Monthly Archives: September 2020
Indian homeopaths published a remarkable article in the journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’ proposing Mercurius solubilis as genus epidemicus for the current pandemic. Here it is:
From mid-June to mid-July 2020, our team of homeopathic doctors treated 104 patients in two COVID treatment centers—Pandit Bhimsen Joshi Hospital and Sheth P.V. Doshi Hospital—on the outskirts of Mumbai, India, with adjuvant homeopathy. It was observed by the patients, hospital staff, and the management that those patients on adjuvant homeopathy were discharged 3 to 7 days earlier than other comparable patients in the same wards, allowing us gradually to accommodate more severely ill patients who required oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, or a ventilator.
Twenty-five different homeopathic medicines in total were prescribed to the patients, each receiving individualized treatment according to his or her symptoms. After collecting 143 clinical and individualizing (homeopathic) symptoms of 104 patients and converting those symptoms into rubrics, we repertorized the combined data with the help of the software Hompath, with an aim to arrive at a genus epidemicus. We observed that the medicine Merc Sol was at the top of the combined repertorization chart. After reviewing repertory sheets of all 104 patients, we discovered that Merc Sol was at the fourth or fifth place of all individual repertorization charts as well.
To substantiate our deduction, we studied the Materia Medica of Merc Sol from the original provings of Hahnemann and other sourcebooks.   We also searched research articles and case studies about toxicological effects of mercury.    These showed that acute exposure to mercury produces an acute respiratory distress syndrome-like presentation, a picture similar to the COVID symptomatology. Moreover, anosmia, aphthae, gastrointestinal and ocular manifestations that are seen in patients with COVID-19 were produced also by mercury the toxin and mercury the homeopathy-proved medicine. This finding is in accordance with the homeopathic Law of Similars: a substance producing a symptom in a healthy person is able to cure a similar symptom in a sick person.
To confirm our hypothesis, we identified 13 common symptoms of Merc Sol, such as indented tongue, salivation, perspiration, and night aggravation, which were present in various intensities in the previously treated 104 patients. We created a 13-point questionnaire and, after obtaining suitable Ethics Committee approval and individual informed consent from the patients, we evaluated 68 further patients in the above-mentioned COVID hospitals. People with at least eight confirmed symptoms from the questionnaire were prescribed Merc Sol 200c thrice a day for a week. In our 2-week study at both the locations, we observed a speedy recovery and a hospital stay reduction by 5 to 7 days in all the 68 patients when Merc Sol was used along with the standard Indian Council of Medical Research clinical protocol. Many of them were not newly admitted patients but were those who exceeded the mandatory minimum hospital stay. We are now using Merc Sol as a preventive medicine for over 1,000 people in a COVID hot-spot area in Powai, Mumbai, with the expressed permission of local authorities.
Following the Hahnemannian method of arriving at a genus epidemicus  (§ 99–103), and deducing it from the combined data of symptoms of more than 100 patients, we arrived at the conclusion that Merc Sol, “the deceitful malefic mercury” known for various symptomatic presentations and tissue destruction, is genus epidemicus of this pandemic. Our efforts are in accordance with the logic of homeopathy proffered by Dr. Stuart Close: exact observation, correct interpretation, rational explanation, and scientific construction.
We now appeal to the global homeopathy community to test our findings in their respective areas, designing specific research projects to explore the utility of Mercurius solubilis in the COVID-19 pandemic as genus epidemicus.
If it were not such a serious matter, I might joke that everyone with a dental amalgam filling must be protected from COVID-19. But it is rather too serious to make fun, I am afraid. Therefore, I will just point out to all those homeopaths across the globe who follow their Indian colleagues’ appeal something rather basic: it is bad science to confirm their hypothesis. Science works by falsifying hypotheses. And a proper hypothesis needs, of course, more that the implausible hunches of some evangelic believers in the homeopathic cult.
Manual therapy is a commonly recommended treatment of low back pain (LBP), yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs non-thrust (spinal mobilization) techniques. This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP.
This single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Participants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period. Licensed clinicians (either a doctor of osteopathic medicine or physical therapist), with at least 3 years of clinical experience using manipulative therapies provided all treatments.
Primary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments.
A total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized.
- 54 participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group,
- 54 to the spinal mobilization group,
- 54 to the placebo group.
There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P = .45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P = .92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P = .39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P = .14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P = .92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P = .17). A comparison of treatment credibility and expectancy ratings across groups was not statistically significant (F2,151 = 1.70, P = .19), indicating that, on average, participants in each group had similar expectations regarding the likely benefit of their assigned treatment.
The authors concluded that in this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP.
This is an exceptionally well-reported study. Yet, one might raise a few points of criticism:
- The comparison of two active treatments makes this an equivalence study, and much larger sample sizes are required or such trials (this does not mean that the comparisons are not valid, however).
- The patients had rather mild symptoms; one could argue that patients with severe pain might respond differently.
- Chiropractors could argue that the therapists were not as expert at spinal manipulation as they are; had they employed chiropractic therapists, the results might have been different.
- A placebo control group makes more sense, if it allows patients to be blinded; this was not possible in this instance, and a better placebo might have produced different findings.
Despite these limitations, this study certainly is a valuable addition to the evidence. It casts more doubt on spinal manipulation and mobilisation as an effective therapy for LBP and confirms my often-voiced view that these treatments are not the best we can offer to LBP-patients.
I have to thank one of our regular commentators for inspiring me to write this post. He recently contributed this insight about homeopathic provings:
If you didn’t experience anything from a proving you didn’t perform it properly.
It is an argument that, in different forms and shapes, I have heard very often. Essentially it holds that, if an investigation or a test fails to produce the desired result, the methodology must have been faulty. Donald Trump is, I fear, about to use it in the upcoming US election: if he is voted out, he will claim that there was too much fraud going on. Therefore, he cannot accept the result as valid. Thus it is his democratic duty to remain in post, he is likely to claim.
In medicine, the argument has been popular since millennia. In our book TRICK OR TREATMENT?, we recount the story of blood letting. Based on the doctrine of the 4 humours, it was believed for centuries to be a panacea. If someone died after losing litres of blood to the believers in the doctrine, the assumption was not that he had been bled to death, but that he had sadly not received enough of the ‘cure all’. Eventually, some bright chap had the novel idea of running a rigorous test of blood-letting, and it turned out that the patients who had received the treatment had a worse chance of survival than those who had escaped it. Aaaahhh !!!, shouted the blood-letters, this shows that the concept of the scientific test is flawed.
Checking the methodological rigour of clinical studies (or homeopathic provings) can be a tricky and tedious business. It requires proper learning and experience – qualities that SCAM fanatics rarely possess. Amongst other things, one needs to know about:
- trial design,
- sources of bias,
- and the many tricks people use to hide flaws in published studies.
This is not easy and it takes time – lots of time – to acquire the necessary skills. Having discussed such issues with enthusiasts of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for decades, I realise that it would be unrealistic to expect of them to spend all this time learning all these complicated things (they have to make a living, you know!). I therefore propose an entirely new and much simpler method of differentiating between valid and invalid research of SCAM. It rests on merely 2 golden rules:
- Any research methodology is valid, if it produces the desired result.
- Any research methodology is invalid, if it fails to produce the desired result.
In analogy to these two rules, one can easily extrapolate further. For instance, one can state that:
- any person who generates or promotes the desired result is honest;
- any person who contradicts the desired result is corrupt (bought by ‘Big Pharma’).
I am sure my readers all see the beauty of this revolutionary, new system: it’s easy to learn, practical to apply, it avoids controversy and it takes full account of the previously much-neglected needs of the SCAM fraternity.
For quite some time now, I have been calling it SCAM – so-called alternative medicine.
Because, if a treatment does not work, it cannot be an alternative. And if it does work, it unquestionably belongs to conventional medicine.
Some people do not like this name and the acronym even less. But how else shall we call it?
The NHI is a generally well-respected organisation; they should know! Here is what they say about the question of naming it:
We’ve all seen the words “complementary,” “alternative,” and “integrative,” but what do they really mean?
This fact sheet looks into these terms to help you understand them better and gives you a brief picture of the mission and role of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) in this area of research. The terms “complementary,” “alternative,” and “integrative” are continually evolving, along with the field, but the descriptions of these terms below are how we at NIH currently define them.
Complementary Versus Alternative
According to a 2012 national survey, many Americans—more than 30 percent of adults and about 12 percent of children—use health care approaches that are not typically part of conventional medical care or that may have origins outside of usual Western practice. When describing these approaches, people often use “alternative” and “complementary” interchangeably, but the two terms refer to different concepts:
If a non-mainstream practice is used together with conventional medicine, it’s considered “complementary.”
If a non-mainstream practice is used in place of conventional medicine, it’s considered “alternative.”
Most people who use non-mainstream approaches also use conventional health care.
In additional to complementary and alternative, you may also hear the term “functional medicine.” This term sometimes refers to a concept similar to integrative health (described below), but it may also refer to an approach that more closely resembles naturopathy (a medical system that has evolved from a combination of traditional practices and health care approaches popular in Europe during the 19th century).
Integrative health care often brings conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. It emphasizes a holistic, patient-focused approach to health care and wellness—often including mental, emotional, functional, spiritual, social, and community aspects—and treating the whole person rather than, for example, one organ system. It aims for well-coordinated care between different providers and institutions.
The use of integrative approaches to health and wellness has grown within care settings across the United States. Researchers are currently exploring the potential benefits of integrative health in a variety of situations, including pain management for military personnel and veterans, relief of symptoms in cancer patients and survivors, and programs to promote healthy behaviors…
When I started this blog almost precisely 8 years ago, I had no idea that I would take to it. Those who know me personally would probably confirm that I and a blog go about as well together as fire and water. But here we are:
THIS IS POST NUMBER 2000!
Unquestionably, this is a reason to celebrate. And I have decided that I will do this with a ‘homeopathic proving’. If you have followed some of the recent comments, there are some who cannot stop telling me that I must do a proving, otherwise I understand nothing about homeopathy. I have repeatedly replied that I have done my share of provings but they never produced any result. The homeopathy-fans then wanted to have proof of my provings, and I answered that there is no proof. Then they wanted to know the exact details, but I cannot remember them because they were some 35 years ago. Consequently, they imply that I am a liar. This does not bother me much; on the contrary, according to the ‘like cures like’ assumption, this must mean that I am a 100% truthful person. So, I am flattered by their insinuations.
Anyway, the occasion of POST NUMBER 2000 calls for Champagne – more precisely, for homeopathic Champagne.
Yes, there is such a remedy
Provings are best carried out with the mother tincture. So, in anticipation of today, my wife and I invited two friends to conduct a proving on a bottle on Dom Perignon 2008. Expensive stuff, I know, but good science has never been cheap.
As we opened the bottle, the excitement reached fever pitch. The bouquet was perfect, the robe elegant, the bubbles fine and steady. As the first drops reached out lips, we were transported to Champagne heaven! Patiently we waited for the first symptoms to show: nothing!
Perhaps it’s a question of dose, I thought and refilled the glassed. Nobody protested.
If anything, the second glass was even better.
Then, suddenly, the first symptoms seemed to appear: one of us started giggling without apparent reason. Soon all of us normally very introvert people started laughing, talking, relaxing, being sociable. As a good scientist, I noted all this down to generate a proper drug picture of the remedy.
The third glass was greeted with impatience. At this stage we were in full swing: we laughed, told jokes and had a good time. I carried on making notes discretely, while everyone was enjoying themselves. To my shame, I have to admit that, at that stage, we broke off the Champagne proving by opening and consuming a bottle of red wine.
The next day, I looked at my notes and composed the following drug picture of Champagne:
- unmotivated giggling,
- being sociable,
- telling jokes,
- having a good time,
- being relaxed.
The question that the world of homeopathy is dying to get answered is, of course, what must a patient suffer from to be effectively treated with homeopathic Champagne? Well, thanks to my homoeopathically trained mind and my thoroughly developed scientific method, I am now in a position to answer it: if you patient is happy, sociable, relaxed and generally has a good time, you, dear homeopath, must urgently prescribe homeopathic Champagne to stop all this and turn him into a uptight sociopath who hates life.
I know very well that the success of my blog is due to the interesting comments it receives.
Recently, I have received this message via the comments section of my blog:
“you’re actually an evil old nut-job Ed—been following your pharma ‘science’ bullshit for years—all opinion and ignorance and anti-science”
Don’t get me wrong, such attacks do not bother me – not any more. On the contrary, they amuse me. At one stage, I even started collecting them. Nowadays, I usually ignore them.
But this one is somewhat special. Therefore, I decided to analyse it a bit. The author essentially makes 9 claims:
- I am evil.
- I am old.
- I am a nut-job.
- I am called Ed.
- I conduct pharma science.
- I publish bullshit.
- All I state is opinion.
- I am ignorant.
- I am anti-science.
Yes, that’s quite a list. Let me try to tackle it one by one.
- Am I evil? I have had many ad hominem attacks before but, as far as I remember, nobody has yet alleged that I am evil. I looked it up, evil means: wicked · bad · wrong · morally wrong · wrongful · immoral · sinful · ungodly · unholy · foul · vile · base · ignoble · dishonorable · corrupt · iniquitous · depraved · degenerate · villainous · nefarious · sinister · vicious · malicious · malevolent · demonic · devilish · diabolic · diabolical · fiendish · dark · black-hearted · monstrous · shocking · despicable · atrocious · heinous · odious · contemptible · horrible · execrable · lowdown · stinking · dirty · shady · warped · bent · crooked · dastardly · black · egregious · flagitious · peccable. I am obviously the wrong person to judge, but I do not think that these attributes describe me all that well.
- Yes, I am old, 72 to be precise.
- Am I a nut-job? I looked that one up too. It’s a mentally unbalanced person. Call me biased, but I don’t think that this applies to me at all.
- No, I am not called Ed.
- I am not quite sure what ‘pharma science’ is supposed to mean, but one thing I do know for sure: since I research so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – and that’s about 30 years now – I have not taken research funds from the pharmaceutical industry. And before I very rarely did.
- As I have published a sizable amount of papers and blog-posts, there must have been a bit of BS in some of it. But I do not think it can be much.
- All I state is opinion? Oh really! Opinion comes into blog-posts regularly; without it my stuff would be boring like hell. But ALL of it? I don’t think so.
- Am I ignorant? Yes, certainly; there are lots of things I don’t know, even in medicine. But in SCAM I do know quite a bit – even if I say so myself.
- Anti-science? That last allegation is probably the most far-fetched of them all. No, I am not anti-science, never have been and never will be.
So, Paul – the author of the comment preferred to remain anonymous and simply calls himself Paul – I have tried to give you credit where I could but, on the whole, I fear your ad hominem attack is yet another victory of reason over unreason. I thank you Paul for two reasons:
- firstly for the just-mentioned victory; it always feels good to be on a winning side,
- secondly for the stimulus and motivation to carry on doing what I have been doing for many years; your comment has shown me how much needed my work is in disclosing quackery, correcting errors, teaching critical thinking and responsibly informing the public.
A number of German health insurances are offering integrated care contracts for homeopathy (ICCHs) that cover the reimbursement of homeopathy. But the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these contracts are highly questionable. Now a team of German researchers evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment after an additional enrolment in an ICCH in a comparative, prospective, observational study (sponsored by the health insurance company Techniker Krankenkasse).
The participants in the ICCH (HOM group) were compared with matched (on diagnosis, sex and age) insured individuals (CON group) who received usual care alone. Those insured with either
- migraine or headache,
- allergic rhinitis,
- atopic dermatitis,
were included. Primary effectiveness outcomes were the baseline adjusted scores of diagnosis-specific questionnaires (e.g. RQLQ, AQLQ, DLQI, BDI-II) after 6 months. Primary cost-effectiveness endpoints were the baseline adjusted total costs from an insurer perspective in relation to the achieved quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were derived from health claims data and QALYs were calculated based on SF-12 data.
Data from 2524 participants (1543 HOM group) were analysed. The primary effectiveness outcomes after 6 months were statistically significant in favour of the HOM group for:
- migraine or headache (Δ = difference between groups, days with headache: – 0.9, p = 0.042),
- asthma (Δ-AQLQ(S): + 0.4, p = 0.014),
- atopic dermatitis (Δ-DLQI: – 5.6, p ≤ 0.001),
- depression (Δ-BDI-II: – 5.6, p ≤ 0.001).
Only the BDI-II differences reached the minimal clinically important difference.
For all diagnoses, the adjusted mean total costs over 12 months were higher in the HOM group from an insurer perspective, with
- migraine or headache,
- atopic dermatitis,
suggesting cost-effectiveness in terms of additional costs per QALY gained.
The authors concluded that after an additional enrolment in the ICCH, the treatment of participants with depression showed minimally clinically relevant improvements. From an insurer perspective, treatment with an ICCH enrolment resulted in higher costs over all diagnoses but seemed to be cost-effective for migraine or headache, atopic dermatitis and depression according to international used threshold values. Based on the study design and further limitations, our findings should be considered cautiously and no conclusions regarding the effectiveness of specific treatment components can be made. Further research is needed to overcome limitations of this study and to confirm our findings.
Normally, I find newly published studies by conducting Medline searches. This one, I found because the insurance company in question, the Techniker Krankenkasse, is already using it for their advertising. No wonder – this is not a scientific study but a clever marketing coup!
THE RESULTS OF THIS ‘STUDY’ WERE CLEAR, EVEN BEFORE THE FIRST PATIENT WAS RECRUITED.
Imagine you are a patient with one of the 5 conditions listed above, and you evidently like homeopathy – so much so that you approach your insurance and ask to get cover for homeopathy at extra cost to yourself. These were the patients of experimental group. They were compared to patients who could not care less about homeopathy and thus did not get this extra cover.
Who do you think claims to feel better in a self-administered questionnaire?
Is there anyone surprised at the findings of this study?
Well, actually I am a little surprised. Not that the results were positive, but that the results were not more positive. With such a monsterous bias built in the ‘study’, I would have expected much larger differences.
And I am surprised about something else too: how come BMC Health Services Research publishes such promotional marketing masquerading as scientific research?
This clever marketing coup can in no way determine the effectiveness of homeopathy. For that, we need RCTs of which there are already plenty; and we all know what they show: the effects of homeopathy are indistinguishable from those of placebo.
This means there is no proven effectiveness. And what did the director of NICE England once tell me?
WHERE THERE IS NO EFFECTIVENESS, THERE CAN ALSO BE NO COST-EFFECTIVENESS!
Black salve is a paste for external use made from a variable mixture of herbal and non-herbal ingredients. It usually contains bloodroot and/or chaparral and/or zinc chloride which are all ingredients that render the products corrosive. This means black salve destroys living cells that come in contact with it.
Black salve is said to originate from native American tribes who used the paste as a treatment for various conditions. It was adopted by conventional medicine during the Victorian era as a treatment for a range of skin problems, including skin cancers. When effective treatments became available, it became obsolete.
Black salve was recently re-discovered by some practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) who now recommend it as a natural treatment for various skin conditions, including cancer. Black salve is readily available, for instance, via the Internet. Several national regulators have issued warnings to consumers not to use it. Consumers have little means of telling what is the nature, quality or strength of the black salve they might be purchasing.
No compelling evidence exists that black salve is efficacious for any condition, especially not for any type of skin cancer. Rigorous clinical trials testing its efficacy are not available. A recent review of the published evidence concluded as follows: Black salve is not a natural therapy. It contains significant concentrations of synthetic chemicals. Black salve does not appear to possess tumour specificity with in vitro and in vivo evidence indicating normal cell toxicity. Black salve does appear to cure some skin cancers, although the cure rate for this therapy is currently unknown. The use of black salve should be restricted to clinical research in low risk malignancies located at low risk sites until a better understanding of its efficacy and toxicity is developed. Where a therapy capable of harm is already being used by patients, it is ethically irresponsible not to study and analyse its effects. Although cautionary tales are valuable, black salve research needs to move beyond the case study and into the carefully designed clinical trial arena. Only then can patients be properly informed of its true benefits and hazards.
Due to its erosive nature, black salve burns away the tissue with which it comes into contact. Numerous case reports of the resulting deformations have been published., Many horrendous pictures of patients maimed by their use of black salve are available on the Internet and give a dramatic impression of the harm caused. Black salve is unquestionably a treatment that can cause considerable damage and should be regarded as unsafe. One paper concluded that it is vital that members of the public are aware of the potential effects and toxicity of commercial salve products.
In conclusion, black salve is not of proven efficacy as a treatment of any condition. It is well documented to cause much harm. Its use should be discouraged. Practitioners who employ or recommend it are, in my view, irresponsible to the extreme.
 Croaker A, King GJ, Pyne JH, Anoopkumar-Dukie S, Liu L. A Review of Black Salve: Cancer Specificity, Cure, and Cosmesis. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:9184034. doi:10.1155/2017/9184034
 Ong NC, Sham E, Adams BM. Use of unlicensed black salve for cutaneous malignancy. Med J Aust. 2014;200(6):314. doi:10.5694/mja14.00041
 Saltzberg F, Barron G, Fenske N. Deforming self-treatment with herbal “black salve”. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35(7):1152-1154. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2009.01206.x
 Lim A. Black salve treatment of skin cancer: a review. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018;29(4):388-392. doi:10.1080/09546634.2017.1395795
Guest post by Ken McLeod
‘Ayurvedic Medicine,’ or Ayurveda, is an alternative medicine system which originated in India as long as 5,000 years ago, according to its proponents. Science-based medicine refers to it as pseudoscientific and the Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises it as quackery.  Ayurvedic practitioners claim that its popularity through the ages vindicates it as safe and effective.
That last bit is of course the appeal to antiquity, or the appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem.  This proposes that if something was supported by people for a long time it must be valid. That is bunkum; many ancient ideas have long since been discredited; the Earth is not flat, no matter for how long people thought it was.
Nevertheless, ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’ has many practitioners and supporters in the supposedly rational West, including Bondi Junction here in Australia. Despite the many warnings about it,  people still go to practitioners, and occasionally they are injured.
One such injury and the consequent complaint to the New South Wales regulator, the Health Care Complaints Commission, (HCCC), has resulted in a Public Warning dated 18 September concerning levels of heavy metals in Ayurvedic Medication. 
The HCCC said:
‘The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission is concerned about a complaint received regarding the prescription of “Manasamithra Vatika,” (Manasamitram Pills) an Ayurvedic medication.
‘The complaint related to prescription of this medication to a child for treatment of autism.
‘This medication was found to contain concerning levels of lead and other heavy metals.’
That’s all very bland, no headlines there. But then it got into:
“The Commission strongly urges those individuals seeking alternative therapies to be vigilant in their research prior to proceeding with any natural therapy medications or medicines and to discuss any such proposed therapies with their treating registered health practitioner.”
Not so bland there; that’s very comprehensive; ‘any natural therapy medications or medicines’ and ‘discuss any such proposed therapies with their treating registered health practitioner.” ‘Note the HCCC’s emphasis on “registered.” That rules out Ayurvedic Medicine practitioners, homeopaths, and other assorted cranks; go to a real doctor.
Surely that is headline material; a regulator responsible for promoting the health of citizens warns them to go to real doctors before going to these quacks.
Then it gets better, (or worse if you are an Ayurvedic Medicine practitioner). At the same time the HCCC issued an Interim Prohibition Order against Mr Rama Prasad (“Ayurveda Doctor Rama Prasad.”)  The HCCC’s Order says:
‘The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (“the Commission”) is currently investigating Mr Rama Prasad in relation to his prescribing of the Ayurvedic Medication “Manasamithra Vatika” (Manasamitram Pills) to both children and adults and about his claims that his treatments can reverse several aspects of autism in children.
‘The Ayurvedic Medication “Manasmithra Vatika” (Manasamitram Pills) was found to contain elevated levels of lead and other heavy metals.
‘One case with mildly elevated blood level was notified to the South Eastern Sydney Public Health Unit after consuming this product.
‘Clients residing in NSW who are considered to have been placed at possible risk have now been contacted by NSW Health public health personnel.
‘The Commission has issued an interim prohibition order in relation to Mr Rama Prasad, under section 41AA of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (‘The Act’). Mr Prasad is currently prohibited from providing any health services, either in paid employment or voluntarily, to any member of the public.
‘This interim prohibition order will remain in force for a period of eight weeks and may be renewed where appropriate in order to protect the health or safety of the public.’
That should send chills down the spine of any Ayurvedic Medicine practitioner. A complete Prohibition Order ordering Prasad not to engage in providing any health service as defined in the Act  for eight weeks, which may be renewed or even made permanent, depending on what the investigation finds. The Act includes a comprehensive list of activities that comprise a ‘health service’:
‘health service includes the following services, whether provided as public or private services:
- (a) medical, hospital, nursing and midwifery services,
- (b) dental services,
- (c) mental health services,
- (d) pharmaceutical services,
- (e) ambulance services,
- (f) community health services,
- (g) health education services,
- (h) welfare services necessary to implement any services referred to in paragraphs (a)–(g),
- (i) services provided in connection with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practices and medical radiation practices,
- (j) Chinese medicine, chiropractic, occupational therapy, optometry, osteopathy, physiotherapy, podiatry and psychology services,
- (j1) optical dispensing, dietitian, massage therapy, naturopathy, acupuncture, speech therapy, audiology and audiometry services,
- (k) services provided in other alternative health care fields,
- (k1) forensic pathology services,’
Note the inclusion of ‘health education.’ This is where so many cranks fall foul of the law; setting yourself up as a health educator makes you subject to the Act. Even if you claim to be a master chef, homeopath or Ayurvedic Medicine Practitioner, you are not exempt.
It’s early days yet in this particular saga, and there are many questions to be answered, for example:
- – How did this “medicine” get past Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, (Australia’s equivalent to the US FDA)?
- – Did the TGA list or register it?
- – If not why not? If it was who is responsible?
- – Was this detected only after a child was so sickened that they were taken to hospital?
- – Why is the practitioner concerned still advertising his Ayurvedic medicine courses?  Is this a breach of his Prohibition Order which prohibits ‘health education services’?’
So stay tuned for updates as this case progresses. In the meantime note that an Australian Health regulator is advising the public to seek advice from real doctors before going to alternative therapists, including ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’ practitioners. That is a real headline.
 Such as from the Victoria Dept of Health at https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/ayurveda
 Health Care Complaints Act 1993 https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1993-105
Sorry, I have been neglecting my ‘heedless homeopathy’ series of articles – it’s all too human to forget, I suppose. Here are a few remedies which also seem ‘all to human’, but in a very different sense. As far as I can see, they all originate from human tissues or materials.
I was tempted to call these products cannibalistic homeopathy, but then I decided against it; after all, the remedies contain nothing at all, only their mother tinctures are based on human materials.
In any case, I thought you might be amused (or perhaps mildly disgusted?) by my list:
- Dental Plaque
- Lac Humanum (Human milk)
- Lac Humanum (Divya) (Human milk)
- Lac Maternum (Human milk)
- Lumbar disc
- Mastitis milk
- Medorrhinum americana
- Placenta (Eberle) (Placenta Humana)
- Placenta Humana (Placenta Humana (welsh))
- Retina (Retine)
- Semen humanum
- Sigmoid Colon
- Umbilical cord (Guild)
- Umbilicus humanus (Umbilical Cord Humanus)
- Vertebral disc
Looking at the list, I cannot help asking what these remedies might be used for. Applying the twisted logic of homeopathy, while mixing it with that of isopathy, I can just about understand that:
- MASTITIS MILK is for treating mastitis,
- LAC HUMANUM might be for a mother wanting to stop breast feeding,
- DENTAL PLAQUE could be against … yes, dental plaque!
But what might some of the other remedies on the list be for? Assuming that the human tissues are from biopsies or cadaveric material of (formerly) healthy individuals, I have to conclude that:
- VERTEBRAL DISC is for someone who is keen to have back problems.
- UTERUS is for a woman who wants to see more of her gynaecologist.
- SEMEN HUMANUM could be an anti-baby pill for men.
- MENSES might be an alternative for an oral contraceptive.
- etc. etc.
As many homeopathy-fans have been pointing out endlessly, I am not a truly qualified homeopath. This means that I am merely guessing here.
So, could a member of the homeopathic fraternity PLEASE enlighten me?