Austrian doctors recently received a notice in their mailbox about a postgraduate training event that is remarkable, to say the least.
The Vienna Medical Association is organizing a postgraduate training course on “Complementary Medical Homeopathy for Post- and Long Covid“. The date for the event is 20.4.2023. Registration for it is via the Association’s “Department of Complementary and Integrative Medicine”.
In case you ask, what is wrong with such a course? There is no scientific evidence that homeopathy has a specific, positive effect in long/post covid. Therefore the announced event has about the same validity as a lecture series for:
- BUNGEE JUMPING FOR DIABETES
or
- DOUGHNUT EATING FOR CORONARY HEART DISEASE
or
- CIGARETTE SMOKING IN CANCER PREVENTION
While relevant pseudomedicine training courses have in the past been organized by the relevant Austrian SCAM-organizations, the Vienna Medical Association itself is now joining the ranks of the organizers of pseudomedicine training courses. Whereas pseudomedicine has so far been the domain of physicians in private practice in Austria, it now appears to be promoted by the Vienna Medical Association in hospitals as well.
The Vienna Medical Association boldly claims that MEDICAL ETHICS IS THE BASIS OF OUR WORK. Well guess what, guys: teaching nonsense is not very ethical!
The ‘tasks and goals’ of the Association’s ‘Department for Complementary and Integrative Medicine’ of the Vienna Medical Association are explained on their website:
The aim of our department is to represent doctors with additional diplomas in the medical association and to inform about the value of their special therapeutic approaches better than previously – particularly in cases of serious side effects of conventional therapies.
In the sense of conveying up-to-date, high-quality, medical, and complementary education and training in complementary medicine, our department aims to publish relevant articles and announcements of dates of the respective professional societies in the chamber’s own media.
Practice-oriented introductory lectures or study groups on the following topics are also planned topics:
- medical homeopathy,
- psychosomatic relaxation therapy (bipolar harmonising abdominal breathing, autogenic training),
- acupuncture,
- regulation therapy based on skin resistance measurements at acupuncture points,
- TCM,
- herbal therapy, etc.
“Up-to-date, high-quality, medical, and complementary education and training in complementary medicine” – oh really? If the Association’s “Department of Complementary and Integrative Medicine” is truly interested in this, I herewith offer to give a free lecture series for them that would teach them the high-quality evidence truly shows.
Meanwhile, as there is no good evidence that homeopathy is an effective therapy for post/long Covid, the question of whether the ‘Vienna Medical Association’ has taken leave of its senses, must be answered in the affirmative.
41 Responses to Has the ‘Vienna Medical Association’ taken leave of its senses?
Leave a Reply to Språkdoktorn Olle Kjellin Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
How disheartening….
such things do not dishearten me; they motivate me to do more – because they show how much needs to be done.
Unethical.
Full stop.
And therefore contrary to the VMA’s constitution and rules.
Who is behind this?
Who is sponsoring this ‘initiative’?
Behind this CME farce is the “Wiener Ärztekammer” – “Vienna Medical Chamber” – the official organisation representing physicians in Vienna, a suborganisation of the “Austrian Medical Chamber” which also issues special diploma in homeopathy, anthroposophic medicine and the like. Membership in these chambers is compulsory by law for physicians in Austria to be allowed to work and they also take care of registering physicians an keeping up the list of licensed physicians.
Who is sponsoring it? One may only speculate. When looking at the bottom of the homepages of the websites of the two homeopathy physicians’ associations https://www.homoeopathie.at/ and https://www.aekh.at/ one might get an idea.
So, at base, ‘the law’, which we can take to be established by politicians, is behind promulgating this nonsense.
I just hope that Austrian patients are properly informed about this before they consent to be treated by any Austrian registered medical practitioner.
Theoretically by law the Austrian Ministry of Health is responsible to supervise the Medical Chambers, but it is the definite opinion of the Chambers that the Ministry has no authority on deciding about what is medical science. And the ministry is not very eager to act anyway against bogus medicine. So the chambers have been backing SCAM practicing physicians in private offices since ever. New is now the attempt of the hospital physicians’ division to push homeopathy. And traditionally with the comparably low health and science literacy of the population and a special affinity to SCAM in German speaking countries there are enough patients seeking SCAM treatments.
IMO, ‘nonsense’ is far too weak. ‘How to deceive sick people’ rather better fits the bill.
I agree!
Sign me up for the doughnut eating for heart disease program!
consider it done.
I too agree. This is rather criminal.
I shall forward it to my Facebook group *Homeopathy = fraud*
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homeopati.bluffmedicin
Where is the problem?
In Germany, so-called integrative medicine for the treatment of post-Covid is being funded with €70,000!
🤔 Really?🤔
At the Bamberg Clinic, Professor Langhorst holds an endowed chair from the Veronica Carstens-Foundation – Chairman Prof. Michalsen
https://www.carstens-stiftung.de/artikel/prof-dr-andreas-michalsen-jetzt-die-immunabwehr-durch-den-lebensstil-positiv-beeinflussen.html
🔽
Langhorst, Matthes/ endowed professorship for integrative and anthroposophic medicine at the Charité and the self-proclaimed expert in immunology Münch/ Grassau were speakers at the “Night of Naturopathy” in January 2023, proudly presented by the anthroposophic company WELEDA.
They presented the miracle recipe against Long-Covid.
🤣
https://www.enzymforschungsgesellschaft.de/downloads/therapieplaene/Long%20Covid-Therapieplan_MEF.pdf
And last but not least, the note that this is funded by the state and with tax funds.
https://www.lgl.bayern.de/gesundheit/infektionsschutz/infektionskrankheiten_a_z/coronavirus/post_covid_foerderinitiative_2021.htm
👆 ASAP is the other project, led by Professor Sonia Lippke from Bremen, who used survey data from a marketing study by the anthroposophical company WELEDA for studies.👆
👉 The Bavarian Minister of Health justified this with these words:
🤔 I wish we could push boundaries.”
“Ich wünsche mir, dass wir mal Grenzen überschreiten“ 🤷♀️
https://www.homoeopathie-bayern.de/interview-klaus-holetschek/
What is the opinion of the readers?
“MR Dr. Felix Badelt, Doctor of general medicine , ÖÄK – Diplomas for Acupuncture, Homeopathy and psychosomatic medicine”
https://www.ganzheitsmedizin-badelt.at/vortr%C3%A4ge-publikationen/lebenslauf/
Ok, they set the fox to keep the geese. Well done!
*Irony off*
Really? Even the website Wikipedia lists 100+ commonly used drugs that have “unknown mechanism of action,” including many drugs used as general anasthesia and many many others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Drugs_with_unknown_mechanisms_of_action
So, should we have all medical schools stop teaching these drugs and would it be “unethical” for them to do so?
And…I’m so glad that the people at Ernst’s website will not accept general anasthesia when undergoing surgery. I’m so impressed with your mindlessness.
Curious minds want to know how you think that your attitudes on homeopathy
Thanks, Dana, for confirming yet again that you understand next to nothing.
– it’s not a med school
– it’s not about understanding mechanisms of action
– it has nothing to do with “anasthesia”
Let’s put it the other way round, Dana: would you consent to homeopathic anaesthesia for yourself or a beloved one of yours? A heavy C30 potentiation of a central stimulant like amphetamine should do it according to the homeopathy ideas and set you asleep.
Viktor, Since you obviously love to create a straw man and since you obviously have NO idea who I am and what I stand for, your comment is so typical of a person who is embarrassingly uninformed. I stand for “integrative medicine that respects safer methods first.
My point that you and many of the other uninformed people here don’t seem to get is that Ernst inaccurately claims that there’s no known mechanism for homeopathy…and therefore, it should not be taught or used. Well, in THIS light, there are a LOT of conventional drugs for which there is no known mechanism of action, including general anaesthesia.
Next time, do your homework better…don’t set-up straw men…and avoid thinking in black-and-white. There’s a whole rainbow out there…
Ernst accurately claims that there’s no known mechanism for homeopathy!
even if your nano-bollocks were true, it would not even be near to an explanation of mechanism of action.
How would, for instance, nanoparticles of the Berlin Wall cure anything?
How about X-rays, Vacuum, etc.?
You live in a weird fantasy world Dana.
Regardless of the rest you wrote, would you now consent to an operation with homeopathic anaesthesia or not? That was the question. After all your postings here, you cannot deny that you have declared that you do believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy. So you should be able to present a clear answer here.
We can know that something does work but not know how it works. In the case of homeopathy we know it doesn’t work so the question of how it doesn’t work is irrelevant.
And so, you believe that we should ignore the 500+ clinical trials published in peer-review journals, including many of the best high impact journals in the world? Well, how convenient.
The vast majority of studies on homeopathy that had a “negative” outcome did so because they tried to use ONE medicine to get everyone with a specific ailment rather than to use the homeopathic methodology that requires individualized treatment. Would you give an antibiotic to everyone with an “infection,” whether it be bacterial, viral, or fungal. No, I didn’t think so.
It is so easy to tear things apart when you are uninformed about a subject.
A publication in a peer-reviewed journal counts for nothing if the study cannot be validated. Which is almost exclusively the case with homeopathy. In addition, the homeopathy studies are very often very weakly written or the allegedly positive results are misinterpreted.
Your scribblings only prove that you have zero idea about studies and study design or that you deliberately spread misinformation to defend the “Sacred Cow” homeopathy. Which is no news to all regular readers of this blog.
The conclusions of those studies have indeed been ignored, Dana. Because they have been looked at and recognised for the nonsense that they are.
Yet when one of these studies produces a notionally positive outcome, you are happy to wave it around triumphantly. The Frass dichromate study springs to mind. Either homeopathy needs to be individualised or it doesn’t. Make your mind up, Dana.
We are informed about homeopathy, Dana. We know it is utter bumwash and that those who promote it are jabbering, brainwashed, deluded fools. Like you. It’s why you are of no consequence. All this stamping, shouting and waving. What has it achieved?
Nothing.
Oh and you can, as David asks again, name a laboratory that can distinguish between homeopathic water and other water, which you said in this Blog “only fools or liars” doubted could be done.
You’ve been called out, Dana. You know this can’t be done so you continue to bluff, dodge and obfuscate. See those tiny hands. See how they wave. See those pants and how they’re on fire. Put up or shut up, Dana you yammering, inconsequential clown.
can someone delusional bluff?
Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients
Frass, et al.
Chest
discussed (and ‘commented on’ by Mr Ullman) in the following articles:
Prof Frass’ remarkable studies of homeopathy
https://edzardernst.com/2015/11/prof-frass-remarkable-studies-of-homeopathy/
I smell a rat: something extremely odd about the ‘positive’ studies of homeopathy
https://edzardernst.com/2018/03/i-smell-a-rat-something-extremely-odd-about-the-positive-studies-of-homeopathy/
Lenny…master of the straw man…and master of the black and white reality…and master of over-simplifying everything.
There ARE exceptions to the one-medicine for one-disease…but these are simply rare.
There are numerous studies showing Oscillococcinum works for influenza and influenza-like illness. There have been four studies by Reilly, et al, at the University of Glasgow showing efficacy of single remedies in respiratory allergies…one study published in the Lancet and two published in the BMJ. There IS evidence published in CHEST that Kali bic is helpful to people with COPD. Yeah, there ARE exceptions…but don’t assume that exceptions are the rule.
Is this really THAT hard to understand through your thick skull? This isn’t very hard to understand…and the fact that I’ve repeated this many times means that you don’t get it AND you don’t want to get it. Sad…uber typical amongst people at THIS site.
@Dana Ullman
‘Numerous’ as in one, or two? And with absolutely tiny effect sizes? IIRC, the most positive study found a reduction in duration of cold symptoms of ~6 hours, for a total duration of the infection of 6 days. Which was not confirmed in other studies, indicating that it was almost certainly statistical noise.
But feel free to come up with a detailed list of those ‘numerous’ studies, so that we can all take a good look at what you call ‘evidence’ – and no doubt have a good laugh in the process. Of all the foolishness perpetrated over the centuries in the name of homeopathy, oscillococcinum is one of the biggest idiocies out there: a non-existing bacterium that cannot possibly have anything to do with flu and cold symptoms, and is not found in ducks is the basis of a ‘cold remedy’, made from ducks? Yeah, right …
Until you come up with one (just ONE) homeopathic preparation 12C+ that shows robust, repeatable effects in any experiment that you may come up with, you are just like a six-year-old who stamps his foot on the floor in anger after being told that Santa Claus does not exist – “But I SEE the presents!!!”
(And yes, at least with Santa, there ARE actual presents involved, contrary to homeopathy, which literally revolves around nothing.)
So sorry Dana, but contrary to your doubtlessly sincere beliefs, diluting the truth to homeopathic levels does not make it more potent. Au contraire.
As ever, Dana. The same self-contradictory halfwitted bullshit. Of course you’ve tried to explain to us before that homeopathy has to be individualised apart from when it doesn’t. And explain that homeopathy is nanomedicine. Apart from when it isn’t. And that laboratories can tell water from homeopathic water but then fail to tell us which laboratory can do this. Your inability to read and learn is why you remain an insignificant object of ridicule.
You really can’t see what a fool you make of yourself.
@Dana Ullman
Well, yes, of course we should ignore those clinical trials, if only for the reason that YOU consistently ignore the absolutely huge amount of evidence and questions that contradict your silly beliefs.
In fact, for 99% of the time, poking holes in your magical balloon is simply a matter of asking “Show us the evidence”. After which either silence or an ad-hominem rant ensues, with people being called ‘fools and liars’ for not sharing your delusions. At which point it is safe to assume that there is no magical balloon, and never was one to start with.
Some examples:
– You claim that homeopaths can distinguish between plain water and their magical shaken water (12C+). When asked who pulled off this remarkable feat and where, silence ensues.
– You claim that homeopathy works through ‘nanoparticles’. When asked how this works with highly soluble substances such as table salt that don’t form nanoparticles in solution (and is present in the body in huge amounts already), silence ensues.
– And when asked how you reconcile the presence of these ‘nanoparticles’ (read: millions of said molecules) in a homeopathic preparation of 30C (which by its very definition means that not a single molecule of the original substance should be present any more), silence ensues.
– You claim that homeopathy’s principles are very plausible to start with. When asked what is so plausible about higher dilutions consistently being more instead of less potent, silence ensues.
– And when asked for any evidence demonstrating said increased potency at higher dilutions, silence ensues.
– etcetera etcetera …
And oh, look! Three more questions for this long list, prompted by your own remark:
– I distinctly recall that many of the studies that you refer to as evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy do in fact NOT involve individualized homeopathy. So you were in fact telling porkies in those cases, and we can safely ignore those studies, yes? And you have eliminated them from your (ethereal) body of evidence?
– If non-individualized homeopathy studies are useless, then the homeopaths who carried them out are in fact ignorant fools who don’t understand even the very basics of homeopathy?
– If, as you say, homeopathic treatment is only effective when individualized because symptoms and responses will vary strongly from person to person, then how can you ever claim to have identified an effective ‘remedy’? And how on earth can you then claim that ‘proving’ produces any useful information? After all, proving means that a mere dozen or so deluded fools take a homeopathic preparation, and then start making up ‘symptoms’ – and whenever two or more of those fools happen to dream up(*) one or more similar ‘symptoms’, then those symptoms are considered indicative for the new ‘remedy’.
In reality, this ‘individual treatment’ requirement is of course just an escape hatch for homeopaths, a handy and unfalsifiable(!) excuse why their ‘remedies’ hardly ever seem to work when properly investigated.
*: And this should be taken literally, as ‘dreaming about robbers’ is indeed one ‘symptom’ mentioned in homeopathy’s Big Book of Fairy Tales.
Nope. The reason that the majority of negative trials of homeopathy did not use individualised homeopathy is that the majority of trials of homeopathy do not use individualised homeopathy. If you look at the results of trials of individualised homeopathy they are no better.
Mr Ullman, to quote or paraphrase Dr Ben Goldacre in a lecture seen on YouTube, “We may not know HOW general anaesthetics work, but there’s no doubt THAT they work”. That they work is effectively and dramatically, and incontrovertibly demonstrated millions of times a year, when people are cut open and have their organs worked upon without them being aware of it.
We now await your production of a similar tidal wave of incontrovertible evidence for any 30C homeopathic medicine altering the course of any health condition to a degree greater than placebo.
You can begin by naming a laboratory that can distinguish between homeopathic water and other water, which you said in this Blog “only fools or liars” doubted could be done.
This is my SIXTIETH, 60th, time of asking you to do so, and others have also asked, kindly providing you with a list.
You were quick to brand people “fools or liars”. Are you inclined at all, now, having been politely asked for this information more than sixty times, to withdraw your “fools or liars” claim? And do you have any conception at all of how clearly your remarks in this thread align you with the first of your two categories?
Distinguish in a lab between homeopathic remedies and placebo pills? Identifying homeopathic remedies?
I wish that there was some real person such as a Professor Flaponia Doodlealittle of the Dept of Teslonian Quantum Steineristics of the Univeristy of Scilly who has published in Nature on this and astounded the Scientific world. Of course this would result in a mass revision of scientific resources with Edzard maybe removing some chapters or at least re-editing some of his books.
Unfortunately though no such lab exists and everyone on this blog and in the homeopathic community knows that and I am not relying on any future research to chnage things. I look forward to the 61st time of DavidB asking soon but millions of us homeopathic users will just say that there is no such lab and that we dont care. Homeopathy continues to grow not because of any homeopathic research but because people use it , like it and then share their experiences. We are all infomed about homeopathy, we all consent and if you dont like it then this is your problem.
Just for relaxing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK5BZdnqMDU for those being fluent in German. A brilliant idea of a German chemist in her science show in German TV culminating in using the point that homeopathic preparations cannot be identified in any lab beyond certain dilutions.
@JK
I beg to disagree. From what I see, most people use homeopathy because they are lied to that it actually helps with their health problems.
Wrong. If you decide to use homeopathic products or consult a homeopath because you believe the lies behind homeopathy – i.e. that it actually works, and that homeopaths are knowledgeable about health and sickness – then you are NOT properly informed about it, and there is NO proper consent.
A friend of the family here believed a homeopath when she told him that her treatment with sugar crumbs was bound to work for his fatigue complaints sooner or later, no need to consult a real doctor. Nine months later, the man died as a result of a heart problem that could have been easily diagnosed and fixed, if only he hadn’t listened to this quack lady, and sought out a real doctor right away.
Also, homeopathy is very often promoted for children, who by definition are not capable of giving informed consent. The most dangerous quacks in this category are the ones who not only peddle anti-vaccine lies, but also sell worried parents ‘homeopathic vaccines’ in lieu of real vaccines. One particularly despicable example is one Martin de Munck. From his Web page:
“Another option is homeopathic prophylaxis (HP), the scientifically proven effective alternative to vaccinations.”
This is a huge lie.
“The safety of vaccinations
Short term: Most short term reactions are fairly mild, such as insomnia, screaming, tremors, skin rashes, etc. But we also know that people die as a result of a vaccination or suffer permanent brain damage.“
This is another egregious lie, and illustrates how parents are scared into paying this vile quack for useless sugar crumbs. Parents who believe this charlatan think that this way, their children are protected against potentially deadly diseases – while nothing could be further from the truth. In my opinion, this homeopath is a serious danger to the most vulnerable ones in our society, our children.
So no, homeopathy is not ‘harmless’, and no, its believers are not well-informed. And it is not my problem that people believe the lies of homeopathy, but the problem of those patients who don’t get what they pay for (i.e. an effective treatment), and particularly those children who, unbeknownst to them, are left wholly unprotected against crippling and killer diseases such as polio, diphtheria and measles.
@Richard Rasker
Richard, I’m always amused here when the status quo won’t accept anecdotes as evidence but then turn around and argue their case by noting secondhand anecdotes as evidence.
BTW- I agree with you that in this case, the homeopathic therapy was bad medicine.
Next to pharma meds, sugar is the absolute worst medicine for the heart, worse than fats, worse than seed oils, worse than cholesterol by a mile. The only thing not worse than sugar is a lifestyle than sits in the chair all day. Sugar is the cause of more chronic illness than anything facing our health crisis today. Sugar is NOT medicine, sugar consumption as a lifestyle is toxic.
You are of course correct in your criticism here. This is merely an illustration why homeopaths are lying when they claim that their quackery is inherently harmless.
About the anecdote being second-hand: this is necessarily the case, as first-hand evidence is no longer possible for reasons of the hand in question (and its owner) being dead. Then again, as his symptoms slowly got worse, the quack lady in question had told the man that he “first had to get to the lowest point, to climb back to health from there”(*).
Well he managed the lowest point all right – 6 feet under. Now we’re eagerly awaiting the ‘climbing back’ part …
*: And this is another common lie from homeopaths: not only that things should get worse first, but even that this getting worse is a good sign somehow, indicating that the homeopathic treatment is doing ‘something’ …
Thank you for sharing your opinion Richard Rascal.
With homeopathy increasing in popularity it seems that you are getting rather discombobulated by it all.
For any discombobulation arising i suggest Aconite 30c and Rescue remedy. It is amazing how much a bit of sugar and brandy can help relieve such symptoms.
” *: And this is another common lie from homeopaths: not only that things should get worse first, but even that this getting worse is a good sign somehow, indicating that the homeopathic treatment is doing ‘something’ … ”
Yes, such a pernicious lie.
There has been a very interesting and positive reaction to this from the president of the Medical Association [in German]:
https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20230417_OTS0089/ferenci-homoeopathie-ist-keine-wissenschaft
@Edzard Ferenci is the vice president
but it is true when he claims that Homeopathy is no science. On the other hand the Austrian medical chamber isues diplomas for homeopathy and other non-scientific activities. It is time to scip all this bullshit.
thanks – I stand corrected.