I had thought that I know most alternative therapies. However, Shujing massage was new to me. It seems to be a massage technique from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) along the Yin/Yang concept; a bit like Shiatsu perhaps.
Does it work?
This study might easily be the first to address this question. It was aimed at comparing the efficacy on insomnia between shujing massage therapy and medication with estazolam.
Eighty patients with insomnia were randomized into a shujing massage therapy group and a medication group. The massage was applied along the gallbladder meridian on the temporal area. Pressing and kneading manipulations were performed at Yangbai (GB 14), Benshen (GB 13), Toulinqi (GB 15), Zhengying (GB 17), Chengling (GB 18), Shuaigu (GB 8), and Fengchi (GB 20), etc. one minute at each acupoint. In the medication group, 1 mg estazolam was administered orally half an hour before sleep. The treatments were given once every day in both groups. After one month, the sub-scores and the total score of the Pittsburgh sleep quality index scale (PSQI) and the clinical efficacy were compared between the two groups.
After the intervention, the each sub-score of PSQI was improved as compared with that before treatment in the patients of the two groups. The differences in sleep time and the time for falling into sleep were not significant between the two groups. In the shujing massage group, the scores of sleep quality, sleep efficiency, sleep disturbance and daytime dysfunction, as well as the total score were all lower than those in the medication group. The response rate was 92.1% (35/38) in the shujing massage group and 84. 2% (32/38) in the medication group.
The Chinese authors concluded that Shujing massage therapy achieves the superior efficacy on insomnia compared with the oral administration of estazolam.
Sadly, this study is less conclusive as TCM-enthusiasts may think:
- the study was not blind; therefore placebo-effects might have produced a false-positive result;
- any massage is relaxing; therefore the effect could be entirely unrelated to TCM-philosophy;
- it is likely that the regular ritual of a massage has a beneficial effect on sleep;
- before we agree with these findings, we should insist on an independent confirmation via a more rigorous study.
I think that, before we accept the ‘efficacy’ of this TCM-treatment, we should see much more convincing evidence.
This is a true gem which I found on Medline. The article was published 91 years ago by Holburt Jacob Waring (1866 – 1953) in the BMJ. I hope you enjoy it.
This article does not need a comment, I think. Its author was one of the most prominent surgeons of his time. Apparently he was known and feared for his outspokenness. I think I understand why.
First it was the Australians who made life more difficult for homeopaths; then the FDA announced that they plan to have a critical look at homeopathy. Now the Canadians have joined in with the other regulators getting concerned about the most overt abuses of medical evidence and ethics by manufacturers of homeopathic products. Here is a statement that was just published on the labelling of some Canadian homeopathic remedies:
Health Canada is advising consumers that it is introducing label changes for certain homeopathic products that fall under the Natural Health Product Regulations (NHPR). Current labelling on some homeopathic products may not provide Canadians with the information they need to make informed choices. The changes apply to the labelling of some homeopathic products, specifically nosode products as well as homeopathic cough, cold and flu products for children 12 and under.
The Department is introducing these changes to ensure that Canadians who choose to use homeopathic products have the information they need to improve their safe use, especially parents trying to make the best choices for their children.
Health Canada is requesting the addition of statements on homeopathic nosode products to make it clear that they are not vaccines or alternatives to vaccines to improve the safe use of these products.
Companies of nosode products have been asked to comply with these changes by January 2016. The new statement for nosode products is: “This product is neither a vaccine nor an alternative to vaccination. This product has not been proven to prevent infection. Health Canada does not recommend its use in children and advises that your child receive all routine vaccinations.”
In addition, Health Canada is no longer allowing companies to make specific health claims on homeopathic products for cough, cold, and flu for children 12 and under, unless those claims are supported by scientific evidence.
Companies have been asked to comply with this new labelling change by July 2016.
For more information about the labelling requirements for homeopathic products, consult the Health Canada Web site.
Health Canada reminds Canadians of the importance of vaccinations, to protect themselves, their families, and communities by ensuring their vaccinations are up to date. Immunization saves lives. The World Health Organization estimates immunization prevents between 2-3 million deaths every year.
Not nearly enough, some will say. But even they will have to admit that this is yet another (small) step in the right direction. I wonder when the UK authorities will do something similar (perhaps when Prince Charles is on summer vacation?).
One of my last posts prompted a comment informing us that Dr Dixon has just put himself forward as a candidate for the presidency of ‘THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS’ (RCGP) of the UK. This must be big news in the small world of alternative medicine and deserves further discussion.
Dr Dixon works in Cullompton Devon, where, according to one website, he has introduced over 20 complementary therapists alongside the normal GP services that would be expected anywhere. Patients have to pay for therapies such as healing, massage, acupuncture, or herbal medicine but at a reduced fee. The practice has its own organic and herb gardens and is next to a Boots store that stocks many of the remedies.
The RCGP’s announcement describes him with the following words:
Dr Dixon is NHS Alliance chairman, and has been a GP since 1984 at the College Surgery in Cullompton, Devon. He is acting president of NHS Clinical Commissioners, set up to represent CCGs after their creation in 2012, and has held a number of NHS advisory posts.
THE TELEGRAPH once listed Dr Dixon amongst the top ‘health gurus’ of Britain and commented: A trustee of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Medicine, the soothingly avuncular Dixon is one of the most persuasive advocates of complementary medicine, as well as one of its most dynamic practitioners. His new venture is an integrated health centre in Cullompton, Devon (opening in January), where practitioners of massage, homeopathy, acupuncture and so on will have rooms alongside his conventional GP’s surgery. If he’s good enough for Prince Charles…
Flattering as they may be for Dr Dixon, I don’t think that these descriptions do him justice. They fail to stress that he has, since over 20 years, been fighting tirelessly for integrating unproven alternative therapies into the NHS. He even presided over Prince Charles’ FOUNDATION FOR INTEGRATED MEDICINE when it had to be closed down amidst allegations of fraud and money laundering. He now heads the successor organisation, THE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, and is involved in uncounted similar initiatives promoting outright quackery. Examples include:
Dixon is a medical advisor to ‘YES TO LIFE’, an organisation advocating unproven treatments for cancer.
Dixon is a practitioner of spiritual healing.
Dixon is an advocate of homeopathy.
Dixon created the Culm Valley Integrated Centre for Health which offers unproven treatments such as homeopathy, neurolinguistic programming, Bowen technique, aromatherapy and, of course, healing.
Dixon is a patron of ‘THE QUIET MIND CENTRE’ which offers unproven treatments such as healing, reflexology, kinesiology, shiatsu, Indian head massage, zero balancing, and craniosacral therapy.
Dixon advocates the statutory regulation of Chinese herbalists.
Dixon is a ‘key lecturer’ at the BRITISH COLLEGE OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE.
Today I would like to share with you an interesting little exchange that I had a few days ago on TWITTER. Someone who I perhaps should but did not know sent me the following tweet apparently ‘out of the blue’:
“…remember that asthma trial whose results you faked?”
It was clear that the study he referred to was our trial published in THORAX 12 years ago. I found this allegation so absurd that I re-tweeted his tweet, and a third party responded to him by asking: “any evidence for this?”
His answer: ” Yes, I was involved with the study which severely breached its protocols. It should have been abandoned not published”
My reply to this: “Involved as what? I do not recall any breach of protocol”
His next tweet: “Pity, I do. Maybe it’s because you only added your name to the paper”
My response: “Stop telling lies and find a good libel lawyer”
Over the years, I got used to all sorts of attacks, but I feel that this one is quite special. It accuses me first of faking research, then of breaching research protocols, and finally of false authorship of a research paper. To someone whose entire reputation relies on his credibility as a scientist, such very public and entirely false claims are, of course, hugely damaging. I asked myself: Is this libel? Is it defamation? Is it actionable?
Looking for answers, I found an interesting website which explains the relevant English law in some detail:
“A defamatory statement is one which is false and causes damage to a person’s reputation or otherwise does them harm. Libel is the term given to defamation in a permanent form such as in print…
For a person to bring a claim of defamation, the following must apply:
- The statement has to have been made to somebody other than the claimant. It is not defamation if the statement is not heard by anyone but the claimant.
- The statement has to be in words
- The statement may damage the person’s reputation by making people who hear or read the statement think worse of them.
- The statement may expose the claimant to contempt, disliking, hatred or ridicule.
- The statement may cause the claimant to be shunned by society or avoided by people
- The statement must be clearly applicable to the claimant, although they do not necessarily have to be named (e.g. “the head of London Metropolitan Police Force” would be sufficient without explicitly naming the claimant).
- If someone claims that a person has made defamatory statements about them, the onus is on the person who made the statements to prove that the statements are true.”
Subsequently, I tried to find out the identity of my attacker. He is Tony Pinkus who turns out to be the director of Ainsworth Homeopathic Pharmacy, 36 New Cavendish St London W1G 8UF. This fact makes my little exchange much more interesting and exciting. In my view, it begs the following questions:
- Should I ask Ainsworth for an apology?
- Or Pinkus?
- Or perhaps I should sue Ainsworth for libel?
- Or Pinkus?
- Or should I sue both?
Not being a lawyer, I wonder whether any of my readers might advise me. In addition, I will send this post to Ainsworth and will keep you posted about their reply.
Here is a third excerpt from my new book A SCIENTIST IN WONDERLAND. It describes the thinking behind the research strategy my team and I adopted and the main arguments for and against it.
After roughly one year of preparatory work, everything seemed to be in place for our research to start in earnest. Around this time, I was asked to write a “mission statement” for my new research unit, which had by then been given the official title of the Department of Complementary Medicine. “A very British thing”, a friend explained when I enquired what a mission statement might be. “Just put on paper what your unit stands for.” I gave it some thought and formulated our mission as clearly and concisely as I could:
- To conduct rigorous, inter-disciplinary and international collaborative research into the efficacy, safety and cost of complementary medicine.
- To further analytical thinking in this area.
People reading my mission statement tended to be slightly puzzled by the inclusion of “analytical thinking” as a specific, separate item, but even after two decades, I am still pleased that I added it. The fostering of critical analysis is vital to any scientific endeavour, and perhaps particularly so in a field that, until now, has been so accustomed to special pleading and so sheltered from objective evaluation.
While studying medicine, I had not been well instructed in critical thinking. It was only later that I had realized how vulnerable health care can be without it. In Vienna, we had managed to smuggle the subject onto the medical curriculum. In Exeter, I soon discovered how woefully uncritical the attitude towards alternative medicine frequently was. This phenomenon was noticeable not just when reading the popular press or when talking to lay people but also, and perhaps even more worryingly, it was equally obvious in discussions with health care professionals. This lack of critical thinking, I felt, had the potential to hinder progress or even to cause significant harm. Particularly during the later years of my time in Exeter, the theme of critical analysis would dominate my work.
My peers were happy with the mission statement, and most rational thinkers who saw it thought it was ambitious but sound. However, in many alternative medicine enthusiasts it aroused suspicion; they seemed dismayed and felt that it was misguided. Some offered the opinion that alternative medicine should not be scientifically scrutinized at all. Others believed that my work should be directed much more at promoting alternative medicine rather than questioning it. Some argued that a professor of complementary medicine should be unabashedly sympathetic towards those working in this area, and that this attitude should be specifically articulated in any mission statement. Yet others argued that the mission statement should focus primarily on sociological or psychological issues rather than medical questions.
I listened patiently and politely to everyone who wanted to comment. I discussed, re-evaluated, re-discussed and reconsidered my position. But whichever way I looked at it, I couldn’t escape the conclusion that the arguments of my critics were at best unconvincing or irrelevant, and at worst they were down-right misleading—and I became determined to show why.
I was not a politician, nor was I a propagandist or an ideologue: I was simply a scientist, and as such my role was not to further the ambitions of interested parties but to determine the true value of alternative medicine. Patients and consumers have an absolute right to know the truth about the value of the treatments they frequently use, and the obligation of a researcher is to determine truth. That required a rigorous medical research agenda which would steer us clear of the post-modernist approach advocated by so many who tried to influence me and my growing team of investigators.
Over the years, my resolve to stay on this straight and narrow path of objective medical research has provoked endless criticism. Indeed, the potential for conflict had been there from the outset, when, at that very first lecture for alternative practitioners, I had been publicly challenged: “How did they dare to appoint a doctor to this chair?” Now that I had realized that this tension existed, I had to decide how to deal with it in my professional capacity.
Initially I made a conscious effort to avoid discord, not because I lacked the necessary courage or convincing arguments, but for a variety of other reasons, both personal and pragmatic. Firstly, I do not enjoy disagreements nearly as much as some people seem to think. If conflict becomes unavoidable, I can certainly put up a good fight, but that does not mean I enjoy the process. Secondly, I was honestly tired of having disputes. The battles I had fought in Vienna had left me drained and somewhat bruised. Over the years, I did develop a thicker skin but it certainly was not something I was born with. Thirdly, conflicts take far too much time, energy and concentration away from one’s real work: the more time I was compelled to spend locked in combat, the less time I would have to focus on the science I was so eager to generate. Fourthly, if the worst came to the worst, and if I was going to have to defend my views at every turn, I needed to be entirely sure of my ground. Solid research was the only way to ensure that; and I felt the need to do the research first and have the arguments later.
The Science Media Centre (SMC) in London is a unit that aims to facilitate the interactions between scientists, journalists and the media. During the last 10 years or so, they have invited me several times to present my research to journalists, and Fiona Fox who heads the SMC became a trusted friend and ally. Her letter reproduced below (with her permission, of course) is deeply touching for me; if it were the only reaction to my new book that I ever received, it would have been worth the effort writing the memoire.
I have just finished your book and wanted to write to say how much I loved it. It was fascinating in every way and a compelling read.
However I also found the full story of the end of the unit profoundly depressing. I was a fan of the unit’s work from the SMC’s rather narrow perspective of science in the media. Given the percentage of the population who use some form of alternative medicine I was very, very keen to ensure that the SMC helped to bring the best scientific evidence to bear on the media debates. However as you highlight in the book finding academics who are doing top quality clinical research in this field is not easy – all roads led us to your unit. Since the unit has closed the amount we have been able to do proactively on this issue has declined dramatically which I fear is a loss to the wider public and to the public understanding of medical science.
However until reading your book I had not understood the whole story about the closure of the unit and now feel that the scientific community should have fought much harder to save it. If it had just run out of steam and funds that would be fine – but your claim that it was closed down in part because of the influence of people who do not want to see critical research carried out in this field really is bad news for us all. All of us who care about the importance of bringing the best evidence to bear on contested areas of science should reflect on why we lost one of the best units in this field.
I also wanted to say how important it is that you spoke to a trusted science editor about your concerns about the Smallwood report. It feels to me like people were looking very narrowly at rules governing the media release of a report without considering the wider ethics of what you did. Had you remained quiet about your concern at the time the mass media would almost certainly have been full of headlines championing the need for alternative medicine on the NHS and may well have reported inaccurate facts from this ostensibly authoritative report. Worse still it looks likely the authors may even have used your involvement as a badge of credibility to enhance the media coverage. Your commitment to accurate reporting of alternative medicine has been second only to your research record and challenging myths and inaccuracies does indeed often involve taking courage and embracing the media interest when it most matters.
I will certainly be buying the book for my friends inside and outside science. While it is ostensibly about one man’s research career, it is for me about something much more profound..it’s about courage it takes to stand up for the very best science in areas that are contested in wider society. There is not enough of that courage in science but there is a huge amount of it in the pages of this book. I hope you can remember that the work of the unit will live on for many, many years to come, better informing the debate and proving the evidence base for those who want to follow in your footsteps.
This is not a hoax! Homeopaths have jumped on the Ebola-bandwagon and are recommending we treat this infection with homeopathy.
You don’t believe it? Read for yourself; the following text is taken from a pro-homeopathy website:
Your best bet is to find a homeopath to treat yourself or your patient. With Ebola this might not be so feasible, and if you find there is no other assistance available, continue as described below.
Add a pill or two of the homeopathic remedy found to have the most similar symptoms to a plastic cup filled with water (tap or mineral water). Starting with Crotalus Horridus 30C is probably the best idea. Stir the cup with a plastic spoon until the pills dissolve. With the spoon, place some drops of the remedy on the patient’s tongue.
How often the remedy is taken depends on the severity of symptoms. If they are very severe, give the remedy every half hour until improvement is observed, then repeat it every hour. This can be reduced to once or twice a day, depending on improvement.
If no improvement is observed after 24 hours, go to the next homeopathic remedy on the list above.
What to Do In Case Homeopathic Remedies are Unavailable
…With any epidemic, such as Ebola, bird and swine flu, if you have no other recourse for treatment—no medical assistance available— there is a procedure for making a remedy at home that will keep you alive, although you may have a rough time of it. Vitamins, especially C, will be helpful.
You may think the following procedure—developed by the English homeopath Peter Chappell—is a crazy thing to do. But, if you or a loved one is sick with Ebola with the prospect of having one week to live, and no other help is available, you might consider it. Besides, Einstein said that if an idea didn’t seem crazy, it wasn’t worth anything.
This procedure is based on a form of therapy related to homeopathy called isopathy (curing a disease with the virulent agent of the same disease), which has proven successful for many ailments….
How to Make Your Own Ebola Remedy
What you need:
1. A face mask and gloves
2. Two bottles (50 ml up to 500 ml glass or plastic bottles) with caps
3. Clean water (mineral or tap water)
4. An Ebola sample: some spit or other disease product, such as blood, from a person infected with Ebola, or who is suspected sick with it. Any small quantity will do, even a pinhead.
5. An alcoholic liquid, such as whisky, brandy, rum, etc.
6. Half an hour of your time.
1. Fill the bottle with water, leaving about 20% space at the top.
2. Place the Ebola sample in the water in the bottle.
3. Close the top of the bottle with the cap.
4. Hold the bottle and strike it hard against a solid surface, such as a large book, 40 times.
5. Pour out the contents of the bottle.
6. Refill the bottle with water (the fluid remaining on the inside surface of the bottle will serve as the next Ebola sample).
7. Repeat steps 3 to 6 a total of 30 times.
1. Pour the bottle solution into another bottle—your stock bottle.
2. Add 10% by volume of the alcoholic liquid (whisky, brandy, etc.) as a preservative.
3. Store in a place away from sunlight and electronic equipment.
Using this stock bottle, you can supply the Ebola remedy to as many people you want. With one drop from the stock bottle as an Ebola sample you can produce another stock bottle to give to someone else. Instead of the original Ebola sample you used above to make the original stock bottle, you use a drop from the first stock bottle. This process can be carried out ad infinitum, supplying a whole city, etc., if needed.
Taking Your Home-Made Ebola Remedy
1. Place a teaspoonful of your Ebola remedy from the stock bottle into a cup filled with water.
2. Stir the water five times with a disposable spoon or stick.
3. Take a sip from the cup.
4. During the epidemic, take a sip once or twice a day, stirring five times before taking the sip.
5. Refill the cup as needed after striking the stock bottle against a hard surface five times.
If you are sick with Ebola:
1. Place a teaspoonful of the Ebola remedy from your stock bottle into a cup filled with water.
2. Stir the water five times with a disposable spoon or stick.
3. Take a sip every 15 minutes, stirring five times each time until you notice improvement, then stop.
4. On improving, you can ease off and take the remedy every hour or so, again stirring five times before taking the remedy each time.
5. Refill the cup as needed after striking the stock bottle against a hard surface five times.
Another website had similar advice:
The following remedies would be considered by a homeopath for any of the viral hemorrhagic fevers that match this symptom picture.
As a preventative if an outbreak happens nearby, Crotalus horridus 30C, one dose daily, until the threat is out of the area is the method many homeopaths familiar with this disease suggest.
If a person is infected, the remedies most commonly used would be the following. One dose every hour, but as the severity of the symptoms decrease, frequency is reduced. If no improvement is seen after 6 doses, a new remedy ought to be considered.
Crotalus horridus 30C – Is to be considered for when there is difficulty swallowing due to spasms and constriction of the throat, dark purplish blood, edema with purplish, mottled skin.
Bothrops 30C – Is the remedy to think of when nervous trembling, difficulty articulating speech, sluggishness, swollen puffy face, black vomiting are present
Lachesis mutus 30C ,– when there’s delirium with trembling and confusion, hemorrhaging in any area, consider this remedy. Often, the person cannot bear tight or constricting clothing or bandages and feels better from heat and worse on the left side.
Mercurius corrosivus 30C, – For copious bleeding, better when lying on the back with the knees bent up, delirium, headache with burning cheeks, photophobia, black swollen lip, metallic, bitter or salt taste in mouth.
Secale cornutum 30c,– For thin, slow, painless oozing dark hemorrhage with offensive odor, cold skin and tingling in the limbs. The individual wants to be uncovered and feels WORSE from motion.
Echinacea 30C – For when there’s sepsis or blood poisoning, fetid smelling discharges and enlarged lymph nodes.
Homeopathy is an ideal medical stratagem for survivalists, homesteaders and anyone wanting to be self-reliant in any situation.
I felt quite sick after reading these texts – sick and frightened. If some homeopaths really believe this nonsense, we should, I think, all be frightened of them.
A remarkable article about homeopathy and immunisation entitled THE IMMUNISATION DILEMMA came to my attention recently. Its abstract promised: “evidence quantifying the effectiveness of vaccination and HP (homeoprophylaxis) will be examined. New international research describing and analysing HP interventions will be reported. An evidence-based conclusion will be reached.”
Sounds interesting? Let’s see what the article really offers. Here is the relevant text:
…evidence does exist to support claims regarding the effectiveness of homeopathic immunisation is undeniable.
I was first invited to visit Cuba in December 2008 to present at an international conference hosted by the Finlay Institute, which is a W. H. O.-accredited vaccine manufacturer. The Cubans described their use of HP to control an outbreak of leptospirosis (Weilʼs syndrome – a potentially fatal, water-born bacterial disease) in 2007 among the residents of the three eastern provinces which were most severely damaged by a severe hurricane – over 2.2 million people . 2008 was an even worse year involving three hurricanes, and the countryʼs food production was only just recovering at the time of the conference. The HP program had been repeated in 2008, but data was not available at the conference regarding that intervention.
I revisited Cuba in 2010 and 2012, each time to work with the leader of the HP interventions, Dr. Bracho, to analyse the data available. Dr. Bracho is not a homeopath; he is a published and internationally recognised expert in the manufacture of vaccine adjuvants. He worked in Australia at Flinders University during 2004 with a team trying to develop an antimalarial vaccine.
In 2012 we accessed the raw leptospirosis surveillance data, comprising weekly reports from 15 provinces over 9 years (2000 to 2008) reporting 21 variables. This yielded a matrix with 147 420 possible entries. This included data concerning possible confounders, such as vaccination and chemoprophylaxis, which allowed a careful examination of possible distorting effects. With the permission of the Cubans, I brought this data back to Australia and it is being examined by mathematicians at an Australian university to see what other information can be extracted. Clearly, there is objective data supporting claims regarding the effectiveness of HP.
The 2008 result was remarkable, and could only be explained by the effectiveness of the HP intervention. Whilst the three hurricanes caused immense damage throughout the country it was again worse in the east, yet the three homeopathically immunised provinces experienced a negligible increase in cases whilst the rest of the country showed significant increases until the dry season in January 2009 .
This is but one example – there are many more. It is cited to show that there is significant data available, and that orthodox scientists and doctors have driven the HP interventions, in the Cuban case. Many people internationally now know this, so once again claims by orthodox authorities that there is no evidence merely serves to show that either the authorities are making uninformed/unscientific statements, or that they are aware but are intentionally withholding information. Either way, confidence is destroyed and leads to groups of people questioning what they are told…
The attacks against homeopathy in general and HP in particular will almost certainly continue. If we can achieve a significant level of agreement then we would be able to answer challenges to HP with a single, cohesive, evidence-based, and generally united response. This would be a significant improvement to the existing situation.
Reference 7 is the following article: Bracho G, Varela E, Fernández R et al. Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 156-166. The crucial bit if this paper are as follows:
A homeoprophylactic formulation was prepared from dilutions of four circulating strains of Leptospirosis. This formulation was administered orally to 2.3 million persons at high risk in an epidemic in a region affected by natural disasters. The data from surveillance were used to measure the impact of the intervention by comparing with historical trends and non-intervention regions.
After the homeoprophylactic intervention a significant decrease of the disease incidence was observed in the intervention regions. No such modifications were observed in non-intervention regions. In the intervention region the incidence of Leptospirosis fell below the historic median. This observation was independent of rainfall.
The homeoprophylactic approach was associated with a large reduction of disease incidence and control of the epidemic. The results suggest the use of HP as a feasible tool for epidemic control, further research is warranted.
The paper thus describes little more than an observational study. It shows that one region was less affected than another. I think it is quite clear that this could have many reasons which are unrelated to the homeopathic immunisation. Even the authors are cautious and speak in their conclusions not of a causal effect but of an “association”.
The 2012 data cited in the text remains unpublished; until it is available for public scrutiny, it is impossible to confirm that it is sound and meaningful.
Reference 8 refers to this article: Golden I, Bracho G. Adaptability of homœoprophylaxis in endemic, epidemic and stable background conditions. Homœopathic Links 2009; 22: 211-213. I have no access to this paper (if someone does, please fill us in) but, judging from both its title and the way it is described in the text, it does not seem to show reliable data about the efficacy of homeopathic immunisation.
So, is it true that “evidence does exist to support claims regarding the effectiveness of homeopathic immunisation”?
I do not think so!
Immunisation is by no means a trivial matter; wrong decisions in this area have the potential to cost the lives of millions. Therefore proofs of efficacy need to be published in peer-reviewed journals of high standing. These findings need then be criticised, replicated and re-criticised and re-replicated. Only when there is a wide consensus about the efficacy/safety or lack of efficacy/safety of a new form of immunisation, can it be generally accepted and implemented into clinical practice.
The current consensus about homeopathic immunisation is that it is nothing less than dangerous phantasy. Those who promote this quackery should be publicly exposed as charlatans of the worst kind.
Homeopathy is a deeply puzzling subject for many observers. Perhaps it gets a little easier to understand, if we consider the three main perspectives on homeopathy. For the purpose of this post, I take the liberty of exaggerating, almost caricaturizing, these perspectives in order to contrast them as clearly as possible.
THE SCEPTICS’ PERSPECTIVE
Sceptics take a brief look at the two main assumptions which underpin homeopathy (like cures like and potentiation/dilution/water memory) and henceforward are convinced that homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. Homeopathy flies in the face of science; if homeopathy is right, several laws of nature must be wrong, they love to point out. As this is most unlikely, they reject homeopathy outright, usually even without looking in any detail at what homeopaths consider to be evidence in support of their trade. If sceptics are forced to consider a positive study of homeopathy, they know before they have seen it that its results are wrong – due to an error caused by chance, faulty study design or fabrication. The sceptics’ conclusion on homeopathy: it is a placebo-therapy, no doubt about it; and further investment into research is a waste of scarce resources which must be stopped.
THE BELIEVERS’ PERSPECTIVE
The believers in homeopathy know from experience that homeopathy works. They therefore feel that they have no choice but to reject almost every word the sceptics might tell them. They cling on to the gospel of Hahnemann and elaborate on the modern but vague theories that might support the theoretical assumptions of homeopathy. They point to positive clinical trials and outcome studies, to 200 years of experience, and to the endorsement of homeopathy by VIPs. When confronted with the weaknesses of their arguments, they find even weaker ones, such as ‘much of conventional medicine is also not based on good evidence, and the mechanism of action of many mainstream drugs is also not fully understood’. Alternatively, they employ the phoniest argument of them all: ‘even if it works via a placebo effect, it still helps patients and therefore is a useful therapy’. When even this fails, they tend to resort to ad hominem attacks against their opponents. The believers’ conclusion on homeopathy: it is unquestionably a valuable type of therapy regardless of what anyone else might say; research is merely needed to confirm their belief.
THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ADVOCATES OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE (EBM)
The perspective of EBM-advocates is pragmatic; they simply say: “show me the evidence!” If the majority of the most reliable clinical trials of homeopathic remedies (or anything else) suggests an effect beyond placebo, they conclude that they are effective. If that is not the case, they doubt the effectiveness. If the evidence is highly contradictory or incomplete, they are likely to advocate more rigorous research. Advocates of EBM are usually not all that concerned by the lack of plausibility of the interventions they evaluate. If it works, it works, they think – and if a plausible mechanism is currently not available, it might be found in due course. The advocates of EBM have no preconceived ideas about homeopathy. Their conclusion on homeopathy goes exactly where the available best evidence leads them.
The arguments and counter-arguments originating from the various perspectives would surely continue for another 200 years – unless, of course, two of the three perspectives merge and arrive at the same or very similar conclusions. And this is precisely what has now happened. As I have pointed out in a recent post, the most thorough and independent evaluation of homeopathy according to rigorous EBM-standards has concluded that “the evidence from research in humans does not show that homeopathy is effective for treating the range of health conditions considered.”
In other words, two of the three principal perspectives have now drawn conclusions which are virtually identical: there is a consensus between the EBM-advocates and the sceptics. This isolates the believers and renders their position no longer tenable. If we furthermore consider that the believers are heavily burdened with obvious conflicts of interest, while the other two groups are by definition much more independent and objective, it appears more and more as though homeopathy is fast degenerating into a cult characterised by the unquestioning commitment and unconditional submission of its members who are too heavily brain-washed to realize that their fervour has isolated them from the rational sections of society. And a cult is hardly what we need in heath care, I should think.
It seems to me therefore that these intriguing developments might finally end the error that homeopathy represented for nearly 200 years.
Progress at last?