A German homeopathic journal, Zeitschrift Homoeopathie, has just published the following interesting article entitled HOMEOPATHIC DOCTORS HELP IN LIBERIA. It provides details about the international team of homeopaths that travelled to Liberia to cure Ebola. Here I take the liberty of translating it from German into English. As most of it is fairly self-explanatory, I abstain from any comments of my own – however, I am sure that my readers will want to add their views.
In mid-October, an international team of 4 doctors travelled to the West African country for three weeks. The mission in a hospital in Ganta, a town with about 40 000 inhabitants on the border to Guinea, ended as planned on 7 November. The exercise was organised by the World Association of Homeopathic Doctors, the Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis (LMHI), with support of by the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors. The aim was to support the local doctors in the care of the population and, if possible, also to help in the fight against the Ebola epidemic. The costs for the three weeks’ stay were financed mostly through donations from homeopathic doctors.
“We know that we were invited mainly as well-trained doctors to Liberia, and that or experience in homeopathy was asked for only as a secondary issue”, stresses Cornelia Bajic, first chairperson of the DZVhA (German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors). The doctors from India, USA, Switzerland and Germany were able to employ their expertise in several wards of the hospital, to help patients, and to support their Liberian colleagues. It was planned to use and document the homeopathic treatment of Ebola-patients as an adjunct to the WHO prescribed standard treatment. “Our experience from the treatment of other epidemics in the history of medicine allows the conclusion that a homeopathic treatment might significantly reduce the mortality of Ebola patients”, judges Bajic. The successful use of homeopathic remedies has been documented for example in Cholera, Diphtheria or Yellow Fever.
In Ganta, the doctors of the LMHI team treated patients with “at times most serious diseases, particularly inflammatory conditions, children with Typhus, meningitis, pneumonias, and unclear fevers – each time only under the supervision of the local doctor in charge”, reports Dr Ortrud Lindemann, who also worked obstetrically in Ganta. The medical specialist reports after her return: “When we had been 10 days in the hospital, the successes had become known, and the patients stood in queues to get treated by us.” The homeopathic doctors received thanks from the Ganta hospital for their work, it was said that it had been helpful for the patients and a blessing for the employees of the hospital.
POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MEDICAL TREATMENT?
This first LMHI team of doctors was forbidden to care for patients from the “Ebola Treatment Unit”. The decision was based on an order of the WHO. A team of Cuban doctors was also waiting in vain for being allowed to work. “We are dealing here with a dangerous epidemic and a large number of seriously ill patients. And despite a striking lack of doctors in West Africa political considerations are more important than the treatment of these patients”, criticises the DZVhA chairperson Bajic. Now a second team is to travel to Ganta to support the local doctors.
THIS POST IS DEDICATED TO HRH, THE PRINCE OF WALES WHO CELEBRATES HIS 66TH BIRTHDAY TODAY AND HAS SUPPORTED HOMEOPATHY ALL HIS LIFE
Like Charles, many people are fond of homeopathy; it is particularly popular in India, Germany, France and parts of South America. With all types of health care, it is important to make therapeutic decisions in the knowledge of the crucial facts. In order to aid evidence-based decision-making, I will summarise a few things you might want to consider before you try homeopathy – either by buying homeopathic remedies over the counter, or by consulting a homeopath.
- Homeopathy was invented by Samuel Hahnemann, a charismatic German doctor, about 200 years ago. At the time, our understanding of the laws of nature was woefully incomplete, and therefore Hahnemann’s ideas seemed far less implausible than they actually are. Moreover, the conventional treatments of this period were often more dangerous than the disease they were supposed to cure; consequently homeopathy was repeatedly shown to be better than ‘allopathy’ (a term coined by Hahnemann to insult conventional medicine). Thus Hahnemann’s treatments were an almost instant worldwide success. When, about 100 years later, more and more effective conventional therapies were discovered, homeopathy all but disappeared, only to be re-discovered in developed countries as the baby-boomers started their recent love-affair with alternative medicine.
- Many consumers confuse homeopathy with herbal medicine; yet the two are fundamentally different. Herbal medicines are plant extracts with potentially active ingredients. Homeopathic remedies may be based on plants (or any other material as well) but are typically so dilute that they contain absolutely nothing. The most frequently used dilution (homeopaths call them ‘potencies’) is a ‘C30′; a C30-potency has been diluted 30 times at a ratio of 1:100. This means that one drop of the staring material is dissolved in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 drops of diluent – and that equates to one molecule of the original substance per all the molecules of many thousand universes.
- Homeopaths know all of this, of course, and they thus claim that their remedies do not work via pharmacological effects but via some ‘energy’ or ‘vital force’. They are convinced that the process of preparing the homeopathic dilutions (they shake the mixtures at each dilution step) transfers some ‘vital energy’ from one to the next dilution. They cite all sorts of fancy theories to explain how this ‘energy transfer’ might come about, however, none of them has ever been accepted by mainstream scientists.
- Homeopathic remedies are usually prescribed according to the ‘like cures like’ principle. For instance, if you suffer from runny eyes, a homeopath might prescribe a remedy made of onion, because onion make our eyes water. This and all other basic assumptions of homeopathy contradict the known laws of nature. In other words, we do not just fail to understand how homeopathy works, but we understand that it cannot work unless the known laws of nature are wrong.
- The clinical trials of homeopathy are broadly in agreement with these insights from basic science. Today, more than 200 such studies have been published; if we look at the totality of this evidence, we have to conclude that it fails to show that homeopathic remedies are anything other than placebos.
- This is, of course, in stark contrast to what many enthusiasts of homeopathy insist upon; they swear by homeopathy and claim that it has helped them (or their pet, aunt, child etc.) repeatedly. Nobody doubts their accounts; in fact, it is indisputable that many patients do get better after taking homeopathic remedies. The best evidence available today clearly shows, however, that this improvement is unrelated to the homeopathic remedy per se. It is the result of an empathetic, compassionate encounter with a homeopath, a placebo-response or other factors which experts often call ‘context effects’.
- The wide-spread notion that homeopathy is completely free of risks is not correct. The remedy itself might be harmless (except, of course, for the damage it creates to your finances, and the fact that irrational nonsense about ‘vital energy’ etc. undermines rationality in general) but this does not necessarily apply to the homeopath. Whenever homeopaths advise their patients, as they often do, to forgo effective conventional treatments for a serious condition, they endanger lives. This phenomenon is documented, for instance, in relation to the advice of many homeopaths against immunisations. Any treatment that has no proven benefit, while carrying a finite risk, cannot generate more good than harm.
Acute tonsillitis (AT) is an upper respiratory tract infection which is prevalent, particularly in children. The cause is usually a viral or, less commonly, a bacterial infection. Treatment is symptomatic and usually consists of ample fluid intake and pain-killers; antibiotics are rarely indicated, even if the infection is bacterial by nature. The condition is self-limiting and symptoms subside normally after one week.
Homeopaths believe that their remedies are effective for AT – but is there any evidence? A recent trial seems to suggest there is.
It aimed, according to its authors, to determine the efficacy of a homeopathic complex on the symptoms of acute viral tonsillitis in African children in South Africa.
The double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT was a 6-day “pilot study” and included 30 children aged 6 to 12 years, with acute viral tonsillitis. Participants took two tablets 4 times per day. The treatment group received lactose tablets medicated with the homeopathic complex (Atropa belladonna D4, Calcarea phosphoricum D4, Hepar sulphuris D4, Kalium bichromat D4, Kalium muriaticum D4, Mercurius protoiodid D10, and Mercurius biniodid D10). The placebo consisted of the unmedicated vehicle only. The Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale was used for measuring pain intensity, and a Symptom Grading Scale assessed changes in tonsillitis signs and symptoms.
The results showed that the treatment group had a statistically significant improvement in the following symptoms compared with the placebo group: pain associated with tonsillitis, pain on swallowing, erythema and inflammation of the pharynx, and tonsil size.
The authors drew the following conclusions: the homeopathic complex used in this study exhibited significant anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving qualities in children with acute viral tonsillitis. No patients reported any adverse effects. These preliminary findings are promising; however, the sample size was small and therefore a definitive conclusion cannot be reached. A larger, more inclusive research study should be undertaken to verify the findings of this study.
Personally, I agree only with the latter part of the conclusion and very much doubt that this study was able to “determine the efficacy” of the homeopathic product used. The authors themselves call their trial a “pilot study”. Such projects are not meant to determine efficacy but are usually designed to determine the feasibility of a trial design in order to subsequently mount a definitive efficacy study.
Moreover, I have considerable doubts about the impartiality of the authors. Their affiliation is “Department of Homoeopathy, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa”, and their article was published in a journal known to be biased in favour of homeopathy. These circumstances in itself might not be all that important, but what makes me more than a little suspicious is this sentence from the introduction of their abstract:
“Homeopathic remedies are a useful alternative to conventional medications in acute uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infections in children, offering earlier symptom resolution, cost-effectiveness, and fewer adverse effects.”
A useful alternative to conventional medications (there are no conventional drugs) for earlier symptom resolution?
If it is true that the usefulness of homeopathic remedies has been established, why conduct the study?
If the authors were so convinced of this notion (for which there is, of course, no good evidence) how can we assume they were not biased in conducting this study?
I think that, in order to agree that a homeopathic remedy generates effects that differ from those of placebo, we need a proper (not a pilot) study, published in a journal of high standing by unbiased scientists.
Whenever I give a public lecture about homeopathy, I explain what it is, briefly go in to its history, explain what its assumptions are, and what the evidence tells us about its efficacy and safety. When I am finished, there usually is a discussion with the audience. This is the part I like best; in fact, it is the main reason why I made the effort to do the lecture in the first place.
The questions vary, of course, but you can bet your last shirt that someone asks: “We know it works for animals; animals cannot experience a placebo-response, and therefore your claim that homeopathy relies on nothing but the placebo-effect must be wrong!” At this stage I often despair a little, I must admit. Not because the question is too daft, but because I did address it during my lecture. Thus I feel that I have failed to get the right message across – I despair with my obviously poor skills of giving an informative lecture!
Yet I need to answer the above question, of course. So I reiterate that the perceived effectiveness of homeopathy relies not just on the placebo-effect but also on phenomena such as regression towards the mean, natural history of the condition etc. I also usually mention that it is erroneous to assume that animals cannot benefit from placebo-effects; they can be conditioned, and pets can react to the expectations of their owners.
Finally, I need to mention the veterinary clinical evidence which – just like in the case of human patients – fails to show that homeopathic remedies are better than placebos for treating animals. Until recently, this was not an easy task because no systematic review of randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of veterinary homeopathy was available. Now, I am happy to announce, this situation has changed.
Using Cochrane methods, a brand-new review aimed to assess risk of bias and to quantify the effect size of homeopathic interventions compared with placebo for each eligible peer-reviewed trial. Judgement in 7 assessment domains enabled a trial’s risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise reliable evidence, if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in specified domains. A trial was considered to be free of vested interest, if it was not funded by a homeopathic pharmacy.
The 18 RCTs found by the researchers were disparate in nature, representing 4 species and 11 different medical conditions. Reliable evidence, free from vested interest, was identified in only two trials:
- homeopathic Coli had a prophylactic effect on porcine diarrhoea (odds ratio 3.89, 95 per cent confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 12.68, P=0.02);
- individualised homeopathic treatment did not have a more beneficial effect on bovine mastitis than placebo intervention (standardised mean difference -0.31, 95 per cent CI, -0.97 to 0.34, P=0.35).
The authors conclusions are clear: Mixed findings from the only two placebo-controlled RCTs that had suitably reliable evidence precluded generalisable conclusions about the efficacy of any particular homeopathic medicine or the impact of individualised homeopathic intervention on any given medical condition in animals.
My task when lecturing about homeopathy has thus become a great deal easier. But homeopathy-fans are not best pleased with this new article, I guess. They will try to claim that it was a biased piece of research conducted, most likely, by notorious anti-homeopaths who cannot be trusted. So who are the authors of this new publication?
They are RT Mathie from the British Homeopathic Association and J Clausen from one of Germany’s most pro-homeopathic institution, the ‘Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung’.
DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED AGAINST HOMEOPATHY?
I know, I have written about this guy before – and I am likely to do so again – he is just too outstanding to pass by!
A few days ago, he was in the headlines again: the Conservative health committee member David Tredinnick insisted that herbal medicine and even astrology should be given to patients in order to plug a growing hole in the NHS-budget: “I have referred to the fact that in some cultures astrology is part of healthcare because they need to have a voice and I’ve got up and said that,” he told Channel Four News. “But I also think we can reduce the bill by using a whole range of alternative medicine including herbal medicine, acupuncture, homeopathy…We could probably save five per cent of the [NHS] budget.”
Unbelievably, a man with such views is a member of the science and technology committee! This really does instil trust in politics!!!
His track record regarding the promotion of quackery might even dwarf that of Prince Charles; earlier this year he told MPs that astrology should be used to replace some “conventional” medicines on the NHS: “I am absolutely convinced that those who look at the map of the sky for the day that they were born and receive some professional guidance will find out a lot about themselves and it will make their lives easier,” he told the Commons. “I hope that in future we stop looking just at increasing the supply of drugs and consider the way that complementary and alternative medicine can reduce the demand for drugs, reduce pressures on the health service, increase patient satisfaction, and make everyone in this country happier.”
Speaking recently while thousands of NHS workers were on strike, he defended their pay freeze, stating that NHS’s budget was “finite”. However, asked whether he planned to take his own upcoming 9% pay rise, he refused to answer: “I’m not getting drawn on MPs pay… I’m not answering that question on this programme because we’re dealing with the health service.” Pushed further, he suggested that the rise was necessary in order to make MPs “good public servants… All members of parliament will be given a pay rise which is been set by an independent authority. Most of those members of parliament will take that pay rise because that is what is deemed necessary to have good public servants,” he insisted.
But is he really a “good public servant” ???
Addressing parliament about its ‘evidence check’ on homeopathy which came out squarely against it, Tredinnick once stated: “It is my belief that the advice the Clerks provided to the Science and Technology Committee Chairman was inadequate, in that the evidence taken by the Committee in its evidence check on homeopathy was biased, as they did not call representatives of the homeopathic profession and instead chose a professor who did not represent the alternative medicine world. They chose the one person who would give an answer that suited those who were in opposition.” The professor he refers to is Edzard Ernst, I think! When I was invited to give evidence to the committee, Tredinnick was in the audience; I saw him as we were waiting to go in and even had a chat with him. So, he must remember that sitting next to me were several defenders of homeopathy, amongst them the Queen’s homeopath himself.
Perhaps Tredinnick just forgot!
He couldn’t be lying, could he?
No, a good public servant wouldn’t do that!
I just came across this hilarious yet revealing article by Italian authors defending homeopathy. It is far too remarkable to keep it for myself, and I therefore decided to quote its abstract here in full:
Throughout its over 200-year history, homeopathy has been proven effective in treating diseases for which conventional medicine has little to offer. However, given its low cost, homeopathy has always represented a serious challenge and a constant threat to the profits of drug companies. Moreover, since drug companies represent the most relevant source of funding for biomedical research worldwide, they are in a privileged position to finance detractive campaigns against homeopathy by manipulating the media as well as academic institutions and the medical establishment. The basic argument against homeopathy is that in some controlled clinical trials (CCTs), comparison with conventional treatments shows that its effects are not superior to those of placebo. Against this thesis we argue that a) CCT methodology cannot be applied to homeopathy, b) misconduct and fraud are common in CCTs, c) adverse drug reactions and side effects show that CCT methodology is deeply flawed, d) an accurate testing of homeopathic remedies requires more sophisticated techniques, e) the placebo effect is no more “plausible” than homeopathy, and its real nature is still unexplained, and f) the placebo effect is nevertheless a “cure” and, as such, worthy of further investigation and analysis. It is concluded that no arguments presently exist against homeopathy and that the recurrent campaigns against it represent the specific interests of the pharmaceutical industry which, in this way, strives to protect its profits from the “threat” of a safer, more effective, and much less expensive treatment modality.
Despite (or is it because?) of such nonsense, homeopathy seems to be very popular, especially in the treatment of small children, and particularly for conditions where conventional medicine has no effective treatment. Teething problems are thus an ideal target for the homeopathic industry.
A survey of British GPs found that the most frequently prescribed homeopathic remedies were for common self-limiting infantile conditions such as colic, cuts and bruises, and teething. Similarly, the Avon-study suggested that homeopathic Chamomillia is popular to alleviate the pain of teething. And prominent homeopaths recommend that “teething often responds to Chamomilla.“
One website also recommends Chamomilla as well as several other homeopathic remedies leaving little doubt about their efficacy:
Chamomilla 6c: When teething is very painful and the child becomes quite cranky, satisfied with nothing and pacified only by being carried, then Chamomilla may help. Sometimes, the child seeking some relief from the discomfort will demand one thing after another, rejecting each one when it does not give relief. Children who could benefit from this remedy are very irritable, with a cry that sounds as if they are in pain. Chamomilla 6c can be taken every thirty minutes, up to six times per day, while symptoms persist.
Mercurius sol 6c: This remedy may be of help in cases where teething is accompanied by excessive salivation and drooling. In addition, the gums are likely to be red and sore, and the child may have diarrhea with a foul smell to it. Mercurius sol 6c can be taken four to six times per day for two to three days; its use should be discontinued when the symptoms diminish.
>Belladonna 30c: For children who tend to develop a fever with a flushed, red face when they are cutting teeth, Belladonna may be a good choice. Often the eyes have a glassy look due to the dilation of the pupils. The child may be irritable and crying as if angry. Belladonna 30c can be taken every thirty minutes up to four times per day, while symptoms continue.
Aconite napellus 30c: When the symptoms come on quickly and include physical and mental restlessness, this remedy may be useful. The affected gums will be hot, swollen, and inflamed and there may also be an earache with aversion to loud noises. The condition may come on following exposure to cold, dry winds. Try Aconite napellus 30c every hour for up to six times per day.
Calcarea carbonica 6c: When children are finally cutting teeth that have been late in erupting, Calcarea carbonica could be helpful. This remedy is often helpful with “late bloomers,” babies who develop a little more slowly, crawling, walking, and cutting teeth on their own schedule, weeks or months later than some other babies or toddlers. Children likely to benefit from Calcarea carbonica often have sweaty heads and feet and may have a tendency to develop cradle cap or yeast infections. With teething, they often do not show the extreme irritability that calls for Chamomilla, or the fever that indicates Belladonna, but they may have teeth that seem permanently on the verge of breaking through the surface. Calcarea carbonica 6c can be taken three times per day, for up to ten days; its use should be discontinued when symptoms improve.
Given this level of assurance, it not really surprising that manufacturers of homeopathic remedies want to profit from all this. Anxious mothers must seem like sitting ducks to the homeopathic industry.
Camilia, a homeopathic teething remedy that contains Chamomillia in the 9c potency from Boiron, the world’s largest producer of homeopathic products, will be launched shortly in the UK. The PR-agency in charge of the UK campaign to promote camilia announced that they will focus on a “national awareness drive through earned and paid-for media along with influencer engagement.” The agency is also responsible for re-building the brand’s website and implementing a strategy to drive discovery online. Amanda Meyrick of Clarion Communications, said: “Launching a product into a new market gives us the opportunity to work in partnership from the beginning to establish Camilia in the UK, and we are looking forward to seeing the results of our planning and creativity.” Remarkably, nobody seems to mention efficacy as a factor in the promotion of camilia.
However, the product is already available in the US, and from the US website we learn that this remedy “temporarily relieves symptoms of teething, including painful gums and irritability.” So, there are clear claims of efficacy after all!
Boiron is not the only firm who aim to profit from the vast market of teething problems. Nelson’s Teetha, for instance, is already available in the UK. Each 300mg sachet of TEETHA contains “the active ingredient of Chamomilla 6c.” Even Boots, the UK’s ‘trusted’ high street pharmacy, sell a product called ‘TEETHING PAIN RELIEF’ which also contains Chamomilla 6c, its only ‘active’ ingredient. Even the name of their product carries a therapeutic claim for efficacy, in my view.
But hold on! A 6c dilution equals one ml of plant extract diluted in 1 000 000 000 litres of water (add 6 zeros to that figure for the Boiron product)!!! Is that really going to alleviate teething problems?
Of course not!, you will say. Dilutions of this nature will do nothing whatsoever.
But they are not just dilutions, they are potentiations! would the homeopaths counter; they have been succussed at each dilution step, and this process transfers a vital force from the Chamomilla extract to the remedy. Yes, of course, how could I forget – it’s homeopathy where LIKE CURES LIKE and people believe in the tooth fairy.
But this does not make any sense either!
Chamomillia is nothing other than chamomile, a plant known to sooth through its anti-inflammatory actions. So, in highly diluted homeopathic products, the actions of this plant should be reversed according to the ‘like cures like’ principle. That means that these teething products, according to homeopathic ‘logic’, is not for treating inflamed gums but for treating the absence of inflammation.
My mind boggles because nothing seems to make sense any more:
- according to real science (or just common sense), the dilutions are far to high to have any effect at all,
- according to homeopathic ‘logic’, these products should, if anything, produce inflammation and not alleviate it,
- according to the best clinical evidence, homeopathic remedies are not effective for teething; I am not aware of a single rigorous trial that would show its efficacy, and current reviews do not recommend homeopathy for teething problems,
- regardless of all this and despite of regulations prohibiting it, therapeutic claims are being made for these over-priced placebos.
IT’S HOMEOPATHY STUPID!
‘Healing, hype or harm? A critical analysis of complementary or alternative medicine’ is the title of a book that I edited and that was published in 2008. Its publication date coincided with that of ‘Trick or Treatment?’ and therefore the former was almost completely over-shadowed by the latter. Consequently few people know about it. This is a shame, I think, and this post is dedicated to encouraging my readers to have a look at ‘Healing, hype or harm?’
One reviewer commented on Amazon about this book as follows: Vital and informative text that should be read by everyone alongside Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ and Singh and Ernt’s ‘Trick or Treatment’. Everyone should be able to made informed choices about the treatments that are peddled to the desperate and gullible. As Tim Minchin famously said ‘What do you call Alternative Medicine that has been proved to work? . . . Medicine!’
This is high praise indeed! But I should not omit the fact that others have commented that they were appalled by our book and found it “disappointing and unsettling”. This does not surprise me in the least; after all, alternative medicine has always been a divisive subject.
The book was written by a total of 17 authors and covers many important aspects of alternative medicine. Some of its most famous contributors are Michael Baum, Gustav Born, David Colquhoun, James Randi and Nick Ross. Some of the most important subjects include:
As already mentioned, our book is already 6 years old; however, this does not mean that it is now out-dated. The subject areas were chosen such that it will be timely for a long time to come. Nor does this book reflect one single point of view; as it was written by over a dozen different experts with vastly different backgrounds, it offers an entire spectrum of views and attitudes. It is, in a word, a book that stimulates critical thinking and thoughtful analysis.
I sincerely think you should have a look at it… and, in case you think I am hoping to maximise my income by telling you all this: all the revenues from this book go to charity.
Most pharmacies worldwide sell any bogus treatment to their unsuspecting customers, it seems – as long as it makes a profit, anything goes! Not in New Zealand!
The New Zealand’s Pharmacy Council’s Safe Effective Pharmacy Practice Code of Ethics 2011 section 6.9 requires of pharmacists that:
“YOU MUST… Only purchase, supply or promote any medicine, complementary therapy, herbal remedy or other healthcare product where there is no reason to doubt its quality or safety and when there is credible evidence of efficacy.”
This instruction was the basis for a complaint against a New Zealand pharmacy selling a homeopathic remedy against jet lag called “No-Jet-Lag”. The New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) considered the complaint and decided to uphold it. The complaint, which was lodged with the ASA by the Society for Science Based Healthcare in July 2014, alleged that the advertisement’s claims about the product that “It Really Works” for “Homeopathic Jet Lag Prevention” were unsubstantiated and misleading.
In defence of their advertising, the manufacturer of the product, Miers Laboratories, submitted a study they had conducted with their product. However, the Advertising Standards Complaints Board ruled that: “the trial population in the pilot study was small, the methodology was not robust and the results had not been published or peer reviewed. The Complaints Board also noted the study was an in-house trial conducted by the Advertiser rather than independent research…Given the weaknesses in the study, the majority of the Complaints Board said the Advertiser had not satisfactorily substantiated the claim the product “really works” and, as such, the Complaints Board said the advertisement had the potential to mislead consumers. Consequently, the Complaints Board said the advertisement did not observe a high standard of social responsibility required of advertisements of this type.”
However, today I found the following text still on the website of the company: Jet lag is the curse of modern jet travel, but it doesn´t have to spoil your trip. The unique homeopathic remedy No-Jet-Lag helps ensure holiday enjoyment and working efficiency even after long airline flights. No-Jet-Lag is raved about by satisfied travellers globally, including business executives, sports teams, tour operators, and flight crews. It is safe, easy to take, and proven effective in tests.
Are the days of “No-Jet-Lag” counted?
Why do not all countries’ pharmacists have such codes of ethics?
Have you ever wondered why homeopathic remedies cost relatively much money? The less they contain, the more expensive they seem to be. The typical homeopathic remedy contains not a single molecule of what it says on the bottle, yet it can cost quite a lot. Why?
The reason is, of course, that these remedies are ‘potentized’ – meaning that the starting material is diluted and subsequently ‘succussed’. The latter term describes the process of vigorously shaking the remedy at each dilution step. Succussion is essential for transferring the life-energy from one dilution to the next, homeopaths insist. The most commonly used OTC remedies are in the ‘C30′ potency. This means that some pharmacist had to do 30 dilutions 1: 100, and each time he or she made a new dilution, he or she had to do the vigorous shaking as well.
Homeopaths are still debating as to how often and how hard the remedy needs to be shaken for the optimal transference of the life-energy; Hahnemann did it by banging the vial on his bible. Meanwhile, inventive manufacturers have developed machines that can manage the succussions semi-automatically. But even then, the process needs to be supervised, and all of this takes time and costs money, of course.
And now you understand why these remedies cannot be as cheap as to reflect the total absence of an active molecule!
And perhaps you also understand why some pharmacists might get truly fed-up doing the dilution/succession knowing that they might as well just put distilled water in the final vial – nobody on this planet could possibly ever tell the difference! I have always imagined that many of them throw the homeopathic rule book in the bin and forget about this tedious procedure.
Actually, I have more than imagined this.
Since I have been giving lectures on homeopathy on a fairly regular basis, I have encountered several pharmacists who told me of their frustration when they had to manufacture homeopathic remedies. Over the years, I met three of them who told me that they became so annoyed with the whole thing that they did precisely what I hinted at above: they just skipped all the dilution and succession and decided to dispense distilled water. Apparently nobody ever noticed.
These are, of course, just stories which people have told me. They may not even be true. I have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate them. But now, an ex-employee of an US homeopathic manufacturer has gone one step further. He published a short report of the time when he worked in the homeopathic industry. His account is so unique that I took the liberty of re-publishing it here:
I have worked at a homeopathic manufacturing plant. Yes, there is always a starting material, however sometimes it can get really shady. Homeopathics are regulated by the FDA under CFR 211, so if you make stuff up (like lie about having a starting material), and they find out about it, you’re in big trouble.
For most herbals, the actual herb is purchased, then tested to make sure it’s the right variety. This can mean TLC (thin layer chromatography), which is what I was responsible for doing when I worked there. A lot of times we got in a different species of the herb, but used it anyway.
Sometimes a pathogenic starting material is used – in that case, we contacted out to a third party micro lab that keep strains in a controlled environment. We paid the micro guy a contract fee to do the dilutions himself which ended up being about $3500 because only he was licensed to deal with pathogens. We made 200 30 mL units out of that which sold for less than $1200 total. Such a waste.
Sometimes a material of animal origin is used. If it’s something weird, like bovine trachea, there really isn’t a good method to test it, so we kind of took the supplier’s word for it. Pretty shady.
One time we needed to do an extraction of “morning dew”, so we went outside in the morning, shook some water off of some weeds, weighed it, then did the dilution.
My favorite story is this one: We needed to do a dilution of uranium 200X. Problem, is you can’t get uranium (unless you’re Doc Brown), so we went to Hanford (this was a looong time ago) carrying a vial of water. When we got there and did a tour (the plant manager knew what we were going to do), we took the vial and held it up against a glass wall that was a close as we could get to the cooling chamber. That became our “1X” dilution. We went back to our lab and diluted it to 200X, in ethanol. We had a lot left over, and because it’s illegal in WA to dump large quantities of ethanol down the drain, we needed a disposal service. Unfortunately, when we tried to explain that it was a 200X dilution (and that there wasn’t even a single atom of uranium in there to begin with), they still wouldn’t take it, because it said “uranium” on the label. So we took a shovel and buried in the back of the plant, and never told anyone.
I told you his story was unique. Did I promise too much?
After the usually challenging acute therapy is behind them, cancer patients are often desperate to find a therapy that might improve their wellbeing. At that stage they may suffer from a wide range of symptoms which can seriously limit their quality of life. Any treatment that can be shown to restore them to their normal mental and physical health would be more than welcome.
Most homeopaths believe that their remedies can do just that, particularly if they are tailored not to the disease but to the individual patient. Sadly, the evidence that this might be so is almost non-existent. Now, a new trial has become available; it was conducted by Jennifer Poole, a chartered psychologist and registered homeopath, and researcher and teacher at Nemeton Research Foundation, Romsey.
The aim of this study was to explore the benefits of a three-month course of individualised homeopathy (IH) for survivors of cancer. Fifteen survivors of any type of cancer were recruited from a walk-in cancer support centre. Conventional treatment had to have taken place within the last three years. Patients saw a homeopath who prescribed IH. After three months of IH, they scored their total, physical and emotional wellbeing using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy for Cancer (FACIT-G). The results show that 11 of the 14 women had statistically positive outcomes for emotional, physical and total wellbeing.
The conclusions of the author are clear: Findings support previous research, suggesting CAM or IH could be beneficial for survivors of cancer.
This article was published in the NURSING TIMES, and the editor added a footnote informing us that “This article has been double-blind “.
I find this surprising. A decent peer-review should have picked up the point that a study of that nature cannot possibly produce results which tell us anything about the benefits of IH. The reasons for this are fairly obvious:
- there was no control group,
- therefore the observed outcomes are most likely due to 1) natural history, 2) placebo, 3) regression towards the mean and 4) social desirability; it seems most unlikely that IH had anything to do with the result
- the sample size was tiny,
- the patients elected to receive IH which means that had high expectations of a positive outcome,
- only subjective outcome measures were used,
- there is no good previous research suggesting that IH benefits cancer patients.
On the last point, a recent systematic review showed that the studies available on this topic had mixed results either showing a significantly greater improvement in QOL in the intervention group compared to the control group, or no significant difference between groups. The authors concluded that there existed significant gaps in the evidence base for the effectiveness of CAM on QOL in cancer survivors. Further work in this field needs to adopt more rigorous methodology to help support cancer survivors to actively embrace self-management and effective CAMs, without recommending inappropriate interventions which are of no proven benefit.
All this new study might tell us is that IH did not seem to harm these patients – but even this finding is not certain; to be sure, we would need to include many more patients. Any conclusions about the effectiveness of IH are totally unwarranted. But are there ANY generalizable conclusions that can be drawn from this article? Yes, I can think of a few:
- Some cancer patients can be persuaded to try the most implausible treatments.
- Some journals will publish any rubbish.
- Some peer-reviewers fail to spot the most obvious defects.
- Some ‘researchers’ haven’t got a clue.
- The attempts of misleading us about the value of homeopathy are incessant.
One might argue that this whole story is too trivial for words; who cares what dodgy science is published in the NURSING TIMES? But I think it does matter – not so much because of this one silly article itself, but because similarly poor research with similarly ridiculous conclusions is currently published almost every day. Subsequently it is presented to the public as meaningful science heralding important advances in medicine. It matters because this constant drip of bogus research eventually influences public opinion and determines far-reaching health care decisions.