MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

unreason

1 2 3 11

The UK ‘Society of Homeopaths’ just proudly made this announcement: “From today, patients will be able to choose a homeopath belonging to a register vetted and approved by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA). The Society of Homeopaths’ voluntary register has been accredited under a new scheme set up by the Department of Health and administered by an independent body, accountable to Parliament.”

No, it is not April fools day, but it is clearly time to rejoice and to start believing in homeopathy. Not an easy task, you might say; perhaps this new and equally amazing article outlining 10 reasons to love homeopathy will make it a little more feasible (as it is pure comedy gold, I have only shortened it very slightly)?

1. For Love: Love your family, love thy neighbor, love your homeopath. Even if you don’t need a homeopath, your aunt, your grandmother, or grandchild might…

2. For money. Homeopathic medicines are generally less expensive than patent medicines, which have prices driven by profit, not by cost nor benefit…

3. For your bodies, minds, spirits, and communities. Homeopathy works… How is it possible that everyone can find instances where a homeopathic doctor was able to solve a problem…?

4. Because you are royalty. Kings and queens have used homeopathy – with positive effects. The Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II has a personal physician – a homeopath. She has used homeopathic medicines for her pets as well. If it’s good enough for royalty, it’s good enough for you.

5. Because someday you might need a chiropractor, a Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioner, Acupuncturist, an Osteopathic Doctor, an Ayurvedic practitioner, or even a midwife. …Attacking homeopathy, suggesting it be banned, is a first step in the wrong direction. Many medical disciplines are attacked independently, with a goal to remove them all from your market, your freedom to choose. If we ban homeopaths, ask yourself – who’s next?

6. For Your Freedoms: Freedom to choose Homeopathy. Freedom to choose your medicines and treatments. There are many who might prefer that you have fewer freedoms, especially those with something to sell. There are many nonsense restrictions on your freedom to choose, and freedoms avoid, specific medical treatments. It’s your body, your mind, your spirit, and your life. You have the right to choose…

7. For your symptoms. The medical model classifies all symptoms as indications of illness. It does not recognize that symptoms can be indications of healthiness, and seldom recognizes that symptoms can be indications of healing or fighting illness. Homeopathy looks at symptoms from a completely different viewpoint… 

8. For your health. Today, it’s illegal to market a product that claims to ‘improves your health’, without reference to illness. All ‘health claims’ must reference ‘a disease or health related condition’. It is illegal to sell a ‘health product’ without a reference to scientific studies of ‘illness’. Medicine, is blind to health. Homeopathy challenges many medical dogmas, opening a door open to a more comprehensive, broader, more clear view of healthiness – not just illness.

9. For your Doctor. Whether your doctor is a homeopath or not, she might need access to homeopathic ideas and medicines. Homeopathy is practiced by many doctors, dentists, naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, physician assistants, nurses, even veterinarians, and more. If homeopathy is banned, these medical professionals will be limited, or forced to hide their beliefs and activities.

10. For science. Some argue that homeopathy cannot pass the tests of science. These are people who do not understand science. Science does not find truths, it asks questions and seeks answers. The answers it finds, if they are useful, raise higher, more important questions. When science is stifled, when science becomes illegal, we all lose.

This is all so very sweet that I almost hesitate to bring you back to reality. But I have to, this is no blog for dreamers!

Here is a reminder what level-headed, independent and thorough experts have to say about homeopathy; I am sorry, if their statement comes a bit like a cold shower to the irrationalists: the evidence from research in humans does not show that homeopathy is effective for treating the range of health conditions considered.”

So, what should we make of the UK government’s decision to register homeopaths? Personally, I now look forward to the day when parliament starts discussing the new London airport for flying carpets – but, as always, I look forward to your answers.

Bach Flower Remedies are the brain child of Dr Edward Bach who, as an ex-homeopath, invented his very own highly diluted remedies. Like homeopathic medicines, they are devoid of active molecules and are claimed to work via some non-defined ‘energy’. Consequently, the evidence for these treatments is squarely negative: my systematic review analysed the data of all 7 RCTs of human patients or volunteers that were available in 2010. All but one were placebo-controlled. All placebo-controlled trials failed to demonstrate efficacy. I concluded that the most reliable clinical trials do not show any differences between flower remedies and placebos.

But now, a new investigation has become available. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of Bach flower Rescue Remedy on the control of risk factors for cardiovascular disease in rats.

A randomized longitudinal experimental study was conducted on 18 Wistar rats which were randomly divided into three groups of six animals each and orogastrically dosed with either 200μl of water (group A, control), or 100μl of water and 100μl of Bach flower remedy (group B), or 200μl of Bach flower remedy (group C) every 2 days, for 20 days. All animals were fed standard rat chow and water ad libitum.

Urine volume, body weight, feces weight, and food intake were measured every 2 days. On day 20, tests of glycemia, hyperuricemia, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and total cholesterol were performed, and the anatomy and histopathology of the heart, liver and kidneys were evaluated. Data were analyzed using Tukey’s test at a significance level of 5%.

No significant differences were found in food intake, feces weight, urine volume and uric acid levels between groups. Group C had a significantly lower body weight gain than group A and lower glycemia compared with groups A and B. Groups B and C had significantly higher HDL-cholesterol and lower triglycerides than controls. Animals had mild hepatic steatosis, but no cardiac or renal damage was observed in the three groups.

From these results, the authors conclude that Bach flower Rescue Remedy was effective in controlling glycemia, triglycerides, and HDL-cholesterol and may serve as a strategy for reducing risk factors for cardiovascular disease in rats. This study provides some preliminary “proof of concept” data that Bach Rescue Remedy may exert some biological effects.

If ever there was a bizarre study, it must be this one:

  • As far as I know, nobody has ever claimed that Rescue Remedy modified cardiovascular risk factors.
  • It seems debatable whether the observed changes are all positive as far as the cardiovascular risk is concerned.
  • It seems odd that a remedy that does not contain active molecules is associated with some sort of dose-effect response.
  • The modification of cardiovascular risk factors in rats might be of little relevance for humans.
  • A strategy for reducing cardiovascular risk factors in rats seems a strange idea.
  • Even the authors cannot offer a mechanism of action [other than pure magic].

Does this study tell us anything of value? The authors are keen to point out that it provides a preliminary proof of concept for Rescue Remedy having biological effects. Somehow, I doubt that this conclusion will convince many of my readers.

It has been estimated that 40 – 70% of all cancer patients use some form of alternative medicine; may do so in the hope this might cure their condition. A recent article by Turkish researchers - yet again - highlights how dangerous such behaviour can turn out to be.

The authors report the cases of two middle-aged women suffering from malignant breast masses. The patients experienced serious complications in response to self-prescribed use of alternative medicine practices to treat their condition in lieu of evidence-based medical treatments. In both cases, the use and/or inappropriate application of alternative medical approaches promoted the progression of malignant fungating lesions in the breast. The first patient sought medical assistance upon development of a fungating lesion, 7∼8 cm in diameter and involving 1/3 of the breast, with a palpable mass of 5×6 cm immediately beneath the wound. The second patient sought medical assistance after developing of a wide, bleeding, ulcerous area with patchy necrotic tissue that comprised 2/3 of the breast and had a 10×6 cm palpable mass under the affected area.

The authors argue that the use of some non-evidence-based medical treatments as complementary to evidence-based medical treatments may benefit the patient on an emotional level; however, this strategy should be used with caution, as the non-evidence-based therapies may cause physical harm or even counteract the evidence-based treatment.

Their conclusions: a malignant, fungating wound is a serious complication of advanced breast cancer. It is critical that the public is informed about the potential problems of self-treating wounds such as breast ulcers and masses. Additionally, campaigns are needed to increase awareness of the risks and life-threatening potential of using non-evidence-based medical therapies exclusively.

I have little to add to this; perhaps just a further reminder that the risk extends, of course, to all serious conditions: even a seemingly harmless but ineffective therapy can become positively life-threatening, if it is used as an alternative to an effective treatment. I am sure that some ‘alternativists’ will claim that I am alarmist; but I am also convinced that they are wrong.

In 2004, I published an article rather boldly entitled ‘Ear candles: a triumph of ignorance over science’. Here is its summary:

Ear candles are hollow tubes coated in wax which are inserted into patients’ ears and then lit at the far end. The procedure is used as a complementary therapy for a wide range of conditions. A critical assessment of the evidence shows that its mode of action is implausible and demonstrably wrong. There are no data to suggest that it is effective for any condition. Furthermore, ear candles have been associated with ear injuries. The inescapable conclusion is that ear candles do more harm than good. Their use should be discouraged.

Sadly, since the publication of this paper, ear candles have not become less but more popular. There are about 3 000 000 websites on the subject; most are trying to sell products and make claims which are almost comically misguided; three examples have to suffice:

I said ALMOST comical because such nonsense has, of course a downside. Not only are consumers separated from their cash for no benefit whatsoever, but they are also exposed to danger; again, three examples from the medical literature might explain:

  • Otolaryngologists from London described a case of ear candling presenting as hearing loss, and they concluded that this useless therapy can actually cause damage to the ears.
  • A 50-year-old woman presented to her GP following an episode of ear candling. After 15 minutes, the person performing the candling burned herself while attempting to remove the candle and spilled candle wax into the patient’s right ear canal. On examination, a piece of candle wax was found in the patient’s ear, and she was referred to the local ear, nose, and throat department. Under general aesthetic, a large mass of solidified yellow candle wax was removed from the deep meatus of the ear. The patient had a small perforation in her right tympanic membrane. Results of a pure tone audiogram showed a mild conductive hearing loss on the right side. At a follow-up appointment 1 month later, the perforation was still there, and the patient’s hearing had not improved.
  • case report of a 4-year-old girl from New Zealand was published. The patient was diagnosed to suffer from otitis media. During the course of the ear examination white deposits were noticed on her eardrum; this was confirmed as being caused by ear candling.

I should stress that we do not know how often such events happen; there is no monitoring system, and one might expect that the vast majority of cases do not get published. Most consumers who experience such problems, I would guess, are far to embarrassed to admit that they have been taken in by this sort of quackery.

It was true 10 yeas ago and it is true today: ear candles are a triumph of ignorance over science. But also they are a victory of gullibility over common sense and the unethical exploitation of naive hope by greedy frauds.

DOCTOR Jeffrey Collins, a chiropractor from the Chicago area, just sent me an email which, I think, is remarkable and hilarious - so much so that I want to share it with my readers. Here it is in its full length and beauty:

If you really think you can resolve all back pain syndromes with a pill then you are dumber than you look. I’ve been a chiropractor for 37 years and the primary difference between seeing me vs. an orthopedic surgeon for back pain is simple. When you have ANY fixation in the facet joint, the motor untitled is compromised. These are the load bearing joints in the spine and only an idiot would not realize they are the primary source of pain. The idea of giving facet blocks under fluoroscopy is so dark ages. Maybe you could return to blood letting. The fact that you attack chiropractors as being dangerous when EVERY DAY medical doctors kill people but that’s OK in the name of science. Remember Vioxx? Oh yeah that drug killed over 80,000 patients that they could find. It was likely double that. Oddly I have treated over 10,000 in my career and nobody died. Not one. I guess I was just lucky. I went to Palmer in Iowa. The best chiropractors come out of there. I should qualify that. The ones that have a skill adjusting the spine. 

I will leave you with this as a simple analogy most patients get. Anyone who has ever “cracked their knuckles” will tell you that they got immediate relief and joint function was restored instanter. That’s chiropractic in a nutshell. Not complicated and any chiropractor worth his salt can do that for 37 years without one adverse incident. A monkey could hand out pain pills and you know it. Only in America do you have to get a script to get to a drugstore so everybody gets a cut. What a joke. Somehow mitigating pain makes you feel better about yourselves when you are the real sham. Funny how chiropractors pay the LOWEST malpractice rates in the country. That must be luck as well. Where’s your science now? I would love to debate a guy like you face to face. If you ever come to Chicago email me and let’s meet. Then again guys like you never seem to like confrontation. 

I’ve enjoyed this and glad I found your site. Nobody reads the crap that you write and I found this by mistake. Keep the public in the dark as long as you can. It’s only a matter of time before it’s proven DRUGS ARE WORTHLESS.

I am pleased that DOCTOR Collins had fun. Now let me try to have some merriment as well.

This comment is a classic in several ways, for instance, it

  • starts with a frightfully primitive insult,
  • boasts of the author’s authority (37 years of experience) without mentioning anything that remotely resembles real evidence,
  • provides pseudoscientific explanations for quackery,
  • returns to insults (only an idiot return to blood letting),
  • uses classical fallacies (…medical doctors kill people),
  • returns to more boasting about authority (I went to Palmer in Iowa. The best chiropractors come out of there…),
  • injects a little conspiracy theory (…everybody gets a cut),
  • returns to insults (…you are the real sham… guys like you never seem to like confrontation.) 
  • and ends with an apocalyptic finish: It’s only a matter of time before it’s proven DRUGS ARE WORTHLESS.

I should not mock DOCTOR Collins, though; I should be thankful to him for at least two reasons. Firstly, he confirmed my theory that “Ad hominem attacks are signs of victories of reason over unreason“. Secondly, he made a major contribution to my enjoyment of this otherwise somewhat dreary bank holiday, and I hope the same goes for my readers.

Twenty years ago, when I started my Exeter job as a full-time researcher of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM), I defined the aim of my unit as applying science to CAM. At the time, this intention upset quite a few CAM-enthusiasts. One of the most prevalent arguments of CAM-proponents against my plan was that the study of CAM with rigorous science was quite simply an impossibility. They claimed that CAM included mind and body practices, holistic therapies, and other complex interventions which cannot not be put into the ‘straight jacket’ of conventional research, e. g. a controlled clinical trial. I spent the next few years showing that this notion was wrong. Gradually and hesitantly CAM researchers seemed to agree with my view – not all, of course, but first a few and then slowly, often reluctantly the majority of them.

What followed was a period during which several research groups started conducting rigorous tests of the hypotheses underlying CAM. All too often, the results turned out to be disappointing, to say the least: not only did most of the therapies in question fail to show efficacy, they were also by no means free of risks. Worst of all, perhaps, much of CAM was disclosed as being biologically implausible. The realization that rigorous scientific scrutiny often generated findings which were not what proponents had hoped for led to a sharp decline in the willingness of CAM-proponents to conduct rigorous tests of their hypotheses. Consequently, many asked whether science was such a good idea after all.

But that, in turn, created a new problem: once they had (at least nominally) committed themselves to science, how could they turn against it? The answer to this dilemma was easier that anticipated: the solution was to appear dedicated to science but, at the same time, to argue that, because CAM is subtle, holistic, complex etc., a different scientific approach was required. At this stage, I felt we had gone ‘full circle’ and had essentially arrived back where we were 20 years ago - except that CAM-proponents no longer rejected the scientific method outright but merely demanded different tools.

A recent article may serve as an example of this new and revised stance of CAM-proponents on science. Here proponents of alternative medicine argue that a challenge for research methodology in CAM/ICH* is the growing recognition that CAM/IHC practice often involves complex combination of novel interventions that include mind and body practices, holistic therapies, and others. Critics argue that the reductionist placebo controlled randomized control trial (RCT) model that works effectively for determining efficacy for most pharmaceutical or placebo trial RCTs may not be the most appropriate for determining effectiveness in clinical practice for either CAM/IHC or many of the interventions used in primary care, including health promotion practices. Therefore the reductionist methodology inherent in efficacy studies, and in particular in RCTs, may not be appropriate to study the outcomes for much of CAM/IHC, such as Traditional Korean Medicine (TKM) or other complex non-CAM/IHC interventions—especially those addressing comorbidities. In fact it can be argued that reductionist methodology may disrupt the very phenomenon, the whole system, that the research is attempting to capture and evaluate (i.e., the whole system in its naturalistic environment). Key issues that surround selection of the most appropriate methodology to evaluate complex interventions are well described in the Kings Fund report on IHC and also in the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for evaluating complex interventions—guidelines which have been largely applied to the complexity of conventional primary care and care for patients with substantial comorbidity. These reports offer several potential solutions to the challenges inherent in studying CAM/IHC. [* IHC = integrated health care]

Let’s be clear and disclose what all of this actually means. The sequence of events, as I see it, can be summarized as follows:

  • We are foremost ALTERNATIVE! Our treatments are far too unique to be subjected to reductionist research; we therefore reject science and insist on an ALTERNATIVE.
  • We (well, some of us) have reconsidered our opposition and are prepared to test our hypotheses scientifically (NOT LEAST BECAUSE WE NEED THE RECOGNITION THAT THIS MIGHT BRING).
  • We are dismayed to see that the results are mostly negative; science, it turns out, works against our interests.
  • We need to reconsider our position.
  • We find it inconceivable that our treatments do not work; all the negative scientific results must therefore be wrong.
  • We always said that our treatments are unique; now we realize that they are far too holistic and complex to be submitted to reductionist scientific methods.
  • We still believe in science (or at least want people to believe that we do) - but we need a different type of science.
  • We insist that RCTs (and all other scientific methods that fail to demonstrate the value of CAM) are not adequate tools for testing complex interventions such as CAM.
  • We have determined that reductionist research methods disturb our subtle treatments.
  • We need pragmatic trials and similarly ‘soft’ methods that capture ‘real life’ situations, do justice to CAM and rarely produce a negative result.

What all of this really means is that, whenever the findings of research fail to disappoint CAM-proponents, the results are by definition false-negative. The obvious solution to this problem is to employ different (weaker) research methods, preferably those that cannot possibly generate a negative finding. Or, to put it bluntly: in CAM, science is acceptable only as long as it produces the desired results.

Readers of this blog will know that few alternative treatments are more controversial and less plausible than homeopathy. Therefore they might be interested to read about the latest attempt of homeopathy-enthusiasts to convince the public that, despite all the clinical evidence to the contrary, homeopathy does work.

The new article was published in German by Swiss urologist and is a case-report describing a patient suffering from paralytic ileus. This condition is a typical complication of ileocystoplasty of the bladder, the operation the patient had undergone. The patient had also been suffering from a spinal cord injury which, due to a pre-existing neurogenic bowel dysfunction, increases the risk of paralytic ileus.

The paraplegic patient developed a massive paralytic ileus after ileocystoplasty and surgical revision. Conventional stimulation of bowel function was unsuccessful. But after adjunctive homeopathic treatment normalization of bowel function was achieved.

The authors conclude that adjunctive homeopathic therapy is a promising treatment option in patients with complex bowel dysfunction after abdominal surgery who do not adequately respond to conventional treatment.

YES, you did read correctly: homeopathic therapy is a promising treatment

In case anyone doubts that this is more than a trifle too optimistic, let me suggest three much more plausible reasons why the patient’s bowel function finally normalised:

  • It could have been a spontaneous recovery (in most cases, even severe ones, this is what happens).
  • It could have been all the conventional treatments aimed at stimulating bowel function.
  • It could have been a mixture of the two.

The article made me curious, and I checked whether the authors had previously published other material on homeopathy. Thus I found two further articles in a very similar vein:

Article No 2 (dated 2014):

We present the clinical course of a patient with an epididymal abscess caused by multiresistant bacteria. As the patient declined surgical intervention, a conservative approach was induced with intravenous antibiotic treatment. As the clinical findings did not ameliorate, adjunctive homeopathic treatment was used. Under combined treatment, laboratory parameters returned to normal, and the epididymal abscess was rapidly shrinking. After 1 week, merely a subcutaneous liquid structure was detected. Fine-needle aspiration revealed sterile purulent liquid, which was confirmed by microbiological testing when the subcutaneous abscess was drained. Postoperative course was uneventful.

As the risk for recurrent epididymitis is high in persons with spinal cord injury, an organ-preserving approach is justified even in severe cases. Homeopathic treatment was a valuable adjunctive treatment in the above-mentioned case. Therefore, prospective studies are needed to further elucidate the future opportunities and limitations of classical homeopathy in the treatment of urinary tract infections.

Article No 3 (dated 2012):

Recurrent urinary tract infections (UTI) in patients with spinal cord injury are a frequent clinical problem. Often, preventive measures are not successful. We present the case reports of five patients with recurrent UTI who received additional homeopathic treatment. Of these patients, three remained free of UTI, whereas UTI frequency was reduced in two patients. Our initial experience with homeopathic prevention of UTI is encouraging. For an evidence-based evaluation of this concept, prospective studies are required.

It seems clear that all of the three more plausible explanations for the patients’ recovery listed above also apply to these two cases.

One might not be far off speculating that J Pannek, the first author of all these three articles, is a fan of homeopathy (this suspicion is confirmed by a link between him and the HOMEOPATHY RESEARCH INSTITUE: Prof Jürgen Pannek on the use of homeopathy for prophylaxis of UTI’s in patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction). If that is so, I wonder why he does not conduct a controlled trial, rather than publishing case-report after case-report of apparently successful homeopathic treatments. Does he perhaps fear that his effects might dissolve into thin air under controlled conditions?

Case-reports of this nature can, of course, be interesting and some might even deserve to be published. But it would be imperative to draw the correct conclusions. Looking at the three articles above, I get the impression that, as time goes by, the conclusions of Prof Pannek et al (no, I know nobody from this group of authors personally) are growing more and more firm on less and less safe ground.

In my view, responsible authors should have concluded much more cautiously and reasonably. In the case of the paralytic ileus, for instance, they should not have gone further than stating something like this: adjunctive homeopathic therapy might turn out to be a promising treatment option for such patients. Despite the implausibility of homeopathy, this case-report might deserve to be followed up with a controlled clinical trial. Without such evidence, firm conclusions are clearly not possible.

Reiki is a Japanese technique which, according to a proponent, … is administered by “laying on hands” and is based on the idea that an unseen “life force energy” flows through us and is what causes us to be alive. If one’s “life force energy” is low, then we are more likely to get sick or feel stress, and if it is high, we are more capable of being happy and healthy…

A treatment feels like a wonderful glowing radiance that flows through and around you. Reiki treats the whole person including body, emotions, mind and spirit creating many beneficial effects that include relaxation and feelings of peace, security and wellbeing. Many have reported miraculous results.

Reiki is a simple, natural and safe method of spiritual healing and self-improvement that everyone can use. It has been effective in helping virtually every known illness and malady and always creates a beneficial effect. It also works in conjunction with all other medical or therapeutic techniques to relieve side effects and promote recovery [my emphasis].

Many websites give much more specific information about the health effects of Reiki:

Some Of The Reiki Healing Health Benefits 

  • Creates deep relaxation and aids the body to release stress and tension,
  • It accelerates the body’s self-healing abilities,
  • Aids better sleep,
  • Reduces blood pressure
  • Can help with acute (injuries) and chronic problems (asthma, eczema, headaches, etc.) and aides the breaking of addictions,
  • Helps relieve pain,
  • Removes energy blockages, adjusts the energy flow of the endocrine system bringing the body into balance and harmony,
  • Assists the body in cleaning itself from toxins,
  • Reduces some of the side effects of drugs and helps the body to recover from drug therapy after surgery and chemotherapy,
  • Supports the immune system,
  • Increases vitality and postpones the aging process,
  • Raises the vibrational frequency of the body,
  • Helps spiritual growth and emotional clearing.

With such remarkable claims being made, I had to look into this extraordinary treatment.

In 2008, I had a co-worker in my team who was (still is, I think) a Reiki healer. He also happened to be a decent scientist, and we thus decided to conduct a systematic review summarising the evidence for the effectiveness of Reiki. We searched the literature using 23 databases from their respective inceptions through to November 2007 (search again 23 January 2008) without language restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad score. The searches identified 205 potentially relevant studies. Nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. Two RCTs suggested beneficial effects of Reiki compared with sham control on depression, while one RCT did not report intergroup differences. For pain and anxiety, one RCT showed intergroup differences compared with sham control. For stress and hopelessness, a further RCT reported effects of Reiki and distant Reiki compared with distant sham control. For functional recovery after ischaemic stroke there were no intergroup differences compared with sham. There was also no difference for anxiety between groups of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis. For diabetic neuropathy there were no effects of reiki on pain. A further RCT failed to show the effects of Reiki for anxiety and depression in women undergoing breast biopsy compared with conventional care.

Overall, the trial data for any one condition were scarce and independent replications were not available for any condition. Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting. We therefore concluded that the evidence is insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of Reiki remains unproven.

But this was in 2008! In the meantime, the evidence might have changed. Here are two recent publications which, I think, are worth having a look at:

The first article is a case-report of a nine-year-old female patient with a history of perinatal stroke, seizures, and type-I diabetes was treated for six weeks with Reiki. At the end of this treatment period, there was a decrease in stress in both the child and the mother, as measured by a modified Perceived Stress Scale and a Perceived Stress Scale, respectively. No change was noted in the child’s overall sense of well-being, as measured by a global questionnaire. However, there was a positive change in sleep patterns on 33.3% of the nights as reported on a sleep log kept by the mother. The child and the Reiki Master (a Reiki practitioner who has completed all three levels of Reiki certification training, trains and certifies individuals in the practice of Reiki, and provides Reiki to individuals) experienced warmth and tingling sensations on the same area of the child during the Reiki 7 minutes of each session. There were no reports of seizures during the study period.

The author concluded that Reiki is a useful adjunct for children with increased stress levels and sleep disturbances secondary to their medical condition. Further research is warranted to evaluate the use of Reiki in children, particularly with a large sample size, and to evaluate the long-term use of Reiki and its effects on adequate sleep.

In my view, this article is relevant because it typifies the type of research that is being done in this area and the conclusions that are being drawn from it. It should be clear to anyone who has the slightest ability of critical thinking that a case report of this nature tells us as good as nothing about the effectiveness of a therapy. Considering that Reiki is just about the least plausible intervention anyone can think of, the child’s condition in all likelihood improved not because of the Reiki healing but because of a myriad of unrelated factors; just think of placebo-effects, regression towards the mean, natural history of the condition, concomitant treatments, etc.

The plausibility of energy/biofield/spiritual healing such as Reiki is also the focus of the second remarkable article that was just published. It reports a systematic review of studies designed to examine whether bio-field therapists undergo physiological changes as they enter the healing state (remember: the Reiki healer in the above study experienced ‘warmth and tingling sensations’ during therapies). If reproducible changes could be identified, the authors argue, they might serve as markers to reveal events that correlate with the healing process.

Databases were searched for controlled or non-controlled studies of bio-field therapies in which physiological measurements were made on practitioners in a healing state. Design and reporting criteria, developed in part to reflect the pilot nature of the included studies, were applied using a yes (1.0), partial (0.5), or no (0) scoring system.

Of 67 identified studies, the inclusion criteria were met by 22, 10 of which involved human patients. Overall, the studies were of moderate to poor quality and many omitted information about the training and experience of the healer. The most frequently measured biomarkers were electroencephalography (EEG) and heart rate variability (HRV). EEG changes were inconsistent and not specific to bio-field therapies. HRV results suggest an aroused physiology for Reconnective Healing, Bruyere healing, and Hawaiian healing, but no changes were detected for Reiki or Therapeutic Touch.

The authors of this paper concluded that despite a decades-long research interest in identifying healing-related biomarkers in bio-field healers, little robust evidence of unique physiological changes has emerged to define the healers׳ state.

Now, let me guess why this is so. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to come up with the suggestion that no robust evidence for Reiki and all the other nonsensical forms of healing can be found for one disarmingly simple reason: NO SUCH EFFECTS EXIST.

Have you noticed?

Homeopaths, acupuncturists, herbalists, reflexologists, aroma therapists, colonic irrigationists, naturopaths, TCM-practitioners, etc. – they always smile!

But why?

I think I might know the answer. Here is my theory:

Alternative practitioners have in common with conventional clinicians that they treat patients - lots of patients, day in day out. This wears them down, of course. And sometimes, conventional clinicians find it hard to smile. Come to think of it, alternative practitioners seem to have it much better. Let me explain.

Whenever a practitioner (of any type) treats a patient, one of three outcomes is bound to happen:

  1. the patient gets better,
  2. the patients roughly remains how she was and experiences no improvement,
  3. the patient gets worse.

In scenario one, everybody is happy. Both alternative and conventional practitioners will claim with a big smile that their treatment was the cause of the improvement. There is a difference though: the conventional practitioner who adheres to the principles of evidence-based medicine will know that the assumption is likely to be true, while the alternative practitioner is probably just guessing. In any case, as long as the patient gets better, all is well.

In scenario two, most conventional clinicians will get somewhat concerned and find little reason to smile. Not so the alternative practitioner! He will have one of several explanations why his therapy has not produced the expected result all of which allow him to carry on smiling smugly. He might, for instance, explain to his patient:

  • You have to give it more time; another 10-20 treatment sessions and you will be as right as rain (unfortunately, further sessions will come at a price).
  • This must be because of all those nasty chemical drugs that you took for so long – they block up your system, you know; we will have to do some serious detox to get rid of all this poison (of course, at a cost).
  • You must realize that, had we not started my treatment when we did, you would be much worse by now, perhaps even dead.

In scenario three, any conventional clinician would have stopped smiling and begun to ask serious, self-critical questions about his diagnosis and treatment. Not so the alternative practitioner. He will point out with a big smile that the deterioration of the symptoms only appears to be a bad sign. In reality it is a very encouraging signal indicating that the optimal treatment for the patient’s condition has finally been found and is beginning to work. The acute worsening of the complaints is merely an ‘aggravation’ or’ healing crisis’. Such a course of events had to be expected when true healing of the root cause of the condition is to be achieved. The thing to do now is to continue with several more treatments (at a cost, of course) until deep healing from within sets in.

Many of us want the cake and eat it – but alternative practitioners, it seems to me, have actually achieved this goal. No wonder they smile!

In the US, the scope of practice of health care professionals is a matter for each state to decide. Only the one of doctors is regulated nationwide. Other health care professions’ scope of practice can vary considerably within the US. This means that a chiropractor in one state of the US might be allowed to do more (or less) than in the next state. But what exactly are US chiropractors legally allowed to do?

A recent paper was aimed at answering this very question. Its authors assessed the current status of chiropractic practice laws in the US.

A cross-sectional survey of licensure officials from the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards e-mail list was conducted in 2011 requesting information about chiropractic practice laws and 97 diagnostic, evaluation, and management procedures. To evaluate content validity, the survey was distributed in draft form at the fall 2010 Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards regional meeting to regulatory board members and feedback was requested. Comments were reviewed and incorporated into the final survey.

Partial or complete responses were received from 96% (n = 51) of the jurisdictions. The states with the highest number of services that could be performed were Missouri (n = 92), New Mexico (n = 91), Kansas (n = 89), Utah (n = 89), Oklahoma (n = 88), Illinois (n = 87), and Alabama (n = 86). The states with the highest number of services that cannot be performed are New Hampshire (n = 49), Hawaii (n = 47), Michigan (n = 42), New Jersey (n = 39), Mississippi (n = 39), and Texas (n = 30).

The authors conclude that the scope of chiropractic practice in the United States has a high degree of variability. Scope of practice is dynamic, and gray areas are subject to interpretation by ever-changing board members. Although statutes may not address specific procedures, upon challenge, there may be a possibility of sanctions depending on interpretation.

For me, the most surprising aspect of this article was to realise how many ‘non-chiropractic’ activities chiropractors are legally permitted in some US states. Here are some of the items that amazed me most:

  • birth certificates
  • death certificates
  • premarital certificates
  • recto-vaginal exam
  • venepuncture
  • i.v. injections
  • prostatic exam
  • genital exam
  • homeopathy
  • ear irrigation
  • colonic irrigation
  • oral and i.v. chelation therapy
  • obstetrics
  • hypnotherapy
  • acupuncture
  • hyperbaric chamber

I have to admit that I did not even know what a PREMARITAL CERTIFICATE’ is; so I looked it up. The first one I found on the internet was entitled “PURITY  COVENANT” and committed the couple “to abstain from fornication and remain sincere to the Lord Jesus Christ and to each other”

I have to further admit that many other of the items on this list leave me equally speechless. For example, how can chiropractors with their training focussed on the musculoskeletal system responsibly complete a death certificate? Why are they allowed in some states to examine the genitalia of their patients?

I suspect the perceived need of chiropractors to do all these things must be closely related to their long-standing ambition to become primary care physicians. Just to be clear: a primary care physician is a physician who provides both the first contact for a person with an undiagnosed health concern as well as continuing care of varied medical conditions, not limited by cause, organ system, or diagnosis.  I have always been more than just a bit perplexed how chiropractors, who state that they are musculoskeletal specialists, might even consider being competent primary care providers.

But regardless of common sense, they do! The US ‘Council of Chiropractic Education’ accreditation process, for instance, requires schools to educate and train students to become a “competent doctor of chiropractic who will provide quality patient care and serve as a primary care physician” and the chiro-literature is awash with statements such as this one: “The primary care chiropractic physician is a viable and important part of the primary health care delivery system, with many chiropractic physicians currently prepared to participate effectively and competently in primary care.” Moreover, the phenomenon is by no means limited to the US: “chiropractors in the UK view their role as one of a primary contact healthcare practitioner and that this view is held irrespective of the country in which they were educated or the length of time in practice.”

As far as I am concerned, chiropractors might view their role as whatever they want. The fact is that, even if they add many more items to the list of their ‘services’, they are very far from being competent primary care physicians. Being able to provide the first contact as well as continuous care of medical conditions, not limited by cause, organ system, or diagnosis is not a matter of wishful thinking.

1 2 3 11
Recent Comments
Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.
Categories