MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

scientific misconduct

1 2 3 8

The authors of this systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence of clinical trials on cupping for athletes. Randomized controlled trials on cupping therapy with no restriction regarding the technique, or co-interventions, were included, if they measured the effects of cupping compared with any other intervention on health and performance outcomes in professionals, semi-professionals, and leisure athletes. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were conducted independently by two pairs of reviewers.

Eleven trials with n = 498 participants from China, the United States, Greece, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates were included, reporting effects on different populations, including soccer, football, and handball players, swimmers, gymnasts, and track and field athletes of both amateur and professional nature. Cupping was applied between 1 and 20 times, in daily or weekly intervals, alone or in combination with, for example, acupuncture. Outcomes varied greatly from symptom intensity, recovery measures, functional measures, serum markers, and experimental outcomes. Cupping was reported as beneficial for perceptions of pain and disability, increased range of motion, and reductions in creatine kinase when compared to mostly untreated control groups. The majority of trials had an unclear or high risk of bias. None of the studies reported safety.

Risk of bias of included trials. “+” indicates low risk of bias, “−” indicates high risk of bias, and “?” indicates unclear risk of bias.

The authors concluded that no explicit recommendation for or against the use of cupping for athletes can be made. More studies are necessary for conclusive judgment on the efficacy and safety of cupping in athletes.

Considering the authors’ stated aim, this conclusion seems odd. Surely, they should have concluded that THERE IS NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE FOR THE USE OF CUPPING IN ATHLETES. But this sounds rather negative, and the JCAM does not seem to tolerate negative conclusions, as discussed repeatedly on this blog.

The discussion section of this paper is bar of any noticeable critical input (for those who don’t know: the aim of any systematic review must be to CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE PRIMARY DATA). The authors even go as far as stating that the trials reported in this systematic review found beneficial effects of cupping in athletes when compared to no intervention. I find this surprising and bordering on scientific misconduct. The RCTs were mostly not on cupping but on cupping in combination with some other treatments. More importantly, they were of such deplorable quality that they allow no conclusions about effectiveness. Lastly, they mostly failed to report on adverse effects which, as I have often stated, is a violation of research ethics.

In essence, all this paper proves is that, if you have rubbish trials, you can produce a rubbish review and publish it in a rubbish journal.

Some of you will remember the saga of the British Chiropractic Association suing my friend and co-author Simon Singh (eventually losing the case, lots of money and all respect). One of the ‘hot potatoes’ in this case was the question whether chiropractic is effective for infant colic. This question is settled, I thought: IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO WORK BETTER THAN A PLACEBO.

Yet manipulators have not forgotten the defeat and are still plotting, it seems, to overturn it. Hence a new systematic review assessed the effect of manual therapy interventions for healthy but unsettled, distressed and excessively crying infants.

The authors reviewed published peer-reviewed primary research articles in the last 26 years from nine databases (Medline Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Osteopathic Medicine Digital Repository , Cochrane (all databases), Index of Chiropractic Literature, Open Access Theses and Dissertations and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature). The inclusion criteria were: manual therapy (by regulated or registered professionals) of unsettled, distressed and excessively crying infants who were otherwise healthy and treated in a primary care setting. Outcomes of interest were: crying, feeding, sleep, parent-child relations, parent experience/satisfaction and parent-reported global change. The authors included the following types of peer-reviewed studies in our search: RCTs, prospective cohort studies, observational studies, case–control studies, case series, questionnaire surveys and qualitative studies.

Nineteen studies were selected for full review: seven randomised controlled trials, seven case series, three cohort studies, one service evaluation study and one qualitative study. Only 5 studies were rated as high quality: four RCTs (low risk of bias) and a qualitative study.

The authors found moderate strength evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy on: reduction in crying time (favourable: -1.27 hours per day (95% CI -2.19 to -0.36)), sleep (inconclusive), parent-child relations (inconclusive) and global improvement (no effect).

Reduction in crying: RCTs mean difference.

The risk of reported adverse events was low (only 8 studies mentioned adverse effects at all, meaning that the rest were in breach of research and publication ethics): seven non-serious events per 1000 infants exposed to manual therapy (n=1308) and 110 per 1000 in those not exposed.

The authors concluded that some small benefits were found, but whether these are meaningful to parents remains unclear as does the mechanisms of action. Manual therapy appears relatively safe.

For several reasons, I find this review, although technically sound, quite odd.

Why review uncontrolled data when RCTs are available?

How can a qualitative study be rated as high quality for assessing the effectiveness of a therapy?

How can the authors categorically conclude that there were benefits when there were only 4 RCTs of high quality?

Why do they not explain the implications of none of the RCTs being placebo-controlled?

How can anyone pool the results of all types of manual therapies which, as most of us know, are highly diverse?

How can the authors conclude about the safety of manual therapies when most trials failed to report on this issue?

Why do they not point out that this is unethical?

My greatest general concern about this review is the overt lack of critical input. A systematic review is not a means of promoting an intervention but of critically assessing its value. This void of critical thinking is palpable throughout the paper. In the discussion section, for instance, the authors state that “previous systematic reviews from 2012 and 2014 concluded there was favourable but inconclusive and weak evidence for manual therapy for infantile colic. They mention two reviews to back up this claim. They conveniently forget my own review of 2009 (the first on this subject). Why? Perhaps because it did not fit their preconceived ideas? Here is my abstract:

Some chiropractors claim that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for infant colic. This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the evidence for this claim. Four databases were searched and three randomised clinical trials met all the inclusion criteria. The totality of this evidence fails to demonstrate the effectiveness of this treatment. It is concluded that the above claim is not based on convincing data from rigorous clinical trials.

Towards the end of their paper, the authors state that “this was a comprehensive and rigorously conducted review…” I beg to differ; it turned out to be uncritical and biased, in my view. And at the very end of the article, we learn a possible reason for this phenomenon: “CM had financial support from the National Council for Osteopathic Research from crowd-funded donations.”

The aim of this three-armed, parallel, randomized exploratory study was to determine, if two types of acupuncture (auricular acupuncture [AA] and traditional Chinese acupuncture [TCA]) were feasible and more effective than usual care (UC) alone for TBI–related headache. The subjects were previously deployed Service members (18–69 years old) with mild-to-moderate TBI and headaches. The interventions explored were UC alone or with the addition of AA or TCA. The primary outcome was the Headache Impact Test (HIT). Secondary outcomes were the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist, Symptom Checklist-90-R, Medical Outcome Study Quality of Life (QoL), Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics, and expectancy of outcome and acupuncture efficacy.

Mean HIT scores decreased in the AA and TCA groups but increased slightly in the UC-only group from baseline to week 6 [AA, −10.2% (−6.4 points); TCA, −4.6% (−2.9 points); UC, +0.8% (+0.6 points)]. Both acupuncture groups had sizable decreases in NRS (Pain Best), compared to UC (TCA versus UC: P = 0.0008, d = 1.70; AA versus UC: P = 0.0127, d = 1.6). No statistically significant results were found for any other secondary outcome measures.

The authors concluded that both AA and TCA improved headache-related QoL more than UC did in Service members with TBI.

The stated aim of this study (to determine whether AA or TCA both with UC are more effective than UC alone) does not make sense and should therefore never have passed ethics review, in my view. The RCT followed a design which essentially is the much-lamented ‘A+B versus B’ protocol (except that a further groups ‘C+B’ was added). The nature of such designs is that there is no control for placebo effects, the extra time and attention, etc. Therefore, such studies cannot fail but generate positive results, even if the tested intervention is a placebo. In such trials, it is impossible to attribute any outcome to the experimental treatment. This means that the positive results are known before the first patient has been enrolled; hence they are an unethical waste of resources which can only serve one purpose: to mislead us. It also means that the conclusions drawn above are not correct.

An alternative and in my view more accurate conclusion would be this one: both AA and TCA had probably no effect; the improved headache-related QoL was due to the additional attention and expectation in the two experimental groups and is unrelated to the interventions tested in this study.

In our new book, MORE HARM THAN GOOD, we discuss that such trials are deceptive to the point of being unethical. Considering the prominence and experience of Wayne Jonas, the 1st author of this paper, such obvious transgression is more than a little disappointing – I would argue that is amounts to overt scientific misconduct.

This announcement caught my eye:

START OF 1st QUOTE

Dr Patrick Vickers of the Northern Baja Gerson Centre, Mexico will deliver a two hour riveting lecture of ‘The American Experience of Dr Max Gerson, M.D.’

The lecture will present the indisputable science supporting the Gerson Therapy and its ability to reverse advanced disease.

Dr Vickers will explain the history and the politics of both medical and governmental authorities and their relentless attempts to surpress this information, keeping it from the world.

‘Dr Max Gerson, Censored for Curing Cancer’

“I see in Dr Max Gerson, one of the most eminent geniuses in medical history” Nobel Prize Laureate, Dr Albert Schweitzer.

END OF 1st QUOTE

Who is this man, Dr Patrik Vickers, I asked myself. And soon I found a CV in his own words:

START OF 2nd QUOTE

Dr. Patrick Vickers is the Director and Founder of the Northern Baja Gerson Clinic. His mission is to provide patients with the highest quality and standard of care available in the world today for the treatment of advanced (and non-advanced) degenerative disease. His dedication and commitment to the development of advanced protocols has led to the realization of exponentially greater results in healing disease. Dr. Vickers, along with his highly trained staff, provides patients with the education, support, and resources to achieve optimal health.

Dr. Patrick was born and raised outside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. At the age of 11 years old, after witnessing a miraculous recovery from a chiropractic adjustment, Dr. Patrick’s passion for natural medicine was born.

Giving up careers in professional golf and entertainment, Dr. Patrick obtained his undergraduate degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Life University before going on to receive his doctorate in Chiropractic from New York Chiropractic College in 1997.

While a student at New York Chiropractic College(NYCC), Dr. Patrick befriended Charlotte Gerson, the last living daughter of Dr. Max Gerson, M.D. who Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Dr. Albert Schweitzer called, ” One of the most eminent geniuses in medical history. “

Dr. Gerson, murdered in 1959, remains the most censured doctor in the history of medicine as he was reversing virtually every degenerative disease known to man, including TERMINAL cancer…

END OF 2nd QUOTE

I have to admit, I find all this quite upsetting!

Not because the ticket for the lecture costs just over £27.

Not because exploitation of vulnerable patients by quacks always annoys me.

Not even because the announcement is probably unlawful, according to the UK ‘cancer act’.

I find it upsetting because there is simply no good evidence that the Gerson therapy does anything to cancer patients other than making them die earlier, poorer and more miserable (the fact that Prince Charles is a fan makes it only worse). And I do not believe that the lecture will present indisputable evidence to the contrary – lectures almost never do. Evidence has to be presented in peer-reviewed publications, independently confirmed and scrutinised. And, as far as I can see, Vickers has not authored a single peer-reviewed article [however, he thrives on anecdotal stories via youtube (worth watching, if you want to hear pure BS)].

But mostly I find it upsetting because it is almost inevitable that some desperate cancer patients will believe ‘Dr’ Vickers. And if they do, they will have to pay a very high price.

Can conventional therapy (CT) be combined with herbal therapy (CT + H) in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) to the benefit of patients? This was the question investigated by Chinese researchers in a recent retrospective cohort study funded by grants from China Ministry of Education, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, and Beijing Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning.

In total, 344 outpatients diagnosed as probable dementia due to AD were collected, who had received either CT + H or CT alone. The GRAPE formula was prescribed for AD patients after every visit according to TCM theory. It consisted mainly (what does ‘mainly’ mean as a description of a trial intervention?) of Ren shen (Panax ginseng, 10 g/d), Di huang (Rehmannia glutinosa, 30 g/d), Cang pu (Acorus tatarinowii, 10 g/d), Yuan zhi (Polygala tenuifolia, 10 g/d), Yin yanghuo (Epimedium brevicornu, 10 g/d), Shan zhuyu (Cornus officinalis, 10 g/d), Rou congrong (Cistanche deserticola, 10 g/d), Yu jin (Curcuma aromatica, 10 g/d), Dan shen (Salvia miltiorrhiza, 10 g/d), Dang gui (Angelica sinensis, 10 g/d), Tian ma (Gastrodia elata, 10 g/d), and Huang lian (Coptis chinensis, 10 g/d), supplied by Beijing Tcmages Pharmaceutical Co., LTD. Daily dose was taken twice and dissolved in 150 ml hot water each time. Cognitive function was quantified by the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) every 3 months for 24 months.

The results show that most of the patients were initially diagnosed with mild (MMSE = 21-26, n = 177) and moderate (MMSE = 10-20, n = 137) dementia. At 18 months, CT+ H patients scored on average 1.76 (P = 0.002) better than CT patients, and at 24 months, patients scored on average 2.52 (P < 0.001) better. At 24 months, the patients with improved cognitive function (△MMSE ≥ 0) in CT + H was more than CT alone (33.33% vs 7.69%, P = 0.020). Interestingly, patients with mild AD received the most robust benefit from CT + H therapy. The deterioration of the cognitive function was largely prevented at 24 months (ΔMMSE = -0.06), a significant improvement from CT alone (ΔMMSE = -2.66, P = 0.005).

 

The authors concluded that, compared to CT alone, CT + H significantly benefited AD patients. A symptomatic effect of CT + H was more pronounced with time. Cognitive decline was substantially decelerated in patients with moderate severity, while the cognitive function was largely stabilized in patients with mild severity over two years. These results imply that Chinese herbal medicines may provide an alternative and additive treatment for AD.

Conclusions like these render me speechless – well, almost speechless. This was nothing more than a retrospective chart analysis. It is not possible to draw causal conclusions from such data.

Why?

Because of a whole host of reasons. Most crucially, the CT+H patients were almost certainly a different and therefore non-comparable population to the CT patients. This flaw is so elementary that I need to ask, who are the reviewers letting such utter nonsense pass, and which journal would publish such rubbish? In fact, I can be used for teaching students why randomisation is essential, if we aim to find out about cause and effect.

Ahhh, it’s the ! I think the funders, editors, reviewers, and authors of this paper should all go and hide in shame.

A comprehensive review of the evidence relating to acupuncture entitled “The Acupuncture Evidence Project: A Comparative Literature Review” has just been published. The document aims to provide “an updated review of the literature with greater rigour than was possible in the past.” That sounds great! Let’s see just how rigorous the assessment is.

The review was conducted by John McDonald who no stranger to this blog; we have mentioned him here, for instance. To call him an unbiased, experienced, or expert researcher would, in my view, be more than a little optimistic.

The review was financed by the ‘Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association Ltd.’ – call me a pessimist, but I do wonder whether this bodes well for the objectivity of the findings.

The research seems to have been assisted by a range of experts: Professor Caroline Smith, National Institute of Complementary Medicine, Western Sydney University, provided advice regarding evidence levels for assisted reproduction trials; Associate Professor Zhen Zheng, RMIT University identified the evidence levels for postoperative nausea and vomiting and post-operative pain; Dr Suzanne Cochrane, Western Sydney University; Associate Professor Chris Zaslawski, University of Technology Sydney; and Associate Professor Zhen Zheng, RMIT University provided prepublication commentary and advice. I fail to see anyone in this list who is an expert in EBM or who is even mildly critical of acupuncture and the many claims that are being made for it.

The review has not been published in a journal. This means, it has not been peer-reviewed. As we will see shortly, there is reason to doubt that it could pass the peer-review process of any serious journal.

There is an intriguing declaration of conflicts of interest: “Dr John McDonald was a co-author of three of the research papers referenced in this review. Professor Caroline Smith was a co-author of six of the research papers referenced in this review, and Associate Professor Zhen Zheng was co-author of one of the research papers in this review. There were no other conflicts of interest.” Did they all forget to mention that they earn their livelihoods through acupuncture? Or is that not a conflict?

I do love the disclaimer: “The authors and the Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association Ltd (AACMA) give no warranty that the information contained in this publication and within any online updates available on the AACMA website are correct or complete.” I think they have a point here.

But let’s not be petty, let’s look at the actual review and how well it was done!

Systematic reviews must first formulate a precise research question, then disclose the exact methodology, reveal the results and finally discuss them critically. I am afraid, I miss almost all of these essential elements in the document in question.

The methods section includes statements which puzzle me (my comments are in bold):

  • A total of 136 systematic reviews, including 27 Cochrane systematic reviews were included in this review, along with three network meta-analyses, nine reviews of reviews and 20 other reviews. Does that indicate that non-systematic reviews were included too? Yes, it does – but only, if they reported a positive result, I presume.
  • Some of the included systematic reviews included studies which were not randomised controlled trials. In this case, they should have not been included at all, in my view.
  • … evidence from individual randomised controlled trials has been included occasionally where new high quality randomised trials may have changed the conclusions from the most recent systematic review. ‘Occasionally’ is the antithesis of systematic. This discloses the present review as being non-systematic and therefore worthless.
  • Some systematic reviews have not reported an assessment of quality of evidence of included trials, and due to time constraints, this review has not attempted to make such an assessment. Say no more!

It is almost needless to mention that the findings (presented in a host of hardly understandable tables) suggest that acupuncture is of proven or possible effectiveness/efficacy for a very wide array of conditions. It also goes without saying that there is no critical discussion, for instance, of the fact that most of the included evidence originated from China, and that it has been shown over and over again that Chinese acupuncture research never seems to produce negative results.

So, what might we conclude from all this?

I don’t know about you, but for me this new review is nothing but an orgy in deceit and wishful thinking!

A new acupuncture study puzzles me a great deal. It is a “randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial” evaluating acupuncture for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in lung cancer patients. Twenty-eight patients presenting with CRF were randomly assigned to active acupuncture or placebo acupuncture groups to receive acupoint stimulation at LI-4, Ren-6, St-36, KI-3, and Sp-6 twice weekly for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the change in intensity of CFR based on the Chinese version of the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI-C). The secondary endpoint was the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung Cancer Subscale (FACT-LCS). Adverse events were monitored throughout the trial.

A significant reduction in the BFI-C score was observed at 2 weeks in the 14 participants who received active acupuncture compared with those receiving the placebo. At week 6, symptoms further improved. There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events of the two group.

The authors, researchers from Shanghai, concluded that fatigue is a common symptom experienced by lung cancer patients. Acupuncture may be a safe and feasible optional method for adjunctive treatment in cancer palliative care, and appropriately powered trials are warranted to evaluate the effects of acupuncture.

And why would this be puzzling?

There are several minor oddities here, I think:

  • The first sentence of the conclusion is not based on the data presented.
  • The notion that acupuncture ‘may be safe’ is not warranted from the study of 14 patients.
  • The authors call their trial a ‘pilot study’ in the abstract, but refer to it as an ‘efficacy study’ in the text of the article.

But let’s not be nit-picking; these are minor concerns compared to the fact that, even in the title of the paper, the authors call their trial ‘double-blind’.

How can an acupuncture-trial be double-blind?

The authors used the non-penetrating Park needle, developed by my team, as a placebo. We have shown that, indeed, patients can be properly blinded, i. e. they don’t know whether they receive real or placebo acupuncture. But the acupuncturist clearly cannot be blinded. So, the study is clearly NOT double-blind!

As though this were not puzzling enough, there is something even more odd here. In the methods section of the paper the authors explain that they used our placebo-needle (without referencing our research on the needle development) which is depicted below.

Park Sham Device Set

Then they state that “the device is placed on the skin. The needle is then gently tapped to insert approximately 5 mm, and the guide tube is then removed to allow sufficient exposure of the handle for needle manipulation.” No further explanations are offered thereafter as to the procedure used.

Removing the guide tube while using our device is only possible in the real acupuncture arm. In the placebo arm, the needle telescopes thus giving the impression it has penetrated the skin; but in fact it does not penetrate at all. If one would remove the guide tube, the non-penetrating placebo needle would simply fall off. This means that, by removing the guide tube for ease of manipulation, the researchers disclose to their patients that they are in the real acupuncture group. And this, in turn, means that the trial was not even single-blind. Patients would have seen whether they received real or placebo acupuncture.

It follows that all the outcomes noted in this trial are most likely due to patient and therapist expectations, i. e. they were caused by a placebo effect.

Now that we have solved this question, here is the next one: IS THIS A MISUNDERSTANDING, CLUMSINESS, STUPIDITY, SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OR FRAUD?

The nonsense that some naturopaths try to tell the public never ceases to amaze me. This article is a good example: a “naturopathic doctor” told a newspaper that “We do have a reputation associated with cancer, but we don’t treat cancer. We use highly intelligent computer software to find out what is wrong with the body at a scientific level, and we simply correct that, and the people who do that, they cure their own cancer.” As far as he is concerned, “The only hope for cancer is alternative medicine… When you look at the medical texts, the scientific literature, what is used, the chemotherapy and the radiation, they cannot cure cancer,” he said.

Through artificial intelligence, he said that he simply teaches people how to heal. Clients are hooked up to a computer that reads their body and gives a printout of what needs to be done to correct the abnormalities. “It looks at the abnormalities in the energetic pathways, abnormalities in nutritional status, and abnormalities in the toxic load of the body and how much it can carry. Once these things are identified and you actually put the patient on a path, they go out and heal themselves. I have nothing to do with it,” he said.

Before you discard this neuropath as an unimportant nutter, consider that this article is a mere example. There are thousands more.

This website, for instance, gives the impression of being much more official and trustworthy by adopting the name of CANCER TREATMENT CENTERS OF AMERICA. But the claims are just as irresponsible:

… natural therapies our naturopathic medicine team may recommend include:

  • Herbal and botanical preparations, such as herbal extracts and teas
  • Dietary supplements, such as vitamins, minerals and amino acids
  • Homeopathic remedies, such as extremely low doses of plant extracts and minerals
  • Physical therapy and exercise therapy, including massage and other gentle techniques used on deep muscles and joints for therapeutic purposes
  • Hydrotherapy, which prescribes water-based approaches like hot and cold wraps, and other therapies
  • Lifestyle counseling, such as exercise, sleep strategies, stress reduction techniques, as well as foods and nutritional supplements
  • Acupuncture, to help with side effects like nausea and vomiting, dry mouth, hot flashes and insomnia
  • Chiropractic care, which may include hands-on adjustment, massage, stretching, electronic muscle stimulation, traction, heat, ice and other techniques.

END OF QUOTE

And, would you believe it, there even is a NATUROPATHIC CANCER SOCIETY. They proudly claim that: Naturopathic medicine works best to eliminate:

     Bladder cancer

     Breast cancer

     Cervical & Uterine cancers

     Colorectal cancer

     Gastric & Esophag. cancers

     Leukemias & Lymphomas

     Liver & Biliary cancers

     Lung cancer

     Ovarian cancer

     Pancreatic cancer

     Prostate cancer

     Skin cancers

     Thyroid cancer

     General & other cancers

END OF QUOTE

Vis a vis this plethora of irresponsible and dangerous promotion of quackery by naturopathic charlatans, I feel angry, sad and powerless. I know that my efforts to prevent cancer patients going to an early grave because of such despicable actions are bound to be of very limited success. But that does not mean that I will stop trying to tell the truth:

THERE IS NOT A JOT OF EVIDENCE THAT NATUROPATHY CAN CURE CANCER. SO, PLEASE DO NOT GO DOWN THIS ROUTE!

PS: …and no, I am not paid by BIG PHARMA or anyone else to say so.

 

 

If you had chronic kidney disease (CKD), would you be attracted by an article entitled ‘How to Reduce Creatinine Level in Homeopathy’? (Elevated levels are normally caused by CKD which makes it an important diagnostic test to diagnose the condition) I am sure many patients would! A few days ago, an article with exactly this title caught my eye; it comes from this website. I find it remarkable and cannot resist showing you a short excerpt from it:

START OF QUOTE

…These [homeopathic] medicines work in two ways. First of all, they control the condition so that no more damage is done to the kidneys. Secondly, they start elimination the root causes of renal failure. Unlike allopathic medicines, there are no side effects associated with the use of Homeopathic medicines. If treatment is done in a right, patients starts feeling better within few weeks. After few months, most of the patients are recovered and their kidney starts functioning properly and normally. And then your creatinine level will come down…

Toxin-Removing Treatment for patients with high creatinine level

Here we recommend you another treatment. It is Toxin-Removing Treatment, which is a combination of various Chinese medicine. Compared with homeopathy, Chinese medicine has a particularly longer history. It can expel waste products and extra fluid out of body to make internal environment good for kidney self-healing and other medication application. It can also dilate blood vessels and remove stasis to improve blood circulation and increase blood flow into damaged kidneys so that enough essential elements can be transported into damaged kidneys to speed up kidney recovery. Besides, it can strengthen your immunity to fight against kidney disease. After about one week’s treatment, you will see floccules in urine, which are wastes being passed out. After about half month’s treatment, your high creatinine, high BUN and high uric acid level will go down. After about one month’s treatment, your kidney function will start to increase. With the improvement of renal function, creatinine can be excreted out naturally.

END OF QUOTE

After reading this article some CKD patients might decide to try homeopathy or Chinese Herbal Medicine (CHM) for their condition. This, however, would be very ill-advised.

Why?

Because there is not a jot of evidence to suggest that homeopathy works for CKD. If any homeopath reading this has a different opinion, please show us the evidence.

There is also, as far as I can see, little good evidence to suggest that CHM is effective for CKD. On the contrary, there is quite a bit of evidence to show that CHM can cause kidney damage.

So?

The above article is misleading to the extreme! Or, to put it bluntly, it’s full of lies.

But why is this remarkable? On the Internet, we find thousands of similarly idiotic texts promoting bogus treatments for every disease known to mankind – and nobody seems to bat an eyelash about it. Nobody seems to think that the public needs to be better protected from the habitual liars who write such vile stuff. Many influential people and institutions not merely tolerate such abuse but seem to support it.

Precisely … and this is why I find this article, together with the thousands of similar ones, remarkable.

 

 

Reiki has been on my mind repeatedly (see for instance here, here, here and here). It is one of those treatments that are too crazy for words and too implausible to mention. Yet a new paper firmly claims that it is more than a placebo.

This review evaluated clinical studies of Reiki to determine whether there is evidence for Reiki providing more than just a placebo effect. The available English-language literature of Reiki was reviewed, specifically for

  • peer-reviewed clinical studies,
  • studies with more than 20 participants in the Reiki treatment arm,
  • studies controlling for a placebo effect.

Of the 13 suitable studies,

  • 8 demonstrated Reiki being more effective than placebo,
  • 4 found no difference but had questionable statistical resolving power,
  • one provided clear evidence for not providing benefit.

The author concluded that these studies provide reasonably strong support for Reiki being more effective than placebo. From the information currently available, Reiki is a safe and gentle “complementary” therapy that activates the parasympathetic nervous system to heal body and mind. It has potential for broader use in management of chronic health conditions, and possibly in postoperative recovery. Research is needed to optimize the delivery of Reiki.

These are truly fantastic findings! Reiki is more than a placebo – would have thought so? Who would have predicted that something as implausible as Reiki would one day be shown to work?

Now let’s start re-writing the textbooks of physics and therapeutics and research how we can optimize the delivery of Reiki.

Hold on – not so quick! Here are a few reasons why we might be sceptical about the validity of this review:

  • It was published in one of the worst journals of alternative medicine.
  • The author claimed to include just clinical trials but ended up including non-clinical studies and animal studies.
  • Four trials were not double-blind.
  • There was no critical assessment of the studies methodological quality.
  • The many flaws of the primary studies were not mentioned in this review.
  • Papers not published in English were omitted.
  • The author who declared no conflict of interest has this affiliation: “Australasian Usui Reiki Association, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia”.

I think we can postpone the re-writing of textbooks for a little while yet.

1 2 3 8
Recent Comments

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


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories