Updated Edition!
Probiotics are live microorganisms promoted claimed to provide health benefits when consumed, generally by improving or restoring the gut microbiota. Prebiotics are compounds in food that foster growth or activity of beneficial microorganisms such as bacteria and fungi. Both are sold as dietary supplements, and there is hardly a human disease or symptom for which these supplements are not said to be effective.
One such claim is that the ingestion of prebiotics during pregnancy and lactation has immunomodulatory benefits for the developing fetal and infant immune system and provide a potential dietary strategy to reduce the risk of allergic diseases.
This study sought to determine whether maternal supplementation with dietary prebiotics reduces the risk of allergic outcomes in infants with hereditary risk.
A double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted in which pregnant women were allocated to consume prebiotics (14.2 g daily of galacto-oligosaccharides and fructo-oligosaccharides in the ratio 9:1) or placebo (8.7 g daily of maltodextrin) powder. The treatment lasted from less than 21 weeks’ gestation until 6 months postnatal during lactation. All eligible women had infants with a first-degree relative with a history of medically diagnosed allergic disease. The primary outcome was medically diagnosed infant eczema by age 1 year, and secondary outcomes included allergen sensitization, food allergy, and recurrent wheeze by age 1 year.
A total of 652 women were randomized between June 2016 and November 2021 (329 in the prebiotics group and 323 in the placebo group). There was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of infants with medically diagnosed eczema by age 1 year (prebiotics 31.5% [103 of 327 infants] vs placebo 32.6% [105 of 322 infants]; adjusted relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77-1.23; P = .84). Secondary outcomes and safety measures also did not significantly differ between groups.
The authors concluded that they found little evidence that maternal prebiotics supplementation during pregnancy and lactation reduces the risk of medically diagnosed infant eczema by age 1 year in infants who are at hereditary risk of allergic disease.
It is rare that we come across a well-planned, well-conducted and well-reported study of pro/prebiotics. When we do, it often casts doubts on the numerous claims made for these products.
Here we have such a study.
I congratulate the Australian authors for conducting it.
The ‘Code of Professional Practice‘ for UK chiropractors (applicaple from 1.1.2026) has just been published by the UK General Chiropractic Council (GCC). It demands in no uncertain terms numerous things from chiropractors:
- You must put the interests of patients first
- You must ensure safety and quality in clinical practice
- You must act with honesty and integrity and maintain
- You must provide a good standard of clinical care and professional practice
- You must establish and maintain clear professional
- You must obtain appropriate, valid consent from patients
- You must communicate professionally, properly and effectively
- You must foster collaborative healthcare, effective professional relationships and safe, supportive workplace practice
- You must maintain, develop and work within your professional knowledge and skills
- You must maintain and protect patient information
It seems obvious to me that many of these demands cannot possibly met. Let me just pick two examples. The code explains that, as a chiropractor, you must:
- protect patients by promoting and maintaining a culture of safety, seeking to prevent harm before it occurs.
- use the findings of the clinical assessment and the best quality of evidence that is available at the time, to propose (and record) a plan of care for the patient. You must tell the patient where your proposals are not supported by evidence of accepted quality and record your rationale and discussions.
Ad 1
Chiropractors administer spinal manipulations to well over 90% of their patients regardless of their condition or complaint. As we have often discussed on this blog, such treatments are not free of serious risks. It follows that preventing harm from patients and earning your living as a chiro is not really possible. Either you do one or you do the other; to be able to do both at the same time seems pure fantasy.
Ad 2
If chiropractors were to use the findings of the best quality of evidence that is available at the time, they would have to stop using spinal manipulation, a treatment that is, for many indications chiros use it, not supported by the best available evidence. But, as I already mentioned, spinal manipulation is the main therapy of chiros. Following the GCC’s demand is therefore an impossibility.
What is the solution?
Will the new code really disallow UK chiropractors to practice?
No! I fear that the solution is much simpler than it may look at first glance.
The GCC has in the past issued similar demands only to then do nothing to enforce them. Like past documents, the new code will turn out to be a document that changes nothing, except that it makes GCC members feel good: it allows them (and some consumers) the illusion that UK chiropractic an evidence-based, ethical and well-regulated profession.
Do you remember the case of Katie May who died “as the result of visiting a chiropractor for an adjustment, which ultimately left her with a fatal tear to an artery in her neck”?
Here is the abstract:
A 34-year-old female suffered a fatal stroke 7.5 h after cervical spine manipulation (CSM) performed by a chiropractic physician. Imaging noted vertebral artery dissection (VAD), basilar artery occlusion, and thromboembolic stroke. The medical examiner opined that CSM caused the VAD which embolized to cause the fatal stroke. However, causation of VAD by CSM is not supported by the research.
We utilized an intuitive approach to causation analysis to determine the cause of the VAD and the stroke. Causation of the VAD and the stroke by CSM could not be established as more likely than not. The malpractice case was settled by bringing allegations of misdiagnosis and failure to diagnose and refer the VAD to medical emergency.
We conclude that in the absence of convincing evidence that CSM could cause VAD, forensic professionals should consider VAD as a presenting symptom prior to CSM in such cases. Adherence to the standard of care for the chiropractic profession with attention to differential diagnosis could prevent such cases.
The author states that the objectives of this case report were to:
- Perform a forensic analysis to determine the most likely causal mechanism of the VAD.
- Perform a forensic analysis to determine the most likely causal mechanism of the stroke.
- Perform a medicolegal analysis of the standard of care with the aim of determining how this case could have been prevented, and how future such cases could be prevented.
There are, as far as I can see, at least three major problems with these objectives:
- The author is not qualified as a forensic analyst.
- He is merely a chiro (and acupuncturist) with a massive conflict of interest.
- Neither does he seem to be medically nor legally qualified for doing a medicolegal analysis (Dr. Brown received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy and History from Illinois State University in 1989. He went on to attend one semester of Law school at California Western School of Law in San Diego.)
The author even states that his information was taken from publicly available court documents. Background information was taken from publicly available investigative journalism and media coverage of this case. Any information that has not been made public is not reflected in this analysis. Images of the forensic microscopic review of the vertebral arteries were not available for review.
So, how valuable is chiro Brown’s medicolegal second opinion?
This could well be one of the toughest jobs that I have ever tackled!
But now it’s done.
And I am glad!
“Hitler’s Female Physicians – Women Doctors During the Third Reich and Their Crimes Against Humanity” (nothing to do with SCAM, sorry) is a collection of biographical sketches of female doctors who committed crimes against humanity during the Third Reich.
The initial chapters provide some context by briefly reviewing some of the worst atrocities of the Nazis:
- the mass sterilisations of citizens who were deemed to be genetically inferior,
- the killing of disabled patients who were considered unworthy of life,
- the mass murder of Jews and other unwanted people.
The book highlights the central role of the German medical profession in all of these barbarities. It explains that, far from being bystanders, German doctors first adopted essential elements of the Nazi ideology, such as ‘race hygiene’, developed the necessary methodologies for mass murder, and later put them into action.
Studying the vast literature on the Third Reich, one easily gets the impression that the monstrosities that followed were an almost exclusively male affair. Many of the most famous Nazi villains were men. What is often forgotten is the fact that women were involved as well – and this is particularly true for medicine.
The main part of the book provides biographical sketches of 38 female physicians who committed highly unethical acts in the name of Nazi ideology. The actions of these women varied greatly; some murdered with their own hands, while others merely promoted or sanctioned such criminality.
When I studied medicine in Munich during the 1970s, some of the ‘doctors of infamy’ became my teachers (either in person or through their textbooks). As students, we had the option of ignoring all this by persuading ourselves that “it has nothing to do with me”. Most of us did exactly that. However, some took a different path, and it is not least thanks to their research that today we know more about the involvement of the German medical profession in the horrors of the Third Reich. My book summarises a hitherto much-neglected aspect. If it can make a small contribution to our understanding of the Nazi doctors’ crimes against humanity, the often depressing process of writing it will have been worthwhile.
Do Chiropractors Break Necks? This is an interesting question. “Dr.” Greg Malakoff (Chiropractor/Neurologist, Board Certified) provided the following answer (never mind that he seems to mean ‘do chiros cause strokes?’):
… The total disinformation that seems to be republished monthly on the news concerning chiropractors and strokes is based on a study performed in the 1950’s, that has been totally discredited. However, students these days are rather lazy and every time a meta analysis is performed on this old study it reaches all the news stations because their main sponsors are drug companies and they don’t want you having the opportunity to get well without their products. A meta analysis is simply someone reading the old study, and writing a book report on it.
If they were to actually study what has been discovered since the 1950’s, which is a tremendous amount of valid scientific research, not one done on a cadaver and deliberately making false conclusions, they would discover a few things, that I feel you should know.
The typical stroke victim if they survive has stroke posture, which consists of the arm being flexed and a lower leg extended. That would be a whole lot of brain damage, but we don’t see the entire motor strip damaged on brain scans. We typically see just a small area with an infarct. That area is the internal capsule. Picture a vase with all it’s stems entering into the narrow portion of it. All the neurons in the brain that leave it from different areas of the motor cortex with long nerves that go to innervate the muscles that you want to move are exiting through this narrow opening called the internal capsule.
Why is that important to know if you ever want a chance at being healthy? The arteries in the back of your neck, called the vertebral arteries do not go there, they do not go to the internal capsule where we see the stroke damage. That part of the brain is being fed by the carotid arteries that are in the front of your neck. That means the chiropractor is not the problem, we are not affecting those arteries. Case closed.
However, there is a type of more severe stroke related to the back of the neck arteries called vertebral artery dissection. These arteries feed the brain stem and the vital centers in there. The vital centers are what keep you breathing and your heart beating. That means, that I have never been sued by a victim of this because they are going to be dead before they get off of the table. That doesn’t happen, well it hasn’t happened to me or just about any other chiropractor. People can get this type of artery damage, but it is proven to be practically impossible to tear those arteries by a chiropractic adjustment. It would require hundreds of pounds of force to tear those arteries with a chiropractic adjustment. So unless your chiropractor is the size of a Polar Bear, there is a good chance you are remaining sick or in pain for no reason at all.
I know, what about that playboy model who died from the chiropractor that she went to? The incompetent medical examiner said that was the cause, but apparently he and all the media don’t read well. She had fallen and hurt the arteries in her neck a month earlier. The E.R. didn’t bother to do an ultrasound Doppler study of her arteries and if they had, they might have realized that she was injured more severely. Instead, she sought help for her neck pain a month later from a chiropractor. Most chiropractors do not have ultrasound Doppler equipment in their office. Neither do most urgent medical care centers. In this case, the adjustment aggravated the severe insult that she had sustained a month earlier. Perhaps he is guilty of taking for granted that the E.R. had done it’s job properly. She should never have been released from the E.R.
While it was all over the news everyday, every hour of every day for weeks, just how often does something like this occur? You are more likely to get blown up out of the sky by a terrorist, and as you are falling to earth still in your seat, get struck by lightning and shot and stabbed by terrorists that have parachuted out of another plane to make sure they had finished their job. However, they too get struck by lightning and you fall to the ground safely where you are now eaten by a land shark.
With that in mind, millions of people are suffering daily for decades because they are afraid of a chiropractic adjustment. This is the safest and most powerful form of treatment known to modern medical science. The number 3 leading cause of death in America is from medicine. Compare that to the one woman that died from a chiropractor in Canada. The case is kind of famous because that was the case that had Chiropractic outlawed in a province. The patient was obese, smoked, was diabetic, and took birth control pills. She had died of a stroke a month after going to the chiropractor. She was the perfect storm of walking disease and as I stated earlier, if the chiropractor was to have caused the stroke, she was not walking out of his office.
There are millions of dollars to be made off of your medical misery. You being sick helps fuel our economy. However, if you want the opportunity to be healthy it can’t be achieved with a lifestyle of drugs. Chiropractors have been labeled back pain doctors, but we are really brain doctors. Our treatment affects your brain and your brain is responsible for creating good health. If you are a drug company, then you would want people to be sick and miserable enough to buy your product. If you are sick and tired of being sick and tired your best chance of not staying that way is to visit a chiropractor. Don’t let all the disinformation keep you miserable and unhealthy.
___________________
I find Malakoff’s answer relevant nnot least because it demonstrates a few points that are important:
- Some chiros call themselves doctors and manage to fool consumers in assuming that they are medically competent.
- Some even call themselves neurologists, it seems.
- They are the exact opposite of competent.
- They understand neither science, nor medicine, nor the methodologies used.
- They have misunderstood so much about [patho)physiology that it’s frightening to think they treat ill people.
- Despite all this they love to use pseudo-scientific language.
- They use it to impress and to white-wash their quackery and the chiropractic profession.
- They have an unrealistic view about the value of chiropractic.
- They are in denial about the risks of spinal manipulation.
- They are consumed by conspiracy theories without even attempting to provide evidence in their support.
Kampo medicine is the Japanese form of traditional herbal medicine that is still very popular in Japan. The word Kampo means ‘Chinese style’ in Japanese. Kampo developed out of traditional Chinese herbal medicine after it was introduced into Japan in the 7th century. In the early 20th century, Kampo was further influenced by modern Western medicine and science. The Kampo system is a pragmatic and simplified version of Chinese herbal medicine. Kampo medicines are standardised and not individualised as in Chinese herbal medicine. They are based on the current symptoms of the patient, interpreted in the philosophy of Kampo. Kampo diagnostics consider hypofunction and hyperfunction, heat and cold, superficies and interior, and yin and yang.
Today, Kampō is fully integrated into the Japanese national health care system, and numerous Kampo preparations are registered in Japan and reimbursable from public funds. These standardised formulas contain mixtures of herbal ingredients. They are manufactured under proper quality control. The most commonly used plants include liquorice, ginger and Chinese peony root. Most Japanese doctors routinely prescribe Kampo medicines, and most patients combine Kampo with Western medicine. Since 2002, the teaching of Kampo has been included in Japanese curricula of medical and pharmacy education.
The efficacy of Kampo medicines is often less solidly documented than one would hope or expect. There is a remarkable shortage of high-quality clinical trials. One review concluded that “Kampo medicines potentially play some roles in preventing or ameliorating side effects of anticancer agents. Supportive care with Kampo medicines for patients with cancer might lead to physical, mental, and nutritional improvement.” As Kampo medicines contain pharmacologically active ingredients, they can also cause adverse effects and might interact with synthetic drugs. Yet, the risks of Kampo are currently woefully under-investigated.
This case of severe liver injury following the administration of the Kampo medicine ‘Saibokuto‘ attempted to identify the likely causative crude drug inducing liver injury through a systematic literature review.
A 29-year-old woman developed severe liver injury approximately two months after Saibokuto administration, necessitating steroid pulse therapy for recovery. A literature search was conducted. Using PubMed and the “Igaku Chuo Zasshi (ICHUSHI) database,” two individuals independently selected studies published between January 1997 and February 15, 2023. The search focused on studies involving human subjects, published in either English or Japanese, and specifically investigated Kampo medicines categorized as over-the-counter or prescription drugs suspected as causative agents of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Studies on health supplements, discontinued Kampo medicines, and autoimmune hepatitis, were excluded. As it is ethically impossible to rechallenge drugs that cause liver injury, this review primarily relied on case report literature.
Through the review, 37 cases (men/women: 12/25, including present case) were analyzed, including 32 reports (36 cases) from 3,055 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Notably, 65.9% of cases were associated with Scutellariae radix, with onset occurring within 45 (1-730) days and recovery within 35 (7-184) days.
The authors concluded that their case study and literature review underscore a prevalent association between liver injury and Kampo medicines containing Scutellariae radix. Vigilant liver function monitoring, particularly within the first 2 months of administration, is recommended, especially for formulations containing Scutellariae radix.
Radix Scutellariae (scullcap) is the dried root of the medicinal plant Scutellariae baicalensis Georgi. It has a long history of application in traditional herbalism. Six flavones seem to be its major bioactive constituents. All six flavones are pharmacologically active.
Scullcap has been advocated to treat arthritis, lung problems, hay fever, seizures, HIV or AIDS, and hepatitis. Scullcap applied to the skin has been used to treat psoriasis, sores or swelling, and hemorrhoids. The evidence that it is effective for any condition is far from convincing. Adverse effects of scullcap are equally under-researched.
The paper discussed above is a poignant remeinder of the ‘appeal to tradition‘: not everything that has been used for centuries is safe. Only proper scientific investigations will determine the risk/benefit profile of a therapy.
On this blog, we have repeatedly noticed that Indian researchers of homeopathy as good as never publish negative findings. A recent paper entitled “Efficacy of homoeopathic therapy in cancer treatment” seems to falsify this hypothesis. Here is its full abstract:
In order to boost their immune system, enhance their mental and physical health, and reduce the discomfort associated with cancer and conventional therapies, many cancer patients turn to homoeopathic methods. Because these very watered-down therapies have no discernible mechanism of action, homoeopathy is quite contentious. The purpose of this study is to provide a concise summary and critical analysis of the effectiveness of homoeopathic medicines in cancer treatment, whether used alone or in conjunction with other therapies. The following databases have been used for literature searches: Amed (beginning in 1985), CINHAL (beginning in 1982), EMBASE (beginning in 1974), Medline (beginning in 1951), and CAMbase (beginning in 1998). This review included data from randomised and non-randomized controlled clinical studies that involved cancer patients or those with a history of cancer who received either a single homoeopathic treatment or a combination of treatments. The trials were evaluated for their methodological quality using the Jadad score. Our inclusion criteria were satisfied by six research, five of which were randomised clinical trials and one of which was not; nevertheless, the methodological quality of these investigations varied, with some exhibiting high standards. There is not enough evidence to establish homoeopathic therapy’s clinical effectiveness in cancer treatment, according to our review of the relevant literature.
Yes, there are a few things that one might criticize here. For instance efficacy is not the same as effectiveness and the conclusion could be clearer, in my view, e.g. stating “there is no reliable evidence to suggest that homeopathy is an effective cancer treatment.” Yet, on the whole, this paper is remarkable considering its country of origin.
It comes from the “Department of homeopathic, Kakatiya University Warangal” in India. I tried to find the department but only found the university. In the realm of healthcare, this institution seems to have an emphasis on pharmacy. Perhaps that explains a lot?
In any case, I am delighted that some progress seems to be emerging now even in India regarding its research on homeopathy.
PROGRESS AT LAST?
A new paper with the promising title “Chiropractic Care in Children: A Review of Evidence and Safety” caught my attention. Here is its full abstract:
Complementary therapies are used to treat many pediatric symptoms and health conditions, and chiropractic care is one of the most commonly used forms of complementary therapies by children and adolescents. Research studies have investigated the evidence behind and safety of chiropractic care in pediatrics with various musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions. There are limited data with a range of findings and often no definite conclusion. Despite the paucity of evidence of benefits of chiropractic care in children, the considerations around safety, and the differing opinions regarding pediatric chiropractic practice inside and outside the field, many pediatric patients visit chiropractors, and chiropractors often care for pediatric patients. Pediatric health care providers should discuss the use of all complementary therapies with patients, so guidance can be optimal with a focus on promoting health and safety.
Specifically on safety the authors state this:
Many pediatricians are concerned about the safety of chiropractic care in their patients. There are little data on adverse events from chiropractic care, but serious adverse events are rare. Unlike the high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust manipulations used with adults, most techniques used in pediatric patients are gentle, low-force, and appear to be safe. According to a 2015 review study of 31 articles, serious adverse events in infants and children receiving chiropractic care are rare, and no deaths had been reported. However, significant adverse events have been documented with chiropractic care in pediatric patients such as subarachnoid hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, paraplegia, severe headache, and midback soreness as well as delays of diagnosis and inappropriate use of chiropractic care for severe illness.
I find it regrettable that the authors fail to mention the lack of a monitoring system and instead make the categorical claim: “serious adverse events are rare”. How do they know?
Regarding another important issue, ethics, the authors state this:
The ethics of using chiropractic care in children is complex, particularly due to the lack of robust scientific evidence regarding its safety and efficacy. Ethical considerations must prioritize every child’s well-being, ensuring that care is based on the best available evidence. However, since there is very limited funding for chiropractic care research, robust studies are rarely performed. Informed consent is crucial. Parents need clear communication of potential risks, benefits, and alternatives. Using unproven treatments in children may risk harm, whether physical or by diverting resources away from more effective interventions. In addition, the fact that some chiropractors hold anti-vaccine views adds another ethical layer, as it can undermine public health efforts and influence parents away from proven, life-saving interventions. However, respecting parents’ autonomy in making health care decisions for their children is important, provided that they are fully informed of the evidence and possible outcomes. Pediatric health care professionals must weigh all these factors carefully as they guide their patients and families.
I find this passage also slightly odd:
- The authors confirm that there is a lack of robust scientific evidence regarding its safety and efficacy. And in the nexy sentence they state that care must be based on the best available evidence. Would it not be more ethical to be blunt and suggest that employing chiropractic care for kids is ethically questionable in the absence of sound data?
- The authors also say that very only limited funding for chiropractic care research is available and therefore robust studies are rarely performed. To me, this looks like an excuse and an attempt to white-wash this situation. Would it not be more ethical to be blunt and suggest that the burden for funding and conducting the research is on the chiros and failing this challange amounts to unethical behavior?
My most important criticism of this new “Review of Evidence and Safety” is that its title implies a broad and laudable aim that its methodology cannot even nearly fulfill. The paper contains no methods section at all. Thus the authors are at liberty to pick and choose the evidence for review that they like – and this is precisely what they did. The review is based on carefully cherry-picked evidence. It thus is an apt example of what is wrong with the entire field of chiropractic: it is an area that is based on wishful thinking, very poor science and a denial of the most obvious facts.
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of existing literature to identify factors that contribute to high levels of satisfaction in chiropractic care. A comprehensive search was conducted to identify quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods studies exploring patient experience with chiropractic care. Forty-three studies were included in the review. The findings showed that patient satisfaction was consistently high in comparison to other professions. The review identified key factors that contribute to patient experience, which were not limited to clinical outcomes, but also the clinical interaction and clinician attributes. The findings of this review provide a core insight into patient experience, identifying both positive and negative experiences not just within chiropractic care but in the wider healthcare sector. Further work should explore factors that impact patient satisfaction and how this understanding may further improve healthcare to enhance patient experience.
I do sympathise with the chiro-industry wanting to promote chiropractic at all cost. But, please, let’s also have some understanding with the vodka industry. Here is my contribution to make sure they do not feel left out:
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of existing literature to identify factors that contribute to high levels of satisfaction in vodka consumption. A comprehensive search was conducted to identify quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods studies exploring consumer experience with vodka drinking. Forty-three studies were included in the review. The findings showed that patient satisfaction was consistently high in comparison to drinking other beverages. The review identified key factors that contribute to consumer experience, which were not limited to outcomes, but also the interactions with and attributes of fellow drinkers. The findings of this review provide a core insight into consumer experience, identifying both positive and negative experiences not just with vodka consumption but with the wider drinks sector. Further work should explore factors that impact consumer satisfaction and how this understanding may further improve drinking to enhance consumer experience.
Allow me to congratulate the authors – researchers from the newly renamed ‘Sciences University, Bournemouth, UK’ (formerly merely a chiro college) – on such an elegant study and cutting-edge science.
2024 is behind us – a good time, I think, to review what has been happening during that year. Plenty of horrible stuff, I’m sure, but let’s look at the bright side. And, to be honest, I cannot complain:
- My wife and I are reasonably healthy, and we both enjoy life.
- I had the occasion to meet old friends who I had not seen for decades.
- I published a book that was well received.
- I coauthored 5 Medline-listed papers.
- According to ‘Google Scholar’, my research has been cited ~4000 times in 2024.
- And, of course, I kept this blog going with plenty of interesting discussions.
For today, I tried to list my most important blog-posts of 2024. I found this a surprisingly difficult task – maily because there are well over 300 posts to chose from and I am not sure what I should define as ‘important’.
- Important because of its impact?
- Important because of its contents?
- Important because of the volume or quality of the discussions it prompted?
- Important because it was picked up by the national or international media?
Eventually, I gave up the idea of ‘important’ and simply settled for posts that I liked best:
-
- The ‘Bavarian Homeopathy Study’ has been Aborted
- Donald Trump nominated SCAM promoter, Mehmet Oz, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
- Another dodgy SCAM paper has been retracted – here is some advice on how to avoid such calamities
- The infamous journal ‘Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine’ is no more!
- Spain’s Health Minister denounces homeopathy
- Against the Sale of Homeopathy (and Other Ineffective Medicines)
- Alternative cancer clinics’ use of Google listings and reviews to mislead potential patients
- Vaccine Hesitancy: A Study of a Childhood-Vaccine-Hesitant Population
- Trump’s Promotion of Dangerous Medical Nonsense
- The enemy are the professors! Really? Why?
- Chiropractic: a view from the inside of the cult
- Is chiropractic a health cult?
- Pseudoscience in the Cancer Services of the English National Health Service
- Political orientation predicts use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in Europe
- Another dodgy SCAM paper has been retracted!!!
- Who believes in conspiracy theories? A meta-analysis
- Chiropractors’ profitable over-use of X-ray diagnostics: “scare tactics” and “fear-mongering”
- I fear that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) research is in serious trouble
- Attitudes of Vaccination-Hesitant Parents Towards So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM)
- A comprehensive review on the hepatotoxicity of herbs used in the Indian (Ayush) systems of alternative medicine
- WOW! The German Medical Association bans homeopathy
- Increasing concerns about SCAM research originating from China
- Homeopathy’s most prominent researcher, Prof Michael Frass, has been found guilty of “data falsification, fabrication and manipulation”
- No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor
- The NCCIH (formerly NCCAM, formerly OAM) has proven to be a monumental, unethical waste of money
- France outlaws practices which expose patients to a serious health risk
- Causes and consequences of ‘quack medicine’ in healthcare
- “It is unethical to offer or endorse alternative medicine”
- Measles are back – not least thanks to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), I fear
As I stated, this is merely my PERSONAL choice. It would be nice, if YOU disagreed with me and suggested other posts that you liked best. In any case, I do realise that this blog would be a mere irrelevance without YOU. So, let me take this opportunity to thank all my readers, contributors, commentators and guests.
THANK YOU
and
A healthy, happy 2025 to you all.
