Updated Edition!
- spiritual healing alongside usual care (n = 14);
- or usual care alone (n = 14).
The healing sessions were highly individualized. The healer positioned her hands over various areas of the client’s body (head, chest, knee, hip, and feet) intending to adjust the energy flow within the client. Outcomes were measured by changes in the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care (BDI) scores pre-and post-intervention. Participants’ experiences with spiritual healing were explored through a process evaluation.
- A pilot study is for testing the feasibility and not for calculating outcomes.
- In any case, this was not a pilot study but an effectiveness trial that failed because of recruitment difficulties.
- As it followed the infamous ‘A+B versus B’ design that produces a positive result even for a placebo treatment, the study (if we disregard the small sample size and take its findings seriously) merely shows that placebo can be effective.
- The conclusion is therefore wrong and should read: spiritual healing causes a placebo response in individuals who suffer from moderate depression.
- The National Research Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Community Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway which seems to be the main institution responsible for this nonsense should be questioned how they justify spending money and time on such pseudoscience.
This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial compared the effects of individualized homeopathic medicinal products (IHMPs) and placebo after 4 months of intervention in patients with chronic low-back pain (LBP).
- the small sample size might have the result unreliable;
- the marginal level of statistical significance;
- the fact that 5+5+8+13=31 and not 30;
- the fact that the study originated from India where hardly any negative studys of homeopathy see the light of day;
- the fact that allmost all of the many authors of this paper are affiliated with homeopathic institutions;
- the existance of a strangely similar study that has recently reported largely negative results.
I am sure you remember Didier Raoult:
- Didier Raoult’s research is being called into question
- Didier Raoult and the hydroxychloroquine controversy ( part 1 )
- A census of untruths about chloroquine ( part 2 )
- HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE: This is NOT a Hollywood blockbuster ( Part 3)
Raoult has been banned from practising medicine for two years, and his ‘landmark study’ on hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19 has been retracted. But, as the French magazine ‘LE POINT’ reported, he can’t stop himself from producing BS. On the ‘Magnifiscience’ website, the name of the cosmetics company in which he is a partner, we learn that (my translation):
Magnifiscience, the alternative to injections and facelifts!
Science at the service of skin health
Discover a range that smoothes the skin, reduces wrinkles and fine lines, while plumping and firming for a more radiant complexion.
Our skin care products work deep down to improve the skin’s natural composition. They stimulate the production of collagen, elastin and hyaluronic acid, while moisturising, optimising cell renewal and strengthening the skin’s barrier.
A molecular innovation that redefines the boundaries of science.
Scientific Cosmetics
At Magnifiscience, we push back the boundaries of beauty by combining the power of science with cosmetic innovation.
Our formulas are the result of advanced biomedical research, combining high-performance active ingredients to stimulate skin regeneration, protect against external aggressors and slow down the visible signs of ageing.
Each skin care product is designed to work in depth to deliver proven, visible and long-lasting results.
__________________________
For 75 euros per 60 ml, LE POINT explains, the Tonitence 1 and Tonitence 2 contain DRNB7 and DRNB8 ‘powerful active ingredient’ complexes. These acronyms are based on the initials of the partners: Didier Raoult and Nina Basri, a ‘specialist in the formulation of cosmetic active ingredients’. Her LinkedIn profile shows no studies or degrees in pharmacy or dermatology, but a series of company start-ups in beauty products. A Forbes Brand stories advertorial explains that her vocation was born ‘from the observation of a curious little girl: the powers of water. Since most of the human bodý is made up of water, Nina Basri saw this as a lever for action.’ Water is indeed present in both creams. It’s even their main ingredient. In addition to water, there are mainly nourishing sunflower and safflower oils. For hydration, there’s squalane, but no hyaluronic acid or even glycerine; they chose propylene glycol, which is less effective. For 75 euros for 60 ml, you’d expect something better. Vitamin C is also present, albeit indirectly, via orange extract, and in low doses. The formula also contains a number of active plant ingredients, including extracts of ginseng, apple… and ‘garlic bulb and onion.
In addition to the AMAP basket, which, let’s be fair, may contain small doses of exfoliating fruit acids and antioxidant vitamins and polyphenols, there’s a good ladleful of polymers that deposit a film on the skin: hydroxyethyl acrylate/Sodium acryloyldimethyl taurate copolymer and cetearyl dimethicone crosspolymer, as well as silicone (dimethicone), which also forms a film. The result is a temporary, mechanical filling effect that disappears when the make-up is removed. More worryingly, the cream contains Benzyl Alcohol and Tetramethyl Acetyloctahydronaphthalenes, which (like garlic and onion) are potentially allergenic.
_________________________
So, what about Raoult’s/Magnifiscience’s dermatological claims that their creams:
- reduce wrinkles,
- reduce fine lines,
- improve the skin’s natural composition,
- stimulate the production of collagen, elastin and hyaluronic acid,
- optimise cell renewal,
- strengthen the skin’s barrier,
- stimulate skin regeneration,
- protect against external aggressors ,
- slow down the visible signs of ageing?
Any evidence?
As far as I can see, no!
Around the year 2000, we thought to have eradicated measles. But, thanks to quacks like Andrew Wakefield and charlatans like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., measles are back. The latest measles case count in Texas represents merely a fraction of the true number of infections. Health officials suspect 200 to 300 people in West Texas are infected but untested, and therefore not part of the state’s official tally.
A request for comment from Kennedy about the outbreak received no response!!!
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has sent approximately 2,000 doses of the MMR vaccine to Texas health officials at their request. However, most doses so far are being accepted by partially vaccinated kids to boost their immunity, rather than the unvaccinated. The Texas Tribune reported that vaccine exemptions have increased nearly annually over the last decade. Pro-vaccine groups such as The Immunization Partnership are finding it more challenging to stop mostly Republican lawmakers from pushing across “vaccine-choice” legislation.
- Historic TB outbreak a wake-up call for US policy makers
- Trump and Kennedy fire 5,200 HHS workers and gut the Epidemic Intelligence Service
- The New Mexico Department of Health declared a measles outbreak in a southeastern New Mexico county.
- Bird flu: Warning as elderly woman infected in Wyoming and cat cases confirmed
- Tuberculosis outbreak in Kansas among largest in US history.
THANK YOU, US VOTERS!
The use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has been widely recognized as a potential contributor to the emergence of vaccine scepticism and refusal. However, a direct correlation between trust in SCAM and vaccine scepticism is still a matter of discussion.
The objective of this study is to explore the multidimensional factors that explain the association between SCAM usage and vaccine scepticism. Qualitative and quantitative research designs were adopted to examine whether visiting SCAM practitioners directly contributes to vaccine scepticism and to identify whether anti-vaccination attitudes are caused by other social, and cultural factors.
The results support the idea that SCAM users tend to exhibit more vaccine scepticism compared to non-users. However, preferring a holistic health model, individual autonomy, and a negative perception of biomedicine representatives emerged as more influential factors in understanding the connection between the prevalence of SCAM utilization and vaccine scepticism.
The authors concluded that the results of this study indicate that people who regularly visit SCAM practitioners are more likely to be vaccine sceptics and have a higher tendency to vaccine scepticism. This is in line with other findings, suggesting that trust in SCAM is one of the factors affecting vaccine scepticism. This research conducted among people visiting healthcare professionals specializing in SCAM extends our knowledge for a deeper understanding of the other aspects behind this relationship. This implies that SCAM itself is not the direct predictor of vaccine scepticism; rather, an individualized holistic worldview and a lack of trust in medical professionals play a much more significant role in antivaccine attitudes. In addition, this investigation has shown that instead of expressing general dissatisfaction with biomedicine, the respondents displayed frustration with the individuals representing conventional medicine and the quality of the healthcare services provided. Notably, in the interviews, the participants indicated that their use of SCAM did not cause their vaccine scepticism, although they considered alternative healthcare options to be more valuable in dealing with several health issues. Instead of critiquing SCAM and vaccine scepticism, which contribute to the further polarization of society, a key policy priority regarding building trust in vaccines should therefore focus on strategies to improve healthcare services and develop medical doctors’ soft skills. A future follow-up evaluation investigating vaccine scepticism among complementary and alternative medicine users would be very useful to address vaccine scepticism more deeply.
So, individualized ‘holistic’ worldview and a lack of trust in medical professionals seem to have two simultaneous effects: they tend to make people turn towards SCAM and they render them skeptical about vaccinations. This makes sense – I never assumed anything else. I never thought that a SCAM in itself might, by some undefined magic, turn people into antivaxers. It always had to be a common denominator, like a general outlook or attitude that would prompt both the SCAM-use and the dislike of vaccines.
As the authors imply, this might be good news and point to one solution for two different problems: improve conventional healthcare and, as a result, both SCAM-use will diminish and vaccine acceprance will increase. The trouble is that this is easier said than done!
I am often amazed at the harm done by religious nutters, particularly when they employ their ‘religion’ as a replacement for medicine. Here is a truly horrific example.
It has been reported that all 14 members of a fringe religious group have been found guilty of the manslaughter of eight-year-old Elizabeth Struhs, who died after her insulin was withheld at her home in Toowoomba, Queensland.
The group faced a lengthy judge-only trial in Brisbane last year. They all represented themselves in court and refused to enter any pleas. During the trial, the Supreme Court heard the group rejected the medical system and the use of medications and put their full trust in the healing power of God. The prosecution alleged that the girl’s father, Jason Struhs, who had only recently joined the church, acted recklessly when he stopped administering the life-saving medication, as he knew this would likely lead to Elizabeth’s death. The group leader, Brendan Stevens, was accused of encouraging and counselling him to withdraw the insulin.
Justice Martin Burns acknowledged Elizabeth was a happy, vibrant child who was adored by her parents and every member of her church but who, due to their belief in the healing power of God, “left no room for recourse to any form of medical care or treatment, [and] she was deprived of the one thing that would most definitely have kept her alive — insulin”. Justice Burns said Stevens did procure and aid in the unlawful killing of Elizabeth by persuading, encouraging and supporting her father to cease using insulin, and his attempts to claim he didn’t influence him was “arrant nonsense”.
Shortly after Elizabeth’s death, Jason Struhs told police it “felt right” to stop her insulin and she was “as happy as anything”. He told police he made the decision to stop the medication and had said to her, “we are not going to do it anymore”. Subsequently, Elizabeth’s health had deteriorated over several days, and instead of contacting emergency services, the group prayed and sang. They did not contact police until more than 24 hours after she had died. When asked if they had anything to say following the verdicts, all members of the group declined to comment.
After their arrests the group continued to maintain their views, and repeatedly said in police interviews they believed Elizabeth would rise from the dead.
_____________________
Cases like this are shocking. Amongst other things, they remind us what consequences may and often will occur, when belief in unreason dominates reason, evidence and science.
Tuina, or Tui Na is based on the notion that imbalances of the life-force, qi, can cause blockages or imbalances that lead to symptoms and illness. Tuina massage is similar to acupressure in that it targets specific acupoints. Practitioners use fingers to apply pressure to stimulate these points.
Some people suggest that Tuina might benefit diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), but the evidence is inconclusive. This review evaluated its clinical efficacy and safety for DPN treatment.
Ten databases were searched, covering the period from their inception to February 21, 2024. Relevant data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan
5.3 software.
A total of 24 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,989 participants were included. Patients in the experimental group received Tuina in addition to routine treatments and nursing of DPN. Patients in the control group received routine treatments and nursing of DPN, including health education, dietary guidance, blood sugar control, and oral vitamin B or mecobalamin.
The meta-analysis showed that, compared to various control therapies, Tuina demonstrated a higher overall clinical efficacy rate and improved Toronto Clinical Scoring System (TCSS) scores, indicating that Chinese Tuina may provide benefits beyond conventional treatment. Furthermore, improvements were observed in the motor and sensory nerve conduction velocities (MNCV and SNCV) of certain specific nerves, such as the common peroneal nerve, sural nerve, and ulnar nerve. Although the differences in MNCV and SNCV of the tibial and median nerves were not statistically significant, the overall improvement in clinical outcome supports the notion that Tuina is superior to conventional treatment.
The authors concluded that Chinese Tuina therapy is a safe and effective treatment option for DPN. It can alleviate clinical symptoms and improve the MNCV of the common peroneal nerve as well as the SNCV of the sural and ulnar nerves. Its efficacy in the tibial and median nerves remains unconfirmed, highlighting a need for future large-scale, high-quality RCTs.
There are several reasons why I cannot accept the conclusion that Tuina is effective for DPN, e.g:
- All the RCTs were of the notorious A+B vs B design that – as discussed ad nauseam on this blog – does not control for placebo effects and thus never generate negative results.
- None of the RCTs were single or double blind which means that expectation and therapist influence would have impacted on the findings.
- All of the studes originate from China; we have often discussed why such studies are notoriously unreliable. Funding for the review was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and Jilin Provincial Natural Science Foundation Project.
- Most of the studies are published in journals and/or laguages that are not accessible to non-Chinese readers.
- None of these serious limitations are discussed by the review authors.
I REST MY CASE
It does not happen every day that the prestigeous German FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG publishes an in-depth analysis of TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) and even discusses several of the themes that we, here on this blog, have often debated. Allow me, therefore, to translate a few passages from the recent FAZ article entitled “Der Fluch der alten Dinge” (The Curse of Old Things):
… TCM has countless followers in many countries. ‘TCM is a wonderful medicine that thinks ‘holistically’, that sees not just one organ but the whole person and that offers very good treatment options,’ says Dominik Irnich. He heads the German Medical Association for Acupuncture. Although there is not evidence for all indications, TCM is ‘a scientifically based option for a number of diseases, the effects of which have been proven many times over’…
Meanwhile, Beijing wants to utilise the positive image of TCM to present itself in a good light and promote exports. The current five-year plan also provides for the creation of around 20 TCM positions for epidemic prevention and control. Critics, on the other hand, see patients at risk due to insufficiently tested therapies – and medicine as a whole: many studies are hardly valid and distort the state of science…
The top leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is using the ‘old things’ to increase its global influence and utilise TCM not only in its own country, but also as an export hit. The global TCM market is estimated to be worth many billions of euros annually, but there are no reliable figures – not least because it often includes illegally traded products such as rhino horn or donkey skin, which has led to mass killings.
Officially, Beijing prosecutes illegal trade and promotes science-based medicine, but the interests are intertwined. Even under Mao, traditional methods were used in China as a favourable alternative to imported medicines, and Beijing is currently increasingly allowing them to be reimbursed. At the same time, China’s leadership is trying to anchor TCM products in healthcare worldwide, for example as part of a ‘health Silk Road’ in Africa. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the state not only used TCM products en masse in its own country, Chinese foreign representatives also distributed them to Chinese people in Europe. This included a product based on gypsum, apricot kernels and plant parts called Lianhua Qingwen. According to a report published by the consulate in Düsseldorf, this was distributed even though the sale of medicines outside of pharmacies is generally punishable by law.
Beijing has also been successful at the level of the World Health Organisation (WHO), which promotes traditional medicine from China. ‘This was part of the interests and election programme of former Chinese Director-General Margaret Chan,’ says WHO consultant Ilona Kickbusch. The WHO drew up standards for acupuncture training, including knowledge of the ‘function and interactive relationship of qi, blood, essence and fluid’, as the document states.
In 2019, the WHO member states decided to add a chapter on ‘traditional medicine’ to the standard classification of diseases. Doctors can now code alleged patterns of ‘qi stagnation’ or yang deficiency of the liver. The umbrella organisation of European science academies EASAC criticised this as a ‘significant problem’: doctors and patients could be misled and pressure could be exerted on healthcare providers to reimburse unscientific approaches. Nature magazine found: ‘The WHO’s association with drugs that have not been properly tested and could even be harmful is unacceptable for the organisation that has the greatest responsibility and power to protect human health.’ …
In general, the study situation on therapies that are categorised as TCM is extremely confusing. The evidence is ‘terrible’, says the physician Edzard Ernst, who has analysed such procedures. ‘There are thousands of studies – that’s part of the problem.’ Many studies come from China, but it is known that a large proportion are invalid or falsified. It is almost impossible to report critically on TCM there: according to media reports, a doctor was imprisoned for three months in 2018 after criticising a TCM remedy. In 2020, Beijing even considered banning criticism of TCM, but refrained from doing so after an outcry.
According to Ernst, the quality of even some of the meta-analyses from the respected Cochrane Collaboration is ‘hair-raising’ due to the inclusion of unreliable studies, and according to some Chinese researchers, acupuncture works for everything. Prof. Unschuld said at an event a year ago that he was asked in China not to address critical issues.
‘In a country without the open and free critical culture that is common in democratic countries, the control mechanisms are missing,’ says Jutta Hübner, Professor of Integrative Oncology at Jena University Hospital. The inclusion of Chinese studies, which almost never report negative results, can create a much too positive image of TCM at a formally very high level of scientific evidence, without the results being reliable…
Instead of allowing the research to be carried out by proponents, it would be desirable ‘if the universities in particular remembered that they have the duty to be critical,’ says physician Edzard Ernst. However, some university clinics prefer to advertise TCM methods in order to attract patients and money.
- slightly improved BPH symptoms measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at follow-ups of up to 12 months (standardized mean difference [SMD] -2.06, 95% confidence intervals [CI] [-3.22, -0.91] very low certainty evidence, 6 studies),
- reduced prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels (mean difference [MD] -0.37 ng/ml, 95% CI [-0.50, -0.23] low certainty evidence, 4 studies)
- had little effect on quality of life (SMD -0.59, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.38] very low certainty evidence, 2 studies).
The main reasons for downgrading the evidence were study limitations (studies judged to be at an unclear or high risk of bias), inconsistency (considerable heterogeneity), and imprecision (small effect sizes and wide confidence intervals around effect estimates). All six studies reported no adverse-effects.
- positive but not truly honest about the limitations of the evidence (we see this regularly on my blog);
- or they are sufficiently critical and thus arrive, like our above paper, at unequivocal (and sadly not very helpul) conclusions.
As this is so, we see very few SRs that conclude “there is sound evidence to show that SCAM xy is effective (or ineffective)”. Yet, such verdicts would be what consumers need.
The cause of the first scenario (false-positive conclusion) is that reviewers are biased and want to demonstrate that SCAM works. Such authors behave unethically, in my view, because they mislead the public and might cause untold harm. The cause of the second scenario (unequivocal conclusion) is the poor quality of the primary studies. This phenomenon too is mostly due to over-enthusiastic researchers who want to prove their SCAM instead of testing it. Conducting a clinical trial is far from easy or cheap. It is beyond me, why so many SCAM trialists do not try their best to do it well!
If you think of it, the most likely reason is that they are not really interested in finding the truth but mainly want to promote their agenda. If you don’t believe me, have a look at my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME and the amazing men and women in it.
It is time, I think, that SCAM researcher learn the most basic principle of their profession: science is not a game where you set out to confirm what you believe. Science works by
- formulating a hypothesis,
- doing your very best to prove your hypothesis wrong,
- only if it cannot be proven wrong, assuming that it probably is correct.
To put it bluntly: investigators who use science to prove their point are not scientists but pseudo-scientists, and sadly SCAM has more than its fair share of such charlatans (drunken men using a lamp-post for support rather than enlightenment!). To put it even more bluntly: to prevent serious harm – because that sort of thing does a lot of real harm! – researchers who repeatedly show themselves to be incapable of doing unbiased science (again, see my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME), should be banned from doing research.
CNN reported that a measles outbreak is growing in a rural area of West Texas where vaccination rates are well below the recommended level. In late January, two children in Gaines County were hospitalized for measles. On Wednesday, the state health department issued a health alert:
The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) is reporting an outbreak of measles in Gaines County. At this time, six cases have been identified with symptom onset within the last two weeks, all among unvaccinated school-aged children who are residents of Gaines County.
Due to the highly contagious nature of this disease, additional cases are likely to occur in Gaines County and the surrounding communities. DSHS advises clinicians to follow the below measles immunization recommendations for the communities affected by the outbreak and immediately report any suspected cases to your local health department, preferably while the patient is in your presence.
To immediately increase the measles immunity and prevent disease occurrence in the affected communities, DSHS advises the following immunization recommendations for residents of Gaines County:
- Infants ages 6 to 11 months:
- Administer an early dose of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
- Follow the CDC’s recommended schedule and get:
- Another dose at 12 through 15 months.
- A final dose at 4 through 6 years.
- Children over 12 months old:
- If the child has not been vaccinated, administer one dose immediately and follow with a second dose at least 28 days after the first.
- If the child has received one dose, administer the second dose as soon as possible, at least 28 days after the first.
- Teen and adults with no evidence of immunity:
Administer one dose immediately and follow with a second dose at least 28 days after the first.
As of last Friday afternoon, the outbreak has jumped to 14 confirmed cases and six probable cases among people who are symptomatic and had close contact with infected individuals.
Investigations are ongoing, as cases have been identified also in parts of the region that are outside the Gaines County lines where the first cases were reported.
All the cases are believed to be among people who are not vaccinated against measles, and most of them are children.
A record share of US kindergartners had an exemption for required vaccinations last school year, leaving more than 125,000 new schoolchildren without coverage for at least one state-mandated vaccine, according to data published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in October.
The US Department of Health and Human Services has set a goal that at least 95% of children in kindergarten will have gotten two doses of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, a threshold necessary to help prevent outbreaks of the highly contagious disease. The US has now fallen short of that threshold for four years in a row. MMR coverage is particularly low in Gaines County, where nearly 1 in 5 incoming kindergartners in the 2023-24 school year did not get the vaccine.
In the health alert Wednesday, the Texas health department warned that additional cases are “likely to occur in Gaines County and the surrounding communities” due to the highly contagious nature of the disease.
Officials recommend that residents of Gaines County immediately improve their immunity and help prevent disease spread by ensuring that they are up to date on vaccinations. Children and adults who have not been vaccinated should get one dose immediately, followed by a second dose after 28 days. Infants between 6 and 11 months should get an early dose of the vaccine, and children who have had their first shot should get their second as soon as possible.
‘US News’ adds the following: As Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the most influential purveyors of dangerous vaccine misinformation, prepares to take the helm of the Department of Health and Human Services, researchers say such bills have a higher chance of passing and that more parents will refuse vaccines because of false information spread at the highest levels of government.
“Mr. Kennedy has been an opponent of many health-protecting and life-saving vaccines, such as those that prevent measles and polio,” scores of Nobel Prize laureates wrote in a letter to the Senate. Having him head HHS, they wrote, “would put the public’s health in jeopardy.”…
On this blog, we have discussed Kennedy’s imbecilic attitudes to measles and other health issues several times, e.g.:
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Here is what you can do to prevent his appointment
- The ‘International Chiropractors Association’ Congratulated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on His Selection as ‘Secretary of Health and Human Services’
- Donald Trump might try to “outlaw” some vaccinations in the US
- The ‘moral and intellectual decay’ of COVID disinformants
In the forseeable future, we will most certainly encounter endemics and epidemics. I fear that, with Kennedy in charge of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the danger for them to grow into pandemics is hugely increased.
