that addresses both the physical symptoms and emotional well-being of individuals. While this alternative approach of healing has been explored in various health contexts, a notable gap remains in understanding its application in the realm of cancer care. This review seeks to fill this void by exploring the broader landscape of homoeopathy’s principles and applications. Through a critical examination of existing research and evidence, it aims to offer valuable insights into the potential role of homoeopathy as a complementary approach in cancer care and symptomatic relief. This review underscores the need for further research and a more nuanced understanding of homoeopathy’s place in healthcare, particularly in the context of cancer patients and their well-being.
I am sure you are as impressed as I am and keen to learn more. In the article itself, the authors offer some brand-new, cutting-edge science to back up their views:
According to Samuel Hahnemann, “When a person is ill, it is originally merely the spirit-like, autonomic life force (life principle), which is always there in the organism, that is mistuned by the dynamic effect of a morbific agent inimical to life.Only the life principle, tuned incorrectly to such an anomalyis capable of causing irregular functions the body. Cancer may initially be treated as a one-sided disease because the expanded pathology weakens the Vital Force. According to Hahnemann, “Diseases that seem to have just a few symptoms are called one-sided because only one or two prominent symptoms are indicated. This makes these diseases, which primarily fall under the category of chronic diseases, harder to cure. According to Arthur Hill Grimmer, the biggest challenge in treating advanced cancer cases is getting therapeutic individualization of symptoms. Even with all the typical symptoms, it is quite difficult to create a potent homoeopathic prescription. Burnett considered both the characteristic aspects of the patient as well as the ‘action’ or‘organ affinity’ of the remedy he prescribed.
Eventually, the authors (who are affiliated with prestigeous institutions: Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur; Swasthya Kalyan Homoeopathic Medical College & Research Centre, Jaipur) arrive at the following conclusion:
In the scientific literature, homoeopathy’s use in the treatment of cancer is still largely unexplored. Pioneers have offered intriguing perspectives on disease origins and treatment challenges. The miasmatic perspective offers a distinctive approach that emphasises individualised strategies based on symptoms and characteristics. Some studies suggest an improvement in quality of life of the individuals suffering from cancer. In the dynamic landscape of cancer treatment, more studies are warranted to enhance the scope of holistic, patient-centered care through homoeopathy.
Yes, homeopathy is a joke. This paper (and the many similar publications out there) could thus be intensely funny – except for the fact that these charlatans are playing with the lives of many vulnerable and desperate patients. I sincerely hope Charles manages to stay well clear of homeopathy and its irresponsible practitioners which clearly is one precondition for making a full recovery.
I have to admit that I came across the ‘ARCIM’ (Academic Research in Complementary and Integrative Medicine) Institute only yesterday when writing the post about Buteyko. Naturally, the institution interested me, and I tried to find out more about it. As pointed out previously, the aim of the ARCIM research institute, founded in 2010, is to research complementary and integrative medicine, in particular anthroposophic medicine, on a scientific basis according to rigorous scientific standards established by the Equator Network criteria (http://www.equator-network.org/).
On the ARCIM’s website we furthermore learn that:
- ARCIM exists since 2010.
- Consists of a team of 8 co-workers.
- Its director is the physician Jan Vagedes.
- Who have published a sizable amount of papers.
- Is funded by the following sponsors: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Mahle-Foundation (Mahle Stiftung), Software AG (Software AG), DAMUS-DONATA e.V.
- Is located in the buildings of the ‘Filderclinic’.
This begs, I think, several questions:
Why is the Federal Ministry of Education and Research sponsoring the ARCIM?
As anthroposophical medicine is based on concepts that fly in the face of science, this seems a legitimate question. Sadly, I have no answer to it.
What is the ‘Filderclinic’?
The Filderklinik in Filderstadt-Bonlanden is one of six anthroposophically orientated hospitals in Germany. It is operated by the non-profit organisation Filderklinik gGmbH. The main founders of the Filderklinik, which has existed since 1975, were Hermann and Ernst Mahle, the founders of the Mahle Group. The Mahle-Stiftung GmbH is the main shareholder and also the largest sponsor of Filderklinik gGmbH. The hospital employs around 915 staff and has 300 beds.
Who is Jan Vagedes?
Jan Vagedes is a specialist for paediatrics and adolescent medicine, neonatology and a doctor for anthroposophic medicine. He studied in and graduated from the LMU in Munich (my alma mater) in 1997. He is the Founder and Scientific Director of the ARCIM Institute, a research associate at the University Children’s Hospital Tübingen, and Head of paediatrics and adolescent medicine at the Filderclinic.
He has no ‘habilitation’ (PhD and in Germany precondition for a professorship). Medline currently lists 42 articles in his name most of which are in 3rd class journals. His first Medline-listed article is dated 2012. As the ARCIM was established in 2010, this means that, when he was appointed as its ‘scientific director’, he had exactly zero published science to his name.
Why did he get the job?
I have absolutely no idea?
(If you know more than I do, I’d be grateful to hear about it.)
