Guest post by: Loretta Marron
In March 1991, the Australian College of Allergy published an article in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) about a ‘bioresonance’ device for allergy testing. Titled “VEGA testing in the diagnosis of allergic conditions”, it stated that it was “an unorthodox method of diagnosing allergic and other diseases” with “no established scientific basis” and “no controlled trials to support its usefulness”.
The article raised concerns that this test “may lead to inappropriate treatment and expense to the patient and community”. VEGA is one of nearly 30 ‘energy medicine’ devices, some of which continue to cite Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) ‘listing numbers’.
Sometime costing more than $34,000, the sponsors tell practitioners that they can earn up to $150,000 annually with these computerised devices. Referring to ‘bioresonance’ as “the medicine of the future”, they claim that all toxins, viruses and bacteria have unique ‘frequency patterns’, which, when ‘neutralised’ by the device, restore the patient to health. They may also claim that it can cure addictions to alcohol, cocaine, crack, nicotine, heroin, opiates, cannabis, spice, ‘legal highs’ and other medications. Some claim that it can cure cancer, hay fever, allergies, auto-immune diseases, behavioural problems, smoking addiction and that they can kill parasites – the list goes on.
The devices are ‘based’ on acupuncture, homeopathy and ‘quantum physics’. More than 60 reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration (the ‘Gold Standard’ for evidence-based Medicine), have failed to find robust evidence for clinically significant outcomes for acupuncture for any disease or disorders. The National Health & Medical Research Council concluded, “there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective” and quantum physics “is not at work”. In February 2020, nearly 30 years after that MJA article, the TGA’s cancellation of two of these devices saw the last of them removed from their register, but not from permissible advertising or practice.
From 2014 to 2018, Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) had repeatedly written letters and submissions to the TGA asking for these devices to be investigated. Meeting with the national manager in 2016, we were told that these devices could not be cancelled because they were ‘biofeedback’ devices, which had a legitimate place in health care. In 2018, FSM sourced comments from informed experts here and overseas. These disputed the ‘biofeedback’ claim. FSM sent screenshots from more than 200 websites to the TGA advertising complaints. In 2019, after issuing a warning on bioresonance, the TGA closed the complaints and commenced an ‘education campaign’. They also engaged a credible Australian scientific organisation to review the evidence provided by eight ‘sponsors’ of 12 bioresonance’ devices listed in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods).
All devices have now been cancelled by their sponsors or by the TGA. The ‘education campaign’ continues. Even though the devices are still widely used, and courses still being run, FSM considers this a modestly satisfactory outcome.
Informed opinions:
Biofeedback:
o Michelle G Aniftos BCN, FCCLP, QEEGD, MEd, MPsych (Clinical), GradCertClinNeurophysiology, Fellow, Biofeedback Certification International Alliance, &
o Dr Tania M. Slawecki, PhD. Energy and the Environment Laboratory (formerly Materials Research Lab), Penn State University, USA (Author of “How to Distinguish Legitimate Biofeedback/Neurofeedback Devices”;
Electronic devices:
o Dr Stephen J Roberts, BSc ARCS DIC PhD. Consultant on electronic devices;
Psychology:
o Emeritus Professor Joseph P Forgas, AM, DPhil, Dsc (Oxford), FASSA, Scientia Professor, Psychology, UNSW &
Alternative medicine:
o Emeritus Professor Edzard Ernst MD, PhD, FMed Sci, FSB, FRCP, FRCP(Edin)
Their comments include the following:
· Ms Aniftos: “Having reviewed the specifications of the BICOM device, I find that its inclusion on the ARTG as a ‘biofeedback device’ is erroneous”;
· Dr Slawecki: “the BICOM device does not fit the criteria of a legitimate biofeedback device”;
· Dr Roberts: “The claims of how the BICOM and CyberScan work are preposterous.”Quantum physics” is not at work”;
· Professor Forgas: “The BICOM is NOT a biofeedback device and should be cancelled”; “The description of this device makes it crystal clear that it cannot possibly have any effective diagnostic or therapeutic function, and certainly has nothing at all to do with biofeedback.
“The claims made for the device amount to the worst kind of psychological manipulation, and their sole purpose is to mislead and exploit vulnerable people for financial gain. As a civilised society, we should not allow this kind of immoral exploitation to continue and the device should be banned forthwith”;
· Professor Ernst: “Bioresonance is not biologically plausible, not of proven effectiveness, potentially harmful and associated with exorbitant costs. I cannot recommend it for anyone or any purpose”.
34 Responses to Australia cancels all Bioresonance devices
Leave a Reply to Les Rose Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
The UK situation is much worse. Most of the many `bioresonance’ devices on the market have CE marking, which means nothing other than that they have have safety certification. Manufacturers claim that this is regulatory approval, but it isn’t. No such product has any approved diagnostic or therapeutic applications. CE marking is conferred by notified bodies, which are independent organisations approved by the EU. For UK bioresonance products I am not aware of any notified body based in the UK. They are usually in eastern Europe, and don’t reply to enquiries. It is very difficult to find out the regulatory status of any medical device, as the MHRA does not keep records of any approvals by notified bodies outside the UK. Neither does the MHRA regulate marketing claims – it says that any complaints must go to the Advertising Standards Authority. Excellent as the ASA is, it applies only a voluntary code and I have yet to see any manufacturer take the slightest notice of any ASA action. So despite the MHRA being the statutory regulator of medical devices, and these products make medical claims, the MHRA does not actually regulate the products at all. Hence any adverse ruling by the MHRA would mean nothing anyway, because it never approved them in the first place.
Not even that. A CE marking is nothing but a statement from the manufacturer that basically says “This product complies with EU safety and EMC directives”.
The vast majority of products is CE self-certified, which means that the manufacturer or seller simply slapped on the CE sticker, without any involvement of a notified body or other certification agency. One can only hope that the manufacturer is speaking the truth – which often is not the case, especially with cheap products originating from China and other countries in the Far East. For instance, I’ve seen CE-marked USB charging circuits that were directly connected to mains voltage levels, with potentially lethal consequences
Even for medical devices (BTW, I’m a biomedical electronics engineer), self-certification used to be allowed for Class 1 medical devices, which means that these devices were not life-critical and could not present hazardous voltages or currents to the patient. Higher class devices, however, did require certification by a notified body.
As of 2017, higher standards applied as per the Medical Device Regulation (MDR), and these are actually mandatory for all existing and newly designed devices as of tomorrow (May 26th).
Unfortunately, not only is there a huge waiting list with the notified bodies for devices to get registered and approved, with at least a 6-month backlog, but quite a few guidelines and regulations are so poorly defined that they are practically unworkable, and cause far more uncertainty than they solve.
Things are becoming even more complicated now, because the MHRA no longer resorts under EU regulations, and any clarity with regard to actual regulations is hard to get. As an example, I was asked in March if I could design a cheap and easy-to-build patient ventilator controller, but still in accordance with a list of MHRA guidelines. Because of the coronavirus crisis, normal certification procedures could be suspended, and a fast-track approval for emergency use was promised.
But alas, even though the designs were ready within a week and complied with the guidelines, approval never materialized due to of ‘internal incompatibilities within regulatory bodies’. So my contractor decided to pull the plug on the project, and that was a wise albeit rather frustrating decision.
As for all those quack devices: I’m afraid that most of these will simply be offered without any explicit medical or health claims whatsoever, thus avoiding expensive certification by notified bodies. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if the more lucrative of these are offered for certification by a notified body, because certification is only based on safety and EMC regulations, not on actual functionality.
@ Richard Rasker
I’ve been asked to write about this for a charity newsletter. may I use your comments, suitably attributed?
Congratulations Doctor. A small but very significant victory and one that can be cited around the world.
congrats to Loretta Marron!
Well done. Thank you.
I’m under the impression that the folks ‘down under’ are rather more rational than elsewhere in the world. This isn’t the first time that Australian organizations clamp down on fraudulent quackery and related fear mongering; I recall a regulatory authority imposing a huge fine on homeopath Frances Sheffield for false antivaccine propaganda. And I believe there was another similar case even more recently (although I’m not completely sure).
Anyway, well done! Let’s hope that more countries will take a closer look at all the ongoing SCAMs endangering people’s health, or at least their wealth. Because even if most SCAMs have relatively little consequence from a medical point of view, they still cost the patient money.
Australian consumer organisations have been pushing the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to get more teeth for some time. Purveyors of so-called ‘low-risk’ therapeutic goods have been allowed to flood the Australian market with shonky but profitable products for years; a consequence of a ‘trust-based’ regulatory system with no pre-market evaluation and failure to apply effective sanctions to companies who repeatedly break the law.
More recently,the TGA has been given the new investigative compliance powers which they are slowly starting to use, see:
https://www.tga.gov.au/infringement-notices
https://www.tga.gov.au/media-release/federal-court-australia-grants-interim-injunction-prevent-advertising-evolution-supplements-australia
https://www.tga.gov.au/media-release/civil-penalties-ordered-against-peptide-clinics-pty-ltd-advertising-breaches
There is also an independent inquiry into the new TGA advertising framework, see:
https://www.medreach.com.au/independent-review-therapeutic-goods-advertising/
https://www.medreach.com.au/independent-review-consumer-consultation/
With respect to bioresonance machines, I have suggested that the TGA applies s.19D of the Therapeutic Goods Act, ‘civil penalties relating to registration or listing etc. of imported, exported, manufactured and supplied therapeutic goods (including supply of product not on ARTRG) to https://bicomaustralia.com.au/; Maximum civil penalty: for an individual—5,000 penalty units (currently A$210); and for a body corporate—50,000 penalty unit.
I’ve also suggested multiple infringement notices should be applied to alternative health practitioners who use these machines and advertise numerous claims that lack scientific evidence (including prohibited and restricted representations); the penalties for an individual—12 penalty units; and for a body corporate—60 penalty units.
Consumers will only be protected from shonky therapeutic goods when the penalties applied by the regulator outweigh the profit that currently comes from breaking the rules.
Dr Ken Harvey, MB BS, FRCPA, AM
President, Friends of Science in Medicine
https://www.scienceinmedicine.org.au/
Meanwhile, whilst Ken Harvey and his ilk wax lyrically over the dangers of some low risk therapeutic goods, Paracetamol is prescribed in abundance as the “go to drug”, for low back pain and most other pain of neuro-musculo-skeletal origin even though it is no better than a placebo. It can do significant damage to the liver. Then there is the over prescription of opioids in the U.S. that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Corrupt science working here Ken, yet your group is surprisingly quiet about these issues.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30489-6/fulltext
Then there are some serious issues with orthopedic surgery for knees that is ineffective.
Just remember Ken, for every finger you point to someone else, you are pointing three back at yourself.
please take a little time and learn about logical fallacies.
you might produce less nonsense when you comment next time.
thank you.
This may be a good opportunity to point out this tidbit of linguistic curiosity:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gibley
The recent case Richard Rasker refers to above is that of unqualified crank and TV cook Pete Evans, who was selling a “subtle energy platform” product online called the ‘BioCharger NG’ for AUD$15,000, which he claimed had a “recipe… there for Wuhan coronavirus”. After investigation, the TGA issued two infringement notices to Peter Evans Chef Pty Ltd totalling AUD$25,200.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Evans
Many Australian chiropractors still sell quack therapies, including ‘bioresonance’ snake oil. FSM and the Australian Skeptics continue to lobby the regulators to do more to protect the public. This chiroquack is still advertising it at https://www.onewaychiropractic.com.au/bioresonance-therapy/
Ken McLeod. Perhaps you could do a review of this medical practitioner. First, his list of qualifications, are they legitimate and also his “claims to fame”.
It might be more interesting for you to do, than focus on “non-risk therapeutics”.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoff-edelsten-551944151/?originalSubdomain=au
@GibletGiblet (Kiwi chiro crank),
“non-risk” therapies, like chiro, which does nothing but kills through ruptured cervical arteries?
Is there any hope you might make sense at any point, rather than continuing to advocate for the same discredited chiro nonsense?
BTW, using Tu Quoque only shines more light on your ignorance and lack of understanding of reason and logic. It is tiresome to read the same tripe, with ho effort to educate yourself about basic schoolyard stuff.
Clarification: A ‘cancelled’ device is one that is no longer included on the ARTG (Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods). This is a list/database, maintained by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). All bioresonance devices have now been ‘cancelled’ in Australia, therefore sponsors must cease advertising them. Strong penalties apply for sponsors that advertise a cancelled device. https://www.tga.gov.au/advertising-advertising-code-and-guidance
Congratulations to Loretta Marron and everyone involved. Even if these devices are still out there, at least they no longer have the regulatory legitimization that the TGA’s Register had conferred. That in itself is a great step.
I have simply heaps of good quality anecdotal evidence that these machines are at least three times more effective than acupuncture and twice as effective in comparison to homeopathy. How can you argue with that eh?
Oh, nearly forgot – what about the 1918 flu epidemic eh? And also, real medicine sometimes makes people a bit poorly so VEGA testing must work, it’s a well known fact!
Seriously, this is excellent news – can we have a link to the original paper please?
I have had positive personal benefits for myself and family members. After lengthy treatments with steroid wet wraps and light therapy we turned to Bio Resonance as an alternative to Methotrexate for my 10 year old. After years of horrific rashes and itching his skin issues resolved in 6 one hour treatments over 3 months. I personally know people with chronic auto immune problems who have found benefit and relief of symptoms from Bio Resonance. While we have many more measurable sometimes miraculous treatments today, usually pharmaceutical drugs, this form of therapy should not be dismissed. My body my choice.
Loren
The plural of anecdote is not evidence. Yes you do have choice, but it should be informed choice. What happens if you make the wrong decision, and need real medicine to get you out of trouble? You are free of course to refuse that and die.
Loren,
I am not very clear from your post whether the rashes and itching were caused by the methotrexate or a feature of the (presumably autoimmune) condition that it was prescribed in order to treat. Nor am I clear whether the light therapy you refer to is a conventional treatment such as PUVA (the use of psoralen drugs activated in the skin by exposure to ultraviolet light) or something else entirely.
It would be helpful if you could provide a bit more detail to help us understand what points you are making.
Your child clearly has a very serious medical problem if he or she has been prescribed lengthy courses of steroids, which have serious adverse effects on growth and development, let alone a strong immunosuppressive drug such as methotrexate, which is also a cytotoxic. No paediatrician would prescribe these drugs lightly, nor risk stopping them suddenly without good reason.
I am pleased to hear that their condition is improving, though this is more likely due to their immune system changing as they get older than as a result of bioresonance.
It is great to hear of your positive experience with Bio-Resonance. I have also had very positive results using bio-Resonance and Kinesiology. I have proof of CT scans and Ultrasounds that demonstrated a disease process (not listing exactly due to personal privacy) that I was medically advised would require surgical intervention. The bio-Resonance shrunk the invading presence from 7.5cm to 6cm in three months and a year later, it was completely gone. I disagree with the TGAs decision regarding these machines. As you so greatly phrased it, my body my choice. I believe much more research, case studies, etc needs to be explored in Bio Resonance I believe there is a great place for complimentary medicine/treatments. Western medicine doesn’t have all the answers because if it did then their would be no diseases.
@Elle
Arsenic was a popular treatment for syphilis in the 19th century. Do you think you should be allowed to use it today, on the basis of “My body my choice”?
If more research is required, why are the companies selling bioresonance machines not funding this research? Looking at the prices they charge, they can afford it.
“Western medicine doesn’t have all the answers because if it did then their (sic) would be no diseases”. Of course it doesn’t, there is a thing called science which progresses from what we know to what we don’t know, in incremental stages. This is different from quackery, which doesn’t have any answers, because it is based on pseudoscience. Claiming that oscillations from quadrillions of cells can be decoded into intelligible signals is pseudoscience. Nobody has shown that this can happen.
Iatrogenic harm looks to be creeping up to a leading cause of death in the world. This from WHO:
Administrative errors account for up to half of all medical errors in primary care
Recent literature reviews have revealed that medical errors in primary care occur between 5 and 80 times per 100 000 consultations. Administrative errors – those associated with the systems and processes of delivering care – are the most frequently reported type of errors in primary care. It is estimated that from 5 to 50% of all medical errors in primary care are administrative errors.
Patient harm is the 14th leading cause of the global disease burden, comparable to diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria
It is estimated that there are 421 million hospitalizations in the world annually, and approximately 42.7 million adverse events occur in patients during these hospitalizations. Using conservative estimates, the latest data shows that patient harm is the 14th leading cause of morbidity and mortality across the world.
https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/patient-safety
In this article, it is called ‘unacceptable’ – yet it seems so accepted, soon to take the No 1 spot thanks to the big push for mRNA vaccines (not a vaccine). – soon to be halted I hope.
https://www.who.int/news/item/13-09-2019-who-calls-for-urgent-action-to-reduce-patient-harm-in-healthcare
The level of myocarditis detected in my clients is horrific since this roll out.
Come meet me.
Bioresonance has killed no-one and never will. I use it and have directly benefitted. You cannot argue with that.
I do not hold out much hope for allopathy in the future.
@Joanne Papenfus
“Iatrogenic harm looks to be creeping up to a leading cause of death in the world.” Tu quoque fallacy.
“…the big push for mRNA vaccines (not a vaccine)”. Please explain how a vaccine is not a vaccine. Or provide your credentials in immunology.
“The level of myocarditis detected in my clients is horrific since this roll out.” You appear to practise in the UK. There is an established adverse event reporting system operated by the MHRA. Have you reported these events?
“Bioresonance has killed no-one and never will”. Is there an established adverse event reporting system for bioresonance machines? If not, how do you know what their safety record is?
“I use it and have directly benefitted. You cannot argue with that”. Do you know what science is? Clue – it is not anecdotes.
Bioresonance machines are unlicensed medical devices.
Let’s just say that this Mrs Papenfus is not exactly a fan of science-based medicine, and member of an organisation that promotes every known form of non-science-based medicine under the sun.
And please note how carefully I avoided words such as “medically incompetent” and “quackery”.
non- science/ non evidence based practices do not usually have access or support to acquire the huge amount of sustained funding required for clinical/ practice aka evidence based criteria to compete with the medical ( mainly pharma/corporation/ share holder funded) industry. Therefore any ” real proof” of efficacy is curtailed..
More people are taking care of themselves using the therapies they feel work for them , which in itself is an individual’ s God given right and choice and also is proof in itself.
We all need to build a more comprehensive, infomed compassionate relationship with ourselves and others. My main wish is that the medical and ‘ alternative’ complimentary therapies would work together more often.
Health isnt about who is right, winning or making lots of money either way.
I am a therapist ( psych- social) , with medical doctors in the family who are also include homeopathy and accupuncture more and more…
I have been receiving bioressonance support along side and after a medical procedure which has proved very helpful and healing as a follow through after traumatic surgery.
The medical system makes many many mistakes and is often not deemed accountable ( i have been on the receiving end of this, ).
Psych education on self care etc and
some form of regulation is preferable to
( sometimes unavoidable) mistakes and a one sided ‘ 1 fix for all” attitude.
I have also experienced excellent medical care too which was necessary and for that am grateful too.
Could we all be a little more inclusive and interested rather than polarized and fearful – infinately oreferable : we are only here for a short while
PS
i recently found out that a Danish anthropological homepathic company have managed to get a few milion together to fund a 3 year double blind extensive clinical trial which Copenhagen university is running and regulating..
Wow, great- they will be testing if one of their products for cystitis is as effective as it seems in the hope of reduce the huge amounts of harmful anti biotics used to date.
Thank you for this space
Danish anthropological homeopathic company? I think you mean anthroposophical.
Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity and its culture.
Anthroposophy is a load of mumbo jumbo dreamt up by a charlatan called Rudolf Steiner.
excuses yes that is what i meant.
@mary
What a strange comment. If you have health problems that require treatment, you ABSOLUTELY want doctors to be right about what is wrong with you, and they must be right as well about the chosen treatment – especially if that treatment is invasive and/or involves risks. And yes, even the best doctors don’t always get things right, as you also say. But most of the time, they do a splendid job.
Bioresonance and other fraudulent quackery on the other hand is literally never right. Sure, the quack’s attention may make you feel better, but it doesn’t do anything, and it is not based on any medical or scientific principles. Bioresonance is made up by people who have heard about things like quantum physics, but are utterly incapable of even comprehending the basics – so they simply make things up and sell it with sciencey-sounding gibberish and impressive-looking machines that are just the electronic equivalent of smoke and mirrors.
What the harm is, you ask? Well, for one, bioresonance quacks ask money for their nonsensical magic show. But what’s worse, they often tell people that they’re suffering from all sorts of conditions they don’t have, in order to sell them supplements and treatments they don’t need.
And worst of all, the quacks consistently fail to recognize serious conditions. A bioresonance quack may for instance ‘diagnose’ your fatigue symptoms as being the result of a lack of vitamin D and magnesium, combined with adrenal fatigue (a condition that does not exist). So you duly start on a regimen of extra supplements whilst avoiding certain foods that supposedly irritate the adrenal glands etcetera. And sure enough, things initially seem to improve slightly – but then get worse again. So you go back, spend another couple of hundred pounds on new ‘diagnostics’ and of course extra supplements, especially since the quack tells you that they have ‘good experiences’ with that treatment, and that you should give it more time.
After another couple of months, things become even more serious, and when you can hardly get out of bed any more, you finally decide to consult a real doctor. Who immediately has you rushed to the ER because your heart sounds very bad. And alas, the real diagnosis turns out to be congestive heart failure, brought about by a leaking heart valve – something that could have been diagnosed and fixed relatively easily if you’d consulted a real doctor from the onset. But alas, the damage is too extensive, and you kick the bucket just two weeks later.
Now your death of course is attributed to ‘natural causes’, and taken up in regular medicine’s statistics. But nothing at all happens to the bioresonance quack who sent you to an early grave; that person is merrily lying to new, gullible customers about their ‘chronic Lyme’ (another condition that does not exist), and selling them all sorts of fake diagnostics and useless supplements. If they’re lucky, these patients are in the 90% group of people with whom nothing serious is wrong, and they heal all by themselves, suffering just financial damage. But if they are in the other 10%, things can (and often do) become pretty grim pretty fast.
And no, I’m not making this up – I’ve seen a good friend of my parents die this way. The problem is that this happens quite often, but that patients or their next of kin fail to lodge a complaint about the quack in question, usually because ‘he means well’ or ‘is such a nice person’. Sometimes, patients are also ashamed to tell their regular doctor that they fell for the slick words of a quack.
So summarized: good, effective healthcare is certainly based on people being right, and people who sell wrong diagnoses and useless treatments to patients should not be allowed to do so – because it harms and kills people.
yes i absolutely want my doctor to be right with the least margin for risk before making a treatment decision!
Not sure you undetstood what I wrote.
My ‘ right’ referred more to a value judgement ” medical world is right, all the rest is wrong” ..
– great work is done within the evidence based scientifically proven medical world however many many disaterous mistakes are made!
How can this be improved ? Given there is so much that can go wrong, how can this risk be made as minimal as possible? Possibly this is why people look elsewhere?
I think personally there is room for imorovement to help doctors adhere to the Hippocratic Oath in the way I believe most medics really want to
The system fails too often and too many deadly mistskes are made
To Mary,
Very well said 🙂 I am sorry to hear of your traumatic surgery. I am so pleased that the Bio-resonance helped you and hope you are now well recovered.
I would like to hear more about this Danish company. Sounds interesting.
I have a study that my interest you which was undertaken at Kings College Hospitals Cancer Centre in London for patients with Mastalgia and applied by Kinesiologists, which had effective treatment results. I include a link below:
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/applied-kinesiology-for-treatment-of-women-with-mastalgia
@Elle
The study you have cited is worth very little. There are no controls at all against bias, and it is described as a pilot. All it does is suggest that a properly controlled trial might be worth doing. It seems hardly surprising that massage may help with pain. What the study doesn’t show is whether ‘lymphatic reflex points’ have anything to do with the effects, or indeed if they even exist.
And how is this relevant to bioresonance machines?
absolutely- of course we want doctors to make the right decisions ( i have been on the receiving end of both ‘ right ” and “wrong” medical decisions, one saved one nearly extinguished). When medical procedured are not right they can totally destroy life
my use of ‘right’ was meant more in the value/ contextual sense and black and white thinking re bio ressonance – accupunture – homeopathy etc.
I have never heard of anyone dying or increased suffering due to homepathic, accupuncture or bio ressonance treatment.
Unfortunately mediacal treament very iften does go wtong and fortunately often amazing work is done
Any idea on how to reduce the number of avoidable mistakes in the medical field? – a very broad spectrum of course though good communication, listening to the patient, good pay for doctors and nurses, more doctors and nurses would go a long way…
And how do we place the Hippocratic oath within all of this ….and the responsibility of governments to spend money wisely
@mary
You might be right there …
Well, it is of course rather more nuanced than this, but when talking about the basics facts (what causes certain conditions, and how those conditions are best diagnosed and treated), then the regular medical world certainly has the best chances(!) of getting things right. This of course is not by accident, but because medical science explicitly set out to gather knowledge and train people (i.e. doctors and other healthcare workers), with the goal to treat and prevent human ailments. This knowledge has been gathered and validated through a rigorous process called ‘the scientific method’.
The alternative world – including bioresonance – has done nothing of the kind. Virtually every type of alternative medicine has been invented by one person, who subsequently started treating patients without meaningful testing or research at all. As a consequence, almost every type of alternative medicine is completely wrong in every aspect. If any testing or validation took place, it is along the lines of ‘we treated a sick person, and they got better’. Given that the vast majority of ailments resolve naturally, that kind of ‘testing’ is quite useless.
Sure, even the best science-based knowledge of regular medicine does not always tell us what is best for individual patients, especially when difficult choices have to be made how or even whether to treat a patient or not, based on more than just the medical condition – perhaps this is what you mean. But from what I can see, regular medicine also does a better job at addressing humanitarian and ethical issues than alternative practitioners, who are usually clueless when it comes to dealing with difficult questions. The best that can be said for these practitioners is that they mean well and generally take a lot more time interacting with patients than regular doctors, which certainly can make people feel good. But this doesn’t mean that their form of alternative medicine isn’t plain wrong in a factual sense.
About medical errors: yes, these are quite common, although some nuance is warranted here as well. When diagnosing patients, doctors of course first try to rule out serious conditions. After that however, it’s largely a matter of trial-and-error; they start with the most common causes, and work their way down to less likely options. Technically, every wrong diagnosis in this process can be considered a medical error – but these usually have no serious consequences, and are not considered problematic. There are lots of other types of ‘medical errors’ that aren’t always real errors (e.g. when selecting the wrong antibiotic treatment for a critical pneumonia patient, simply because there is no time to definitively confirm what strain of pathogen you’re dealing with). Also don’t forget that contrary to alternative practitioners, real doctors deal with really sick and fragile people, where even a small mistake can quickly be fatal.
Still, quite a lot of real medical errors happen, and even kill people – although it’s not as bad by a long shot as being ‘the third leading cause of death’, as is often claimed(*). And yes, for many people, this is a very understandable reason to develop a more positive look on alternative medicine – which a) usually doesn’t deal with serious problems and thus appears to do little direct harm, and b) is in fact One Big Error, where all diagnoses and treatments are about equally wrong, and don’t usually stand out.
*: Dutch statistics attribute about 1100 deaths annually (= 1 in every 150 deaths) to medical error, pegging it at the 27th place in our list of causes of death. Even if you lump (no pun intended) all types of cancer together, it still doesn’t make it in the top 10. Then again, 1100 deaths is still quite a lot.