Monthly Archives: June 2021
Despite the widespread use of herbal medicines, documented herb-drug interactions are sparse. We have reviewed the literature to determine the possible interactions between the seven top-selling herbal medicines (ginkgo, St John’s wort, ginseng, garlic, echinacea, saw palmetto and kava) and prescribed drugs. Literature searches were performed using the following databases: Medline (via Pubmed), Cochrane Library, Embase and phytobase (all from their inception to July 2000). All data relating to herb-drug interactions were included regardless of whether they were based on case reports, case series, clinical trials or other types of investigation in humans. In vitro experiments were excluded. Data were extracted by the first author and validated by the second author. 41 case reports or case series and 17 clinical trials were identified.
The results indicate that St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) lowers blood concentrations of cyclosporin, amitriptyline, digoxin, indinavir, warfarin, phenprocoumon and theophylline; furthermore it causes intermenstrual bleeding, delirium or mild serotonin syndrome, respectively, when used concomitantly with oral contraceptives (ethinylestradiol/desogestrel), loperamide or selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (sertaline, paroxetine, nefazodone). Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) interactions include bleeding when combined with warfarin, raised blood pressure when combined with a thiazide diuretic and coma when combined with trazodone. Ginseng (Panax ginseng) lowers blood concentrations of alcohol and warfarin, and induces mania if used concomitantly with phenelzine. Garlic (Allium sativum) changes pharmacokinetic variables of paracetamol, decreases blood concentrations of warfarin and produces hypoglycaemia when taken with chlorpropamide. Kava (Piper methysticum) increases ‘off periods in Parkinson patients taking levodopa and can cause a semicomatose state when given concomitantly with alprazolam. No interactions were found for echinacea (Echinacea angustifolia, E. purpurea, E. pallida) and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens).
In conclusion, interactions between herbal medicines and synthetic drugs exist and can have serious clinical consequences. Healthcare professionals should ask their patients about the use of herbal products and consider the possibility of herb-drug interactions.
The article was so successful that the journal ‘DRUGS’ asked us to publish an update. As the journal is highly respected we obliged with pleasure; here is the abstract of the update of 2009:
The concomitant use of herbal medicines and pharmacotherapy is wide spread. We have reviewed the literature to determine the possible interactions between seven popular herbal medicines (ginkgo, St John’s wort, ginseng, garlic, echinacea, saw palmetto and kava) and conventional drugs. Literature searches were performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and EMBASE and we identified 128 case reports or case series, and 80 clinical trials. Clinical trials indicate that St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), via cytochrome P450 (CYP) and/or P-glycoprotein induction, reduces the plasma concentrations (and/or increases the clearance) of alprazolam, amitriptyline, atorvastatin, chlorzoxazone, ciclosporin, debrisoquine, digoxin, erythromycin, fexofenadine, gliclazide, imatinib, indinavir, irinotecan, ivabradine, mephenytoin, methadone, midazolam, nifedipine, omeprazole, oral contraceptives, quazepam, simvastatin, tacrolimus, talinolol, verapamil, voriconazole and warfarin. Case reports or case series suggest interactions of St John’s wort with adrenergic vasopressors, anaesthetics, bupropion, buspirone, ciclosporin, eletriptan, loperamide, nefazodone, nevirapine, oral contraceptives, paroxetine, phenprocoumon, prednisone, sertraline, tacrolimus, theophylline, tibolone, tryptophan, venlafaxine and warfarin. Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) decreases the plasma concentrations of omeprazole, ritonavir and tolbutamide. Clinical cases indicate interactions of ginkgo with antiepileptics, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), diuretics, ibuprofen, risperidone, rofecoxib, trazodone and warfarin. Ginseng (Panax ginseng) may interact with phenelzine and warfarin. Kava (Piper methysticum) increases the clearance of chlorzoxazone (a CYP2E1 substrate) and may interact with alprazolam, levodopa and paroxetine. Garlic (Allium sativum) interacts with chlorpropamide, fluindione, ritonavir and warfarin; it also reduces plasma concentrations of chlorzoxazone (a CYP2E1 probe). Echinacea might affect the clearance of caffeine (a CYP1A2 probe) and midazolam (a CYP3A4 probe). No interactions have been reported for saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). Numerous interactions between herbal medicines and conventional drugs have been documented. While the significance of many interactions is uncertain, several interactions, particularly those with St John’s wort, may have serious clinical consequences.
Angelo Izzo is a lovely man and a highly skilled pharmacologist. He came to my department in 2000 as a guest researcher (on his own funds) and worked with us for several months. This is how the 2001 paper was created. After he returned to his native Naples, Italy, he became a professor of pharmacology with a special interest in plant pharmacology. He has published many further important papers and, together with his Italian colleagues, a most useful book entitled ‘Phytotherapy: A Quick Reference to Herbal Medicine‘. I warmly recommend it to anyone interested in herbal medicine.
The subject of herb-drug interactions is in my view hugely important. When Angelo and I first approached it in 2001, it was woefully under-researched; in that year, there were just 37 Medline-listed papers on the subject. This has now increased very significantly; since 2011 there are about 150 articles on the topic each year. It is tempting to think that Angelo (and I) had a tiny influence on this positive development.
Tai chi is a form of exercise that combines deep breathing and relaxation with meditative, slow movements. Originally developed as a martial art in 13th-century China, tai chi is now practised around the world as a health-promoting exercise. Despite its popularity, its therapeutic value is not clear.
This randomized, assessor-blinded trial examined the therapeutic efficacy of tai chi for the management of central obesity. A total of 543 participants with central obesity were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to:
- a control group with no exercise intervention (n = 181),
- conventional exercise consisting of aerobic exercise and strength training (EX group) (n = 181),
- a tai chi group (TC group) (n = 181). Interventions lasted 12 weeks.
Outcomes were assessed at baseline, week 12, and week 38. The primary outcome was waist circumference (WC). Secondary outcomes were body weight; body mass index; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglyceride, and fasting plasma glucose levels; blood pressure; and incidence of remission of central obesity.
The adjusted mean difference in WC from baseline to week 12 in the control group was 0.8 cm (95% CI, -4.1 to 5.7 cm). Both intervention groups showed reductions in WC relative to control (adjusted mean differences: TC group vs. control, -1.8 cm [CI, -2.3 to -1.4 cm]; P < 0.001; EX group vs. control: -1.3 cm [CI, -1.8 to -0.9 cm]; P < 0.001); both intervention groups also showed reductions in body weight (P < 0.05) and attenuation of the decrease in HDL-C level relative to the control group. The favorable changes in WC and body weight were maintained in both the TC and EX groups, whereas the beneficial effect on HDL-C was only maintained in the TC group at week 38.
The authors concluded that Tai chi is an effective approach to reduce WC in adults with central obesity aged 50 years or older.
This is a decent trial with an odd conclusion: it is not just the Tai chi intervention but both types of exercise that yield significantly positive effects on the primary outcome measure. So, why did the authors not conclude exercise is an effective approach to reduce WC in adults with central obesity aged 50 years or older?
Could it be that such a conclusion would have meant stating the obvious?
The delivery man was sweating heavily, and when he handed over the two packages I realized why: they weighed like lead. They contained the new edition of The Oxford Textbook of Medicine.
It comes in 4 large volumes, is over 6000 pages long, and has several hundred contributors who include the foremost experts in their fields (and costs a bomb). On Amazon, it is advertised as the foremost international textbook of medicine. Unrivalled in its coverage of the scientific aspects and clinical practice of internal medicine and its subspecialties, it is a fixture in the offices and wards of physicians around the world, as well as being a key resource for medico-legal practitioners. Accessible digitally with regular updates, as well as in print, readers are provided with multiple avenues of access depending on their need and preference.
More comprehensive, more authoritative, and more international than any other textbook; Oxford Textbook of Medicine focuses on offering both perspective and practical guidance on clinical management and prevention of disease…
I think that describes the book rather well. But why, you rightly ask, did I receive a copy, and why do I write about it here? The simple reason is, that I contributed a chapter. My contribution is just 6 pages long (does that mean the importance of so-called alternative medicine [SCAM] to healthcare is 1/1000th of the total?), but I am nevertheless not half proud of it. Here is a nice quote from my chapter:
When used as a true alternative to mainstream medicine, CAM can become a hazard to patients even if the treatment itself is without risk. In many countries, including the United Kingdom, CAM is practised mostly by healthcare professionals who are not medically trained, often in the absence of stringent regulation, leading many to be concerned that vulnerable patients may be exploited.
I believe this to be the most important message about SCAM and I am pleased that it is expressed in one of the world’s most important textbooks.
This systematic review and meta-analyses explored the strength of evidence on efficacy and safety of Ayurvedic herbs for hypercholesterolemia. Methods: Literature searches were conducted and all randomized controlled trials on individuals with hypercholesterolemia using Ayurvedic herbs (alone or in combination) with an exposure period of ≥ 3 weeks were included. The primary outcomes were total cholesterol levels, adverse events, and other cardiovascular events.
A total of 32 studies with 1386 participants were found. They tested three Ayurvedic herbs:
- Allium sativum (garlic),
- Commiphora mukul (Guggulu),
- Nigella sativa (black cumin).
The average duration of intervention was 12 weeks. The meta-analysis of the trials showed that
- Guggulu reduced total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein levels by 16.78 mg/dL (95% C.I. 13.96 to 2.61; p-value = 0.02) and 18.78 mg/dL (95% C.I. 34.07 to 3.48; p = 0.02), respectively.
- Garlic reduced LDL-C by 10.37 mg/dL (95% C.I. -17.58 to -3.16; p-value = 0.005).
- Black cumin lowered total cholesterol by 9.28 mg/dL (95% C.I. -17.36, to -1.19, p-value = 0.02).
Reported adverse side effects were minimal.
The authors concluded that there is moderate to high level of evidence from randomized controlled trials that the Ayurvedic herbs guggulu, garlic, and black cumin are moderately effective for reducing hypercholesterolemia. In addition, minimal evidence was found for any side effects associated with these herbs, positioning them as safe adjuvants to conventional treatments.
For the following reasons, I fail to see how these conclusions can be justified:
- Too many of the included studies are of poor quality.
- Only for garlic are there a sufficient number of trials for attempting to reach a generalizable conclusion.
- Giving garlic to patients with hypercholesterolemia is hardy Ayurvedic medicine.
- Even the effect of the best-tested herbal remedy, garlic, is not as large as the effects of conventional lipid-lowering drugs.
- Conclusions about the safety of medicines purely on the basis of RCTs are unreliable.
- The affiliations of the authors include the College of Integrative Medicine, Maharishi International University, Fairfield, USA, the School of Science of Consciousness, Maharishi University of Information Technology, Noida, India, and the Maharishi International University, Fairfield.
You may have noticed that my patience with homeopathy, homeopaths, and other providers of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has diminished. In fact, I do not think much of quacks of all shades and no longer muster much understanding. It is better, so I mean after approximately 30 years of discussions with snake oil salesmen and other charlatans, to offer such people Parole. Facts are facts, and no one should be allowed to ignore that without contradiction.
That was not always the case.
When I began as Chair of Complementary Medicine at Exeter in 1993, I was optimistic. It was clear to me that my task of scrutinizing this field would not be easy and could occasionally bring me into conflict with enthusiasts. But I was determined to build bridges, to remain polite, and to muster as much understanding as necessary.
And so I began to build a multidisciplinary team, conduct research, and publish it. My goal was to do as rigorous science as possible and, if avoidable, not to step on anyone’s toes in the process. Especially with regard to homeopathy, my general attitude was quite positive. Accordingly, my articles were as favorable as the evidence allowed. My goal was to emphasize the good aspects of homeopathy wherever possible.
What, you find that hard to believe?
Then you are in good company!
Homeopaths like to claim that I was out to malign not only homeopathy but all of SCAM from the beginning. That this assumption is not true, I tried to demonstrate in an article entitled ‘Homeopathy and I’. In this paper, I merely extracted typical passages from my publications. From them, you can probably see how my attitude slowly changed over the years. See for yourself (sorry for the length of the list):
- 1. homeopathic remedies are believed by doctors and patients to be almost totally safe (Ernst E, White A. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 629-30)
- 2. it might be argued that arnica … is ineffective but homeopathy may still work (Ernst E. BMJ 1995; 311: 510-1)
- 3. homeopathy, I fear, has soon to come up with … more convincing evidence (Ernst E. Forsch Komplementarmed 1995; 2: 32)
- 4. future evaluations of homeopathy should be performed to a high scientific standard (Ernst E. Br Homeopath J 1995; 84: 229)
- 5. the best way forward is clearly to do rigorous research (Ernst E, Kaptchuk TJ. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2162-4)
- 6. the most pressing question, ‘Is homeopathy clinically more effective than placebo’, needs to be answered conclusively (Ernst E. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 44: 435-7)
- 7. there is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus (Barnes J, Resch KL, Ernst E. J Clin Gastroenterol 1997; 25: 628-33)
- 8. the published evidence to date does not support the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies … are more efficacious than placebo (Ernst E, Barnes J. Perfusion 1998; 11: 4-8)
- 9. the claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials (Ernst E, Pittler MH. Arch Surg 1998; 133: 1187-90)
- 10. … the trial data … do not suggest that homeopathy is effective (Ernst E. J Pain Sympt Manage 1999; 18: 353-7)
- 11. … the re-analysis of Linde et al. can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos (Ernst E, Pittler MH.J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1188)
- 12. … homeopathy is not different from placebo (Ernst E, Pittler MH. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 103-4)
- 13. … the best clinical evidence … does not warrant positive recommendations (Ernst E. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54: 577-82)
- 14. the results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo (Stevinson C, Devaraj VS, Fountain-Barber A, Hawkins S, Ernst E. J R Soc Med 2003; 96: 60-5)
- 15. this study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies … are superior to placebo (White A, Slade P, Hunt C, Hart A, Ernst E. Thorax 2003; 58: 317-21)
- 16. … this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists (Grabia S, Ernst E. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 92-8)
- 17. … the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies … do not outweigh the potential for harm (Ernst E.Trends Pharmacol Sci 2005; 26: 547-8)
- 18 Our analysis … found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy (Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 282-9)
- 19. … promotion can be regrettably misleading, or their effectiveness? (Ernst E. J Soc Integr Oncol 2006; 4: 113-5)
- 20. … homeopathy is not based on solid evidence and, over time, this evidence seems to get more negative (Ernst E, Pittler MH, Wider B, Boddy K. Perfusion 2006; 19: 380-2)
- 21. the evidence from rigorous clinical trials … testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition (Altunc U, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82: 69-75)
- 22. … context effects of homeopathy … are entirely sufficient to explain the benefit many patients experience (Ernst E. Curr Oncol 2007; 14: 128-30)
- 23. among all the placebos that exist, homeopathy has the potential to be an exceptionally powerful one (Ernst E. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 65: 163-4)
- 24. … recommendations by professional homeopathic associations are not based on the evidence (Ernst E. Br J Gen Pract 2009; 59: 142-3)
These quotes speak for themselves, I think. But what was the reason for the change? As far as I can judge in retrospect, there were three main reasons.
1. The data became clearer and clearer
When I started researching homeopathy, at least the clinical evidence was not clearly negative. In 1991, Jos Kleinjen had published his much-noted systematic review in the BMJ. Here is its conclusion:
At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.
Subsequently, more and better clinical trials were published, and the overall picture became increasingly negative. Kleinjen, who had become somewhat of a hero in the realm of homeopathy, re-reviewed the evidence in 2000 and concluded that there are currently insufficient data to either recommend homoeopathy as a treatment for any specific condition or to warrant significant changes in the provision of homoeopathy.
The 24 citations above reflect this development quite nicely. Today, there is no longer much doubt that highly-diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. This is perhaps most clearly expressed in the now numerous statements of high-ranking international bodies.
2. The lack of understanding on the part of homeopaths
So the evidence is now clear. But it may not fully explain why my patience with homeopaths diminished. To understand this better, one must consider the utter lack of insight of today’s homeopaths (think, for example, of the incredible Ebola story).
It is of course understandable that a homeopath would be less than enthusiastic about the increasingly negative evidence. But homeopaths are also physicians or at least medically untrained practitioners (lay homeopaths). As such, they have an obligation to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence and act accordingly. That they quite obviously do not do so, is not only regrettable but also highly unethical and shameful. In any case, I find it difficult to have much patience for such people.
3. Personal attacks
In the many years that I have now been scrutinizing SCAM, I have become used to being attacked. The attacks and insults I have received, especially from homeopaths, are legion. For example, when we published our arnica study, we were threatened with letter bombs. However, one should keep one thing in mind: ad hominem attacks are a victory of reason over unreason. If one is personally attacked by one’s opponent, it only shows that he has run out of rational arguments.
Perhaps the most impressive example of an attack was not directed against me personally, but across the board against all who dare to doubt homeopathy. Christian Boiron is the boss of the world’s largest homeopathic manufacturer, Boiron. In an interview he was once asked what he thought of homeopathy critics; his answer: “Il y a un Ku Klux Klan contre l’homéopathie” (There is a Ku Klux Klan against homeopathy).
Yes, many of these attacks even have something comical about them; nevertheless, they are not likely to increase my patience with homeopaths. This does not mean, however, that I will soon hang my opponents from the nearest tree in the old KKK tradition. I’ll gladly leave such tasteless ideas to Christian Boiron.
Acupuncture has been widely used for acute low back pain (LBP), yet there remains continued controversy regarding its efficacy. Therefore, this systematic review aimed at evaluating the evidence.
English and Chinese databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for acute LBP published up to May 2020. Data on the outcomes of pain intensity, functional status, and analgesic use were extracted. The meta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.3, and pooled data were expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Of the 13 eligible RCTs identified, 9 were from China, one each from Brazil, the United Kingdom, Australia, and South Korea. Four studies were published in English, and 9 were published in Chinese. The 13 RCTs (involving 707 patients) provided moderate-quality evidence that acupuncture has a statistically significant association with improvements in VAS (visual analog scale) score [MD: −1.75 (95% CI: −2.39, −1.12)]. Two studies indicated that acupuncture did not influence the RMDQ (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) scores more than the control treatment [MD: −2.34 (95% CI: −5.34, 0.67)]. Three studies suggested that acupuncture influenced the ODI (Oswestry Disability Index) scores more than the control treatment [MD: −12.84 (95% CI: −23.94, −1.74)]. Two studies suggested that acupuncture influenced the number of pills more than the control treatment [MD: −3.19 (95% CI: −3.45, −2.92)]. Merely 2 RCTs were sham-controlled and only 4 of the 13 RCTs mentioned adverse effects.
The authors concluded that acupuncture treatment of acute LBP was associated with modest improvements in the VAS score, ODI score, and the number of pills, but not the RMDQ score. Our findings should be considered with caution due to the low power original studies. High-quality trials are needed to assess further the role of
acupuncture in the treatment of acute LBP.
I do appreciate the authors’ call for caution in interpreting the findings. Yet, I feel that much more caution than the authors advise is needed here:
- Most studies are from China, and we have often seen that these trials cannot be trusted.
- Only 2 RCTs are sham-controlled which means that most studies failed to control for placebo effects.
- Most studies do not mention adverse effects, confirming the unethically low standards of these investigations.
I am afraid that this new review does not inspire me with confidence that acupuncture is an effective therapy for acute LBP.
A few months ago, I started contributing to a German blog. This has been fun but only moderately successful in terms of readership. This week, I posted something about a homeopath and his strange attitude towards COVID vaccinations. This post was so far read by around 20 000 people!
As it was so unusually successful (and because there is a big conference today on the subject), I decided to translate it for my non-German readers.
Here we go:
A lot of downright silly stuff is currently being written about vaccine side effects at the moment, not least on Twitter where I recently found the following comment from a medical colleague:
I’ve been a doctor for 25 years now. I have never experienced such an amount of vaccine side effects. I can’t imagine that other colleagues feel differently.
This kind of remark naturally makes you think. So let’s think a little bit about these two sentences. In particular, I would like to ask and briefly answer the following questions:
- How reliable is this physician’s impression?
- What does the reliable evidence say?
- Is it conceivable that this doctor is mistaken?
- What might be the causes of his error?
- Who is the author?
- Why is the tweet questionable?
1. How reliable is this doctor’s impression?
A whole 25 years of professional experience! So we are dealing with a thoroughly experienced doctor. His statement about the current unusually large amount of vaccination side effects should therefore be correct. Nevertheless, one should perhaps bear in mind that the incidence of side effects cannot be determined by rough estimations, but must be precisely quantified. In addition, we also need data on the severity and duration of symptoms. For example, is it only mild pain at the injection site or venous thrombosis? Are the symptoms only temporary, long-lasting, or even permanent? In general, it must be said that the experience of a physician, while not completely insignificant, does not constitute evidence. Oscar Wilde once said, “experience is the name we give to our mistakes.”
2. What does the reliable evidence tell us?
Even if the good doctor had 100 years of professional experience and even if he could accurately characterize the side effects, his experience would be trivial compared to the hard data we have on this subject. Nearly 2 billion vaccinations have now been performed worldwide, and we are therefore in the fortunate position of having reliable statistics to guide us. And they show that side effects such as pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headaches are quite common, while serious problems are very rare. A recent summary comes to the following conclusion (my translation):
The current data suggests that the currently approved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for the vast majority of the population. Furthermore, broad-based vaccine uptake is critical for achieving herd immunity; an essential factor in decreasing future surges of COVID-19 infections. Ensuring sufficient COVID-19 vaccination adoption by the public will involve attending to the rising vaccine hesitancy among a pandemic-weary population. Evidence-based approaches at the federal, state, city, and organizational levels are necessary to improve vaccination efforts and to decrease hesitancy. Educating the general public about the safety of the current and forthcoming vaccines is of vital consequence to public health and ongoing and future large-scale vaccination initiatives.
3. Is it conceivable that this doctor is mistaken?
In answering this question, I agree with Oscar Wilde. The evidence very clearly contradicts the physician’s impression. So the doctor seems to be mistaken — at least about the incidence of side effects that are not completely normal and thus to be expected. Even if indeed ‘other colleagues feel no differently’, such a cumulative experience would still mislead us. The plural of ‘anecdote’ is ‘anecdotes’ and not ‘evidence’.
4. What might be the causes of his error?
I wonder whether our doctor perhaps did not see or did not want to see the following circumstance: It is inevitable that a physician, at a time when soon 50% of all Germans were vaccinated, also sees a lot of patients complaining about side effects. He has never seen anything like that in his 25-year career! That’s because we haven’t been hit by a pandemic in the last 25 years. For a similar reason, the colleague will treat far fewer frostbites in midsummer than during a severe winter. The only surprising thing would be not to see more patients reporting vaccine side effects during the biggest vaccination campaign ever.
5. Who is the author?
At this point, we should ask, who is actually the author and author of the above tweet? Perhaps the answer to this question will provide insight into his motivation for spreading nonsense? Dr. Thomas Quak (no, I did not invent the name) is a practicing homeopath in Fürstenfeldbruck, Germany. Like many homeopaths, this Quak probably has a somewhat disturbed relationship to vaccination. In his case, this goes as far as recommending several vaccine-critical machinations on his website and even offering ‘critical vaccination advice’ as a special service.
Now we can immediately put the Quak tweet in a better perspective. Dr. Quak is a vaccination opponent or critic and wants to warn the public: for heaven’s sake, don’t get vaccinated folks; side effects are more common than ever!!!! Therefore, he also conceals the fact that the side-effects are completely normal, short-term vaccination reactions, which are ultimately of no significance.
6. Why is the tweet concerning?
Perhaps you feel that the Quak and his Quack tweet are irrelevant? What harm can a single tweet do, and who cares about a homeopath from Fürstenfeldbruck? As good as none and nobody! However, the importance does not lie in a single homeopath unsettling the population; it consists in the fact that such things currently happen every day thousandfold.
In their narrow-mindedness, vaccination opponents of all shades want to make us believe that they are concerned about our well-being because they know more than we and all the experts (who are of course bought by the pharmaceutical industry). But if you scratch just a little at the surface of their superficiality, it turns out that the exact opposite is true. They are ill-informed and only interested in spreading their hare-brained, misanthropic ideology.
And why do homeopaths do this? There are certainly several reasons. Although Hahnemann himself was impressed by the success of vaccination, which was invented in his time and hailed as a breakthrough, most of his successors soon sided with vaccination critics. Many do so by warning (like our Quak) of side effects, thinking that they are thus protecting their patients. However, they ignore two very important points:
- Even if the dangers of vaccinations were much greater than they actually are (no one is claiming that they are completely harmless), the benefits would still far outweigh the potential harms.
- If the Quaks (and all the quacks) of this world succeeded in dissuading a sizable percentage of the population from vaccinating and thus save them from the ‘oh-so-dangerous side effects’, they would still be doing a real disservice to public health. With regard to COVID-19, this would mean that the pandemic would remain with us in the long term and cost many more lives.
Whatever the motives of the homeopathic anti-vax brigade, it is certain that their attitude is a threat to our health. This has repeatedly made me state:
The homeopathic pills may be harmless, but unfortunately, the homeopaths are not!
- COVID-19 vaccine availability: what are the side effects? | British Journal of General Practice (bjgp.org) ︎
- Review the safety of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines: a review – PubMed (nih.gov) ︎
- Vaccination Information (doktor-quak.de) ︎
The integration of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) into cancer care may reduce the adverse effects of anti-neoplastic treatment but also cause new problems and non-adherence to conventional treatment. Therefore, its net benefit is questionable.
The aim of this randomized controlled study was to investigate the impact of integrative open dialogue about SCAM on cancer patients’ health and quality of life (QoL).
Patients undergoing curative or palliative anti-neoplastic treatment were randomly assigned to standard care (SC) plus SCAM or SC alone. A nurse specialist facilitated SCAM in one or two sessions. The primary endpoint was the
frequency of grade 3–4 adverse events (AE) eight weeks after enrollment. Secondary endpoints were the frequency of grade 1–4 AE and patient-reported QoL, psychological distress, perceived information, attitude towards and use of SCAM 12 and 24 weeks after enrollment. Survival was analyzed post-hoc.
Fifty-seven patients were randomized to SCAM and 55 to SC. No significant differences were found in terms of AEs of cancer patients. A trend towards better QoL, improved survival, and a lower level of anxiety was found in the SCAM group.
The authors concluded that integration of SCAM into daily oncology care is feasible. IOD-CAM was not superior to SC in reducing the frequency of grade 3-4 AEs, but it did not compromise patient safety. Implementation of SCAM
may improve the QoL, anxiety, and emotional well-being of the patients by reducing the level of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Finally, SCAM potentially improves the patients’ self-care, which contributes to
increased treatment adherence and improved survival.
This is an interesting paper with a very odd conclusion. The positive trends found failed to be statistically significant. Why employ statistics only to ignore them in our interpretation of the findings?
I can well imagine that the integration of effective treatments into cancer care improves the outcome. I have no problem with this at all – except it is not called INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE but EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE!!! If we integrate dubious treatments into cancer care, it’s called INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE, and it’s unlikely to do any good.
In my view, this small study showed just one thing:
Integrative medicine does not reduce adverse effects in cancer patients.