The Indian AYUSH quacks are rarely out of the headlines these days. After recently promoting homeopathy for the coronavirus epidemic, they are at it yet again. This time they seem to want us to believe that homeopathy is an effective cancer therapy. And guess who is helping them promote this dangerous claim? Yes, it’s the “Pyromaniac In a Field of (Integrative) Straw Men”, Michael Dixon!

“Time for integration has come and it is not because allopathic medicines fail in treatment but rather it is the demand of the people and patients worldwide,” said Dr Michael Dixon, Chair-College of Medicine and Integrated Health, UK, and Visiting Professor, University of Westminster and University College London, while inaugurating the two-day ‘International Conference on Integrative Oncology 2020. The ICIO 2020 is held in Indai in association with Central Health & FW Ministry, AYUSH/TCAM Ministry, all AYUSH/TCAM research councils and the governments of Kerala and Maharashtra, and National AYUSH Mission and organised by the Global Homeopathy Foundation (GHF).

Dr Dixon called upon integration of various medical streams while combating diseases. He pointed out that anti-microbial resistance, over-prescription of opiates and over-prescription of conventional medicines have compounded the situation. “Enormous issues persist back in United Kingdom (UK), National Health Services (NHS) England banned herbal and homoeopathic medicines while Royal College of General Practitioners asked general practitioners not to offer Homoeopathy and National Institute for Clinical Excellence changed guidelines on palliative care and back pain,” said Dr Dixon.

However, he said the good news is that at last AYUSH has arrived in UK with the College of Medicine and Integrated Health taking the lead. “Integration of medical systems is of paramount importance in oncology for prevention, treatment, treating side-effects of conventional medicine and preventing recurrence.”

Those who address the inaugural function include:

  • Dr Jayesh Sanghavi, vice- chairman GHF,
  • Dr T K Harindranath, president, Indian Homoeopathic Medical Association,
  • Dr Piyush Joshi, secretary general, Homoeopathic Medical Association of India,
  • Dr Eswaradas, chairman, GHF, Dr Issac Mathai, Soukya Holistic Clinic,
  • Dr Velavan, Radiation Oncologist, Erode Cancer Centre,
  • Dr Sandeep Roy, chairman, organising committee ICIO 2020,
  • Dr Madhavan Nambiar IAS (retd), Patron GHF
  • Dr Sreevals G Menon, Managing Trustee, GHF

Around 25 papers are being presented at the summit. Two of them stand out, in my view:

  • Dr Vinu Krishnan, member, sub-committee on cancer, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, New Delhi, Analysis and observations of stage 3 and 4 lung cancers using homoeopathic interventions
  • Dr Ravi, associate professor with Virar Homoeopathic Medical College, Mumbai, Clinical assessment of homeopathy and its role in survival in 3rd and 4th stage cancers

I find it imperative to point out that, according to the best evidence available to date, there is no reason to believe that:

  • Homeopathy is effective in stage 3 and 4 lung cancers
  • Homeopathy has positive effects on cancer survival

In my view, anyone who makes desperate cancer patients believe otherwise or supports conferences where such notions are being promoted is a dangerous charlatan.





In case you are new to this blog and have not heard of Dr Dixon, allow me to alert you to 4 previous posts:

Should homeopathy be blacklisted in general practice? Dr Michael Dixon’s profoundly misleading comments

Johrei healing and the amazing Dr Dixon (presidential candidate for the RCGP)

Dr Dixon’s safe herbal medicine

Prince Charles becomes patron of the ‘College of Medicine and Integrated Health’


25 Responses to Dr Michael Dixon seems to support homeopathy as a treatment for cancer

  • You’re preaching to the choir. Again. Fortunately, the “view” a.k.a. opinion of a non-practicing clinician means nothing.

    From the article “Over a thousand delegates from 30 countries apart from India are attending the event. Around 25 key scientific papers are being presented”

  • @Ernst

    Revised qustion(s):

    When was the last time (year / decade) you treated a cancer patient? Or, any patient?

    When was the last time (year / decade) you conducted any DBPC peer reviewed scientific research in any medical field?

    • when was the last time you addressed me without trying to use the ad hominem fallacy?

    • Sandra

      When have you EVER done ANY of these things?


      What qualifications in science and medicine do you have?


      What makes you imagine that your high-handed, pompous, ignorant and inconsequential pratings are of any value?

      • Lenny – it seems when Sandra posts it causes ire . You say : ‘what makes you imagine that your high-handed, pompous,ignorant and inconsequential pratings (?) are of any value.’ And Richard Rasker accuses on another thread RG and Roger of being trolls. Just one example of biased commentary.

        Jashak comments on gardening and previously in response to me he composed a fairy story about grandmothers or something similar. How was that helpful to the cause?

        It seems that all those who comment a different view are either ridiculed or accused of being trolls. I have found it slightly baffling when I have been called a troll and received inappropriate comments. I recall a certain commenter (who doesn’t use the title Dr In his post but was addressed as one ) accusing me of being so befuddled I would have trouble finding breakfast or something equally inane. It’s unsurprising he drops the title :making comments that serve no one, least if all his profession.

        Dr Julian makes it clear that he is no adherent of CAM yet I have largely had polite engagement with him. Thank you for your enlightening posts Dr.

        Historically there has been the most horrid commentary from sceptics. My question is ‘who is it helping?’ It is well known that social media is responsible for an increase in poor mental health amongst our young (God willing the authorities will step in sometime soon) and here is a professor’s blog that should be showing a good example; after all it seems to me that the sceptics all purport to be scientists, doctors, esteemed professionals whilst the few that speak up for CAM are all accused of – well the vocabulary is there for all to read sadly.

        RG and Roger I admire your tenacity and your truth. In my posts I hope I have been truthful, and fair too and and made clear my admiration for good health professionals and indeed how – natural health school post – they can work hand in hand.

        I, having followed this blog for many years, will not contribute further. It is troublesome when bias, little mindedness and ridicule surpasses any form of cogent discussion about something as important as health.

        I feel your blog is not served well Professor. The sceptics are so convinced they are right that it colours any exchange with those of different views.

        It becomes all encompassing when sceptics accuse others of ad Homs when in fact they are doing the same. I have held on ( yes I know I am a small fish in this murky pond) but for me, this blog has lost credibility so I am out, but wish all contributors well and hope there are more balanced and polite comments in the future , if only to set that important example to our precious (sorry Frank odds ) children. I will finish by saying in my reality, my experience, CAM has become increasingly popular and thriving whilst I have been a contributor to this blog.

        • Angela

          Our exasperation is because the ignorance and narrow-mindedness comes from the AltMed side of the fence. From people who refuse to acknowledge the totality of the evidence and imagine that their anecdotes trump science. Patient, logical explanations are ignored. The likes of Sandra who persues her demented agenda elsewhere by stalking trolling the families of the recently-berevead and continues to worship at the altar of a particulary foul, exploitative quack whose nefarious deeds she refuses to acknowledge is a particularly egregious example of the type. The Dunning-Krugerism, ignorance and arrogance is, at times, quite breathtaking. That, Angela, is why we mock and pour scorn. It is because logic and patient explanation fails. Have a look at the posts from Dana. From Benneth. From others who have been blocked. They are the company you keep, Angela.

        • @ Angela:
          Quote: “Jashak comments on gardening and previously in response to me he composed a fairy story about grandmothers or something similar. How was that helpful to the cause?”

          It breaks my heart that you do not seem to like the analogies that I sometimes use. Since you can´t remember what I said to you in a previous post, I have to admit that my comments back then obviously were not very “helpful” for you.

          If you want to refresh your memory:

          Now: Could you please point out at what point I “ridiculed” you, “accused you of being a troll” or made any “ad hominem attack” against you?

          • Jashak – as you have asked a question, I thought it only fair to answer this last time. You ask ‘ now could you please point out…..?

            The clue is in the paragraphing: it was not directed at you but a general comment about most sceptics. Forgive me, but your fairy story provided no constructive analogy whatsoever – although it may have done for others.

            Sadly, the content of the post was completely missed by you and Lenny : it is about withdrawing from the prose one has to read about CAM and its supporters on this blog. It is not about the debate: Dr Julian, whilst no supporter of CAM , is polite and an informative read. I have no issue with those against CAM: it’s their choice. And we are still living democratically.

            The point I am making which is completely ignored, is that making your case for what you believe in does not require nasty accusations. It’s as though sceptics think hammers to crack nuts are necessary to get their point across. My experience of working with scientists, medical professionals was one of polite exchange when disagreements ensued. A more constructive conclusion was reached then: that was my experience; the sceptics’ formula to berate on this blog the subject of CAM is anathema to me, and that’s why I give up.

            Lenny you are a case in point. It makes no sense or indeed supports your cause to accuse me of , in a derisory way, keeping company with others. It’s silly. I don’t know them and equally I don’t know you. I know what you write on this blog only. And to make it clear you only know what I write. You could assume I am anything and anybody, but that doesn’t make you right.

            In a long winded way (I agree):my point is polite language can be used more effectively in exchanges of a different view. Why don’t you try it? You may achieve more in your endeavours.

            So just clearing those little points up, onwards and upwards …..and wishing all contributors well.

  • Oh my.

    My asking when was the last time (year / decade) you treated a cancer patient, any patient or conducted any DBPC peer reviewed scientific research in any medical field “trying to use the ad hominem fallacy?

  • @Lenny

    ” Our exasperation is because the ignorance and narrow-mindedness comes from the AltMed side of the fence”

    Equally Lenny, our exasperation also comes from the narrow-mindedness of the SBM community. It works both ways.

    I’ll give you a recent example.
    I’m pretty sure you and some others here at this blog forum have a high regard for antibiotics. I did also, until recently.

    A relative of mine recently went to the MD after an infection of unknown type led to severe bronchitis. When the patient visited the MD, she received a chest x-ray. The patient was prescribed a 5-day steroid, also a 7-day antibiotic to be consumed with a different 10-day antibiotic regimen.
    After completing the prescribed doses, the condition lingered and the patient immediately let the MD know she was not well yet. So, another dose of a 7-day antibiotic does was ordered and consumed.

    Again, the condition still lingered after consuming the antibiotic regimen.
    The patient again returned to the MD concerned that the condition was not clearing up.
    The MD prescribed another but different 7-day dose of antibiotic along side a 12-day regimen of steroid.
    The condition finally seems to be subsiding now, but the patient is left with hearing loss due to fluid inside the ear drum.

    So my questions are these.
    1-Did the MD diagnose and treat the condition properly from the start ?
    2-Were the antibiotics not effective ?
    3-Did the condition finally go away on it’s own, or was antibiotic effective in the end ?

    Again, this is why I call SBM… over-promise and under-deliver medicine.

    Would natural methods have been any more effective ? …. YES ! …. quite possibly.

    • So, RG. Given your vast experience and understanding of respiratory medicine, tell us what your diagnosis was. Explain the aetiology, pathogenesis, progression and sequelæ of LRT infections. Explain, with evidence, how and why you would have done things differently. Explain, with evidence, why “natural” methods might have worked better.

      If I may quote from my post above “people who.. imagine that their anecdotes trump science… The Dunning-Krugerism, ignorance and arrogance is, at times, quite breathtaking.”

      Thank you, RG, for demonstrating so beautifully some of the points I made.

      • @Kenny

        I was not the patient, nor did I have a diagnosis.

        Many like myself that shy away from SBM, would agree that antibiotics have been one of the few treatments to be widely accepted without question.

        I was surprised myself to know that. antibiotics fail also.

        I’m just once again pointing out that SBM fails over and over.

  • I wish King Charles well.

    However I would dearly like to know how he is advised regarding his cancer treatment! Especially advice from Michael Dixon

    • it seems certaain to me that Dixon would have assembled the leading specialists of the UK. SCAM would be only administered as a supportive treatment.

  • I am sure that we all wish the Princess of Wales a full and speedy recovery.

    It is perhaps interesting in the context of this Thread, that HRH’s statement today said “My medical team therefore advised that I should undergo a course of preventative chemotherapy ” and not “My medical team therefore advised that I should undergo a course of preventative homeopathy”………

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.