Monthly Archives: June 2024
Post-COVID-19 fatigue is becoming increasingly common as the pandemic evolves. Plenty of so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) are on offer, including homeopathy. But is homeopathy really helpful?
This trial attempted to identify the preliminary evidence of the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) against placebos in the treatment of post-COVID-19 fatigue in adults.
A 3-month, single-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trial was conducted at the outpatient department of The Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, India. Sixty participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either IHMs (n = 30) or identical-looking placebos (n = 30). The primary and secondary outcome measures were the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) and Outcome in Relation to Impact on Daily Living (ORIDL), respectively, measured every month, for up to 3 months. Comparative analysis was carried out on the intention-to-treat sample to detect group differences.
Group differences in both the primary (FAS total: F1, 58 = 14.356, p < 0.001) and secondary outcomes (ORIDL: F1, 58 = 210.986, p < 0.001) after 3 months favored IHMs against placebos. Lycopodium clavatum (11.7%), sulfur (11.7%), Arsenicum album (10%), and Thuja occidentalis (10%) were the most frequently indicated medicines. No harm, unintended effects, homeopathic aggravations, or any serious adverse events were reported from either of the groups.
The authors concluded that IHMs produced significantly better effects than placebos in the treatment of post-COVID-19 fatigue in adults. Definitive robust trials may be undertaken to confirm the findings.
A glance at the authors’ affiliations is, I think, revealing:
- 1Department of Organon of Medicine and Homeopathic Philosophy, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, India.
- 2Department of Pathology and Microbiology, The Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, India.
- 3The Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, India.
- 4Department of Practice of Medicine, The Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, India.
- 5Department of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, India.
We are currently being bombarded with false-positive homeopathy trials from India. Why am I sure that the trial is false-positive? Well, I am not sure, of course. But I have suspicions:
- Homeopathy is not a plausible form of SCAM.
- The most reliable studies fail to show that is is more than a placebo.
- The journal that published this paper is 3rd class; if the findings were valid, they would get published in one of the top science journals.
- The authors were clearly biased and even admitted as much; they stated that they wanted “to identify the preliminary evidence of the efficacy” of IHM. But this is not how unbiased researcher conduct clinical trials. Such investigations are for testing hypotheses and not for identifying effects.
- Most importantly, the trial design is flawed. Even the authors realize this, and the 1st sentence of the conclusions should therefore have been far less definitive.
And what are the main flaws?
As far as I can see they were:
- The sample size was to small for a far-reaching conclusion.
- The study was not double blind. In other words the therapists had the opportunity to exert their influence on the patient to produce the desired outcome. Occam’s Razor demands that we assume this to be the real explanation of the positive effects observed here.
In view of all this, I suggest to change the conclusions as follows:
IHMs produced significantly better effects than placebos in the treatment of post-COVID-19 fatigue in adults which most likely is not due to the efficacy of the treatment applied but to the residual bias not controlled for in this study.
Scientifically implausible treatments are offered by some hospital cancer departments. Examples are reiki, aromatherapy, and reflexology. Salaried practitioners are employed to deliver these therapies, which are provided as palliative care, although they lack evidence of effectiveness. Such practices, Les Rose feels, seem to conflict with efforts to make health care evidence based.
The aims of his survey therefore were:
- to estimate the extent of certain pseudoscientific practices in cancer care departments in NHS hospitals in England,
- and to evaluate the rationale for such provision.
Relevant documents were requested from NHS Trusts under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The main outcome measures were:
- number of trusts offering pseudoscientific practices in cancer departments,
- time to full FOIA response,
- presence and content of practice governance documents,
- presence and quality of evidence for practices.
The results showed that:
- A total of 13.6% of eligible NHS trusts were offering pseudoscientific clinical practices.
- No trust provided a valid business case.
- No trust offered any robust evidence for the practices.
- The governance documents included claims about chakras, meridians, and invisible energy.
- Ten trusts required that informed consent be obtained from patients.
Yet, informed consent, Les argues, could not have been obtained because information given was misleading.
Les concluded that pseudoscientific practices are embedded in the NHS in England, and governance documents show poor understanding of clinical evidence.
This paper is an important contribution to the state of cancer care in England and deserves to get widely known and discussed. It discloses not one but two scandals, in my view.
- The first scandal is the fact that NHS Trusts spend scarce money on nonsense and thus do a significant disservice to vulnerable patients and to us all.
- The second scandal is one that Les is too polite to disclose. Several major journals refused to publish this important wake-up call. Eventually, he had to resort to this somewhat unusual way of self-publishing. I think that all the journal editors who rejected this paper should bow their heads in shame!
The objective of this paper was to review the 10 most recent case reports of cervical spine manipulation and cervical artery dissection for convincing evidence of the causation of cervical artery dissection by cervical spine manipulation. The author, Steven P. Brown, a chiropractor (who is quoted as “the authors have declared that no competing interests exist”), lists the following 10 cases:
Case 1: Yeung et al. (2023) [17]
Yeung et al. [17] reported that a “48-year-old female went to a chiropractor for chronic neck pain and developed right-sided weakness, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting immediately after neck manipulation.” Imaging showed occlusion of the V1 segment of the right vertebral artery and cerebellar stroke.
The adverse event immediately following cervical spine manipulation (CSM) was the cerebellar stroke, not the cerebral artery dissection (CAD). Right-sided weakness, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting are symptoms of cerebellar ischemia, not right VAD. The neck pain prior to the CSM is consistent with a CAD being present prior to CSM, not caused by CSM.
Even if CSM had caused the CAD, it is not biologically possible for a thrombus large enough to occlude the vertebral artery to form immediately [6]. Therefore, the CAD was likely pre-existing to CSM. While an existing thrombus may have been aggravated by the CSM, it was not caused by the CSM. In this case, it is plausible that CSM may have suddenly repositioned an already large thrombus in such a way that it blocked the V1 segment of the right vertebral artery, resulting in thrombotic ischemic stroke from vascular occlusion [26]. The practitioner failed to exclude CAD and performed CSM when it was contraindicated [7]. So, while thrombotic stroke may have been causally related to the CSM, the CAD was not.
Cases 2 and 3: Chen et al. (2022) [18]
Chen et al. [18] reported that “a 51-year-old man with a history of mild hypertension noted new-onset right neck pain two days following chiropractic manipulation.” Imaging revealed dissection of the C3 segment of the right ICA and right-sided stroke.
Chen et al. [18] also reported a second case in which “a 55-year-old man with a history of cigarette smoking, no other cerebrovascular risk factors, received chiropractic cervical manipulation 1 day prior to presentation to the emergency department with new onset of left hemiparesis, facial paralysis, right neck pain, and dysarthria lasting for 5 hours.” Imaging revealed dissection of the C3 segment of the right ICA and right-sided cerebral stroke.
In these two case reports, the symptoms that prompted the patients to seek CSM were not documented. In the first case, neck pain started two days after CSM. In the second case, neck pain started 19 hours after CSM.
In these two cases, there was no adverse event immediately following CSM. As there was no neck pain, headache, or ischemic symptoms noted immediately after CSM, it is not likely that CSM caused the ICA dissection or the stroke. Furthermore, the C3 segment of the ICA is intracranial and has not been identified as an area for strain by CSM.
Case 4: Arning et al. (2022) [19]
Arning et al. [19] reported the case of a 47-year-old female with a two-week history of non-traumatic right neck pain who had increased, severe right neck pain immediately after CSM, and paresis of the right deltoid muscle and hypalgesia in the right C3 and right C4 dermatomes. MRI revealed a dissection of the V2 segment of the right vertebral artery.
The adverse event immediately following CSM was a stroke, not a CAD. Paresis and hypalgesia are symptoms of brain ischemia, not right VAD. The right neck pain prior to the CSM is consistent with a right VAD being present prior to CSM, not caused by CSM.
Prior to CSM, cervical spine disc herniation had been ruled out by MRI. Upon review, the pre-CSM MRI also showed dissection of the right V2 segment, which had initially been overlooked by the radiologist. The practitioner performed CSM when it was contraindicated. Therefore, while the CSM may have caused the ischemic stroke by a thromboembolic mechanism, the CSM did not cause the CAD.
Case 5: Abidoye et al. (2022) [20]
Abidoye et al. [20] reported, “This is a 40-year-old male with a medical history of migraine headaches and cervicalgia, evaluated for a sudden onset of headache, associated with nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, and dizziness, two months after a chiropractic manipulation. He also reported rigorous exercise and sexual intercourse prior to the headache onset. Vital sign is significant for a 10/10, non-radiating right-sided headache. Neurological examination revealed right ptosis and miosis. Labs were unremarkable. CTA of neck showed tapering of the right ICA with near occlusion at the skull base.” No imaging evidence or diagnosis of stroke was documented. However, with ischemic symptoms of nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, dizziness, right ptosis, and right miosis, it is likely that this patient suffered a stroke.
In this case, there was no adverse event immediately following CSM, and the most recent CSM was two months prior to the onset of symptoms. As there was no neck pain, headache, or ischemic symptoms noted immediately after CSM, it is not likely that CSM caused the ICA dissection or the stroke.
The patient’s medical history of neck pain and headaches are risk factors for CAD. If there was existing right ICA dissection, it is plausible that rigorous exercise and sexual intercourse could have dislodged a loosely adherent ICA thrombus and caused immediate stroke by a thromboembolic mechanism. However, this is not possible to determine as the temporality from exercise and intercourse to ischemic symptoms of stroke was vaguely documented as “prior to.”
Case 6: Yap et al. (2021) [21]
Yap et al. [21] reported a 35-year-old male who presented with a two-day history of expressive dysphasia and a one-day history of right-sided weakness. The patient reported having CSM for pain relief sometime in the prior two weeks. Imaging showed left ICA dissection and left middle cerebral artery stroke. The dissected segment of the left ICA was not documented.
In this case, there was no adverse event immediately following CSM. As there was no neck pain, headache, or ischemic symptoms noted immediately after CSM, it is not likely that CSM caused the ICA dissection or the stroke.
Case 7: Xia et al. (2021) [22]
Xia et al. [22] reported a case of a 44-year-old male with chronic neck pain who reported sudden-onset left homonymous hemianopia after CSM a few days prior. The patient reported progression from a left homonymous hemianopia to a left homonymous inferior quadrantanopia. Imaging revealed bilateral VAD at the left V2 and right V3 segments, and right medial occipital lobe stroke. The authors noted that a right posterior communicating artery stroke was likely embolic from the right V3 and left V2 dissections. They also noted that the patient likely had a migrating embolus as evidenced by the progression from a homonymous hemianopia to a quadrantanopia.
The adverse event immediately following CSM was the stroke, not the CAD. Left homonymous hemianopia is a symptom of brain ischemia, not VAD. The neck pain prior to the CSM is consistent with VAD being present prior to CSM, not caused by CSM.
Even if CSM had caused the CAD, it is not biologically possible for a thrombus to instantly form and dislodge to cause sudden-onset thromboembolic stroke [6]. Therefore, the CAD was likely pre-existing to CSM. While an existing thrombus may have been aggravated by the CSM, it was not caused by the CSM. In this case, it is possible that CSM dislodged a loosely adherent vertebral artery thrombus to cause thromboembolic stroke [26]. The practitioner failed to exclude CAD and performed CSM when it was contraindicated [7]. So, while thromboembolic stroke may have been causally related to the CSM, the CAD was not.
Case 8: Lindsay et al. (2021) [23]
Lindsay et al. [23] reported a case of a 47-year-old male who presented with left neck pain and headache. His medical history was notable for dyslipidemia and a cerebellar stroke six years prior. Imaging revealed dissections of the left vertebral artery extending from the origin of the artery to the V3 segment. The patient also had a dissection of his right renal artery. There was no evidence of a stroke.
Six years prior, the patient had presented with a one-week history of left neck pain and headache, as well as left facial numbness and dizziness. The pain was not relieved with ibuprofen and previously been evaluated and treated by a chiropractor. Imaging done six years prior showed no evidence of CAD but did show a left cerebellar stroke.
There is no plausible biological mechanism by which CSM six years prior could cause a current VAD. Therefore, it is not likely that there was a causal relationship between CSM and CAD in this case.
Ultimately, the patient was diagnosed with vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a disorder that causes connective tissue weakness and makes a patient susceptible to arterial dissection. This diagnosis is consistent with the left VAD and right renal artery dissection.
Case 9: Monari et al. (2021) [24]
Monari et al. [24] reported a case of a 39-year-old pregnant female with a history of tension headaches presenting with vertigo, vomiting, nystagmus, dizziness, and hindrance in the execution of fine movements of the right arm. The patient reported having CSM by an osteopathic specialist “in the days preceding the beginning of the symptoms.” Imaging showed a dissection of the V2 segment of the right vertebral artery and a right-sided stroke.
In this case, there was no adverse event immediately following CSM. As there was no neck pain, headache, or ischemic symptoms noted immediately after CSM, it is not likely that CSM caused the right vertebral artery dissection or the stroke. Medical history of headache prior to the CSM is consistent with a VAD being present prior to CSM, not caused by CSM. Pregnancy is also a risk factor for CAD.
Case 10: Ramos et al. (2021) [25]
Ramos et al. [25] reported a case of a 48-year-old female with a history of chronic neck pain who experienced sudden neck pain and generalized weakness during CSM. Imaging showed bilateral VAD and occlusion and bilateral acute cerebellar stroke. There was also tetraplegia noted at the C5 sensory level, C5 and C6 vertebral fracture, spinal cord injury, epidural hematoma, and acute disc herniation.
There is convincing evidence that CSM caused CAD and stroke in this case. This case is exceptional as the CSM was contraindicated by pre-existing cervical spine pathology. Cervical spine bony ankylosis was noted which existed prior to the CSM. The CSM appears to have been a posterior-anterior manipulation of the cervical spine at the level of C5-C6, which was contraindicated due to the presence of the bony ankylosis [27].
The practitioner failed to exclude cervical spine pathology and performed CSM when it was contraindicated. The spinal pathology in this case could have been diagnosed with a cervical spine X-ray examination.
As the Ramos et al. [25] study provided limited case information, a case report from Macêdo et al. [28] provides additional information on this exceptional case.
“A 47-year-old Afro-Brazilian woman with long-standing back pain sought chiropractic care for symptomatic relief. Until then, she had never consulted a doctor to treat her axial pain and was not aware of having any specific spinal pathology. Since childhood, she had a moderate cognitive deficit, which probably compromised her ability to adequately describe the pain and, thus, led the family to seek medical advice. During her last session of spinal manipulation, she mentioned new-onset paresthesia beginning on the upper limbs and progressing to the lower limbs. Her complaint was disregarded, and the session continued, at the end of which she was unable to stand. Urinary retention ensued a little after. The patient was referred to our service only a week after, completely bedridden. Spine MRI revealed a transdiscal fracture at C5-C6, resulting in critical stenosis and compressive myelopathy. CT angiography revealed traumatic thrombosis of the vertebral arteries emerging on this level. Whole spine-imaging evidenced multiple syndesmophytes giving a characteristic bamboo spine appearance, as well as ankylosis in sacroiliac joints, uncovering the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis. She underwent laminectomy from C2 to C6 and arthrodesis from C2 to T2 for spine stabilization but did not recover mobility. Even though a systematic review did not find an increased risk of significant adverse events related to spine manipulation therapy, there have been descriptions of vertebral fracture following a session on patients with ankylosing spondylitis and unsuspected multiple myeloma.”
The author concluded that nine out of the 10 case reports of CSM and CAD did not provide convincing evidence of the causal relationship between CSM and CAD. Only one case report provided convincing evidence of a causal relationship between CAD and CSM. This case was exceptional as the CSM was contraindicated by pre-existing cervical spine pathology. Therefore, we conclude that practitioners of CSM should exclude cervical spine pathology before performing CSM.
I must say that I find it difficult or even impossible to follow most of the arguments of Mr Brown. Do they teach them a different kind of physiology and pathophysiology in chiro-school? Foremost, he seems to think that case-reports can/should establish cause and effect. Do they teach research methodology at all in chiro-school?
Here is what Wiki tells us, for instance:
In medicine, a case report is a detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. Case reports may contain a demographic profile of the patient, but usually describe an unusual or novel occurrence. Some case reports also contain a literature review of other reported cases. Case reports are professional narratives that provide feedback on clinical practice guidelines and offer a framework for early signals of effectiveness, adverse events, and cost.
So, case reports “offer a framework for early signals of adverse events”. To expect that they demonstrate a causal link is ill-informed. Their significance in relation to risks lies mostly in providing a signal, particularly if the signal becomes loud and clear due to numerous repetitions, as is the case in chiropractic manipulations. Once the signal is noted, it needs further investigation to determine its nature. In the absence of conclusive further studies, a signal that has emerged hundreds of times, as in chiropractic, it has to be taken seriously. In fact, the precautionary principle demands that we then assume causality until proven otherwise.
As to the research effort of Mr Brown in assembling 10 case reports, I must say it is frightfully daft for the following reasons:
- Most cases do probably not get connected to a CSM at all.
- Many lead to litigation and are not published.
- In the end, very few get published in the medical literature.
- Being retrospective, they all lack important detail and are thus incomplete.
- None prove causation and only some render it likely.
- A sample size of 10 is laughable.
- Brown’s desire to white-wash chiropractic is plapable.
- So is his naivety.
This study aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention to prevent the recurrence of low back pain.
WalkBack was a two-armed, randomised clinical trial, which recruited adults (aged 18 years or older) from across Australia who had recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain that was not attributed to a specific diagnosis, and which lasted for at least 24 h. Participants were randomly assigned to an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention facilitated by six sessions with a physiotherapist across 6 months or to a no treatment control group (1:1). The randomisation schedule comprised randomly permuted blocks of 4, 6, and 8 and was stratified by history of more than two previous episodes of low back pain and referral method. Physiotherapists and participants were not masked to allocation. Participants were followed for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 36 months, depending on the date of enrolment. The primary outcome was days to the first recurrence of an activity-limiting episode of low back pain, collected in the intention-to-treat population via monthly self-report. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the societal perspective and expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ACTRN12619001134112)
Between Sept 23, 2019, and June 10, 2022, 3206 potential participants were screened for eligibility, 2505 (78%) were excluded, and 701 were randomly assigned (351 to the intervention group and 350 to the no treatment control group). Most participants were female (565 [81%] of 701) and the mean age of participants was 54 years (SD 12). The intervention was effective in preventing an episode of activity-limiting low back pain (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·60–0·85], p=0·0002). The median days to a recurrence was 208 days (95% CI 149–295) in the intervention group and 112 days (89–140) in the control group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was AU$7802, giving a 94% probability that the intervention was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $28 000. Although the total number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event over 12 months was similar between the intervention and control groups (183 [52%] of 351 and 190 [54%] of 350, respectively, p=0·60), there was a greater number of adverse events related to the lower extremities in the intervention group than in the control group (100 in the intervention group and 54 in the control group).
The authors concluded that an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention significantly reduced low back pain recurrence. This accessible, scalable, and safe intervention could affect how low back pain is managed.
Rigorous clinical trials of excercise therapy are difficult to conceive and conduct because of a range of methodological issues. For instance, there is no obvious placebo and thus it is hardly possible to control for placebo effects. Nonetheless, the benefits of exercise therapy for back pain is undoubted. As previously discussed on this blog, a recent systematic review concluded that “the relative benefit of individualized exercise therapy on chronic low back pain compared to other active treatments is approximately 38% which is of clinical importance.”
I have always been convinced of the health benefits of excercise. In fact, 40 years ago, when I did my inaugural lecture at the University of Munich (LMU), excercise was its topic and I concluded that, if exercise were a pharmaceutical product, it would out-sell any drug. The new study only confirms my view. It adds to our knowledge by suggesting that exercise also reduces the risk of recurrences.
Forget about spinal manipulation, acupuncture, etc., despite the undeniable weaknesses in the evidence, exercise is by far the most promissing treatment for back pain
This study tested the efficacy and safety of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) in treating hemorrhoids compared with placebo. The double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the surgery outpatient department of the State National Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Patients were 140 women and men, aged between 18 and 65 years, with a diagnosis of primary hemorrhoids grades I-III for at least 3 months. Excluded were the patients with grade IV hemorrhoids, anal fissure, and fistula, hypertrophic anal papillae, inflammatory bowel disease, coagulation disorders, rectal malignancies, obstructed portal circulation, patients requiring immediate surgical intervention, and vulnerable samples.
Patients were randomized to Group 1 (n = 70; IHMs plus concomitant care; verum) and Group 2 (n = 70; placebos plus concomitant care; control). Primary-the anorectal symptom severity and quality-of-life (ARSSQoL) questionnaire, and secondary-the EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS); all of them were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months.
Out of the 140 randomized patients, 122 were protocol compliant. Intention-to-treat sample (n = 140) was analyzed. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 two tailed. Statistically significant between-group differences were elicited in the ARSSQoL total (Mann-Whitney U [MWU]: 1227.0, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (MWU: 1228.0, p = 0.001) favoring homeopathy against placebos. Sulfur was the most frequently prescribed medicine. No harm or serious adverse events were reported from either of the groups.
The authors concluded that IHMs demonstrated superior results over placebo in the short-term treatment of hemorrhoids of grades I-III. The findings are promising, but need to be substantiated by further phase 3 trials.
Yes, I know: it is not easy to keep a straight face when reading such a paper. And the task is not made easier when considering the affiliations of its authors:
- 1East Bishnupur State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Chandi Daulatabad Block Primary Health Centre, Under Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, India, South 24 Parganas, India.
- 2Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, State National Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Lucknow, India.
- 3Department of AYUSH, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, India.
- 4State National Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Lucknow, India.
- 5Department of Materia Medica, State National Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Lucknow, India.
- 6Department of Pathology & Microbiology, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 7Department of Pathology & Microbiology, Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Howrah, India.
- 8Department of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, India.
Let’s nevertheless ask three serious questions:
- According to classical homeopathy, for a cure, one needs a remedy that, when given to a healthy volunteer, causes the symptom one wants to treat. So, does sulfur etc.cause the symptoms of hemorrhoids?
- According to classical homeopathy, the remedy is supposed to cure the condition, not alleviate the symptoms. Is that what the results show?
- Is it plausible that homeopathy can have any effects on hemorrhoids?
I am confident that the answers are: no, no and no.
And this leads me to ask my final question: do we believe these findings?
I let you answer this one!
I am sure that I am not the only one who has occasionally wondered what political orientation is associated with a high level of SCAM-use. Surprisingly, there is very little research on this question. This study is one of the rare ones (if not the only one) that has looked into the issue. It investigated whether individual political orientation (PO) predicts the use of conventional (CM) and SCAM across Europe.
Cross-sectional samples representative of persons aged 15 and over from 19 European countries were used (ESS 2015; round 7; N = 35,572). PO assessments were based on participants’ vote choice in the most recent national election, using expert ratings of party positioning along five political-ideological dimensions: left-right general; left-right economic; Green/alternative/libertarian vs. Traditional/authoritarian/nationalist; anti-elite; and anti-corruption. Use of CM was defined as having consulted a general practitioner or specialist, and use of SCAM as having used acupuncture, acupressure, Chinese medicine, homeopathy, herbal treatment, hypnotherapy, or spiritual healing.
The results suggested that individual political orientation predicted not only the use of SCAM treatments but also the use of CM. While the traditional left-right axis did not predict either category of service use, the political orientation that was relevant was one focused on corruption. People who voted for political parties with salient anti-corruption agendas were less likely to seek CM and more likely to use SAM. In addition, voters of parties that prefer expanded personal freedoms—such as access to abortion, same-sex marriage, greater democratic participation—were more likely to use SCAM than other Europeans. People in poor health tended to use CM regardless of their political leanings: a relationship between anti-corruption and CM usage was observed onlu among people who were in good health. By contrast, health status did not affect the links between political orientation and SCAM.
The authors concluded that their study shows that the political dimensions relevant for health behaviors do not align primarily along the traditional left-right axis in Europe. The results suggest that the lay public may not necessarily see conventional healthcare as a politically neutral enterprise, and that SCAM providers may be serving needs that are unmet by conventional medicine. The results further suggest that perceptions of corruption among the lay public are more relevant for healthcare usage than has been acknowledged. An important question for future research is how the association between concerns about corruption and reluctance to seek conventional biomedical care is best explained.
I must admit I am surprised by some of these findings. Before we seek an explanation, I feel, we ought to have an independent replication of the results.
Perhaps, the associations are much more complex. I have the impression, for instance, that they depend not only on the country but also on the specific SCAM in question. If I had to guess, I’d say, for example, that:
- German naturopathy is associated with conservative politics;
- British homeopathy is associated with liberal politics;
- French homeopathy is associated with conservative politics;
- US chiropractic is associated with right wing politics;
- Austrian acupuncture is associated with left wing politics;
But these are truly wild guesses!
If anyone has some factual information, I’d like to see it, please.
In a recent comment, our resident chiro, ‘Dr.’ Dale Thompson (alias ‘DC’), in an attempt to provide a rationale for the approach, provided a link to a definition of MAINTENANCE CARE:
Maintenance care is care given to people with chronic illnesses to maintain or slow a decline in their health or function. For example, exercise and physical therapy can minimize abnormal or painful positioning of the joints and may prevent or delay curvature of the spine in a person with muscular dystrophy.
Let’s for the moment ignore that this definition is not necessarily related to CHIROPRACTIC maintenance care and assume it describes the approach adequately. In this case, chiropractic maintenance care would be:
care given to people with chronic illnesses to maintain or slow a decline in their health or function.
That sounds almost reasonable and is very different from what I recently implied it is, namely sly scare mongering of greedy chiros to fleece vulnerable individuals.
So, who is closer to the truth, Dale or Edzard?
How is chiropractic maintenance care employed in ‘real life’?
One way of finding out might be to look at social media and see how chiropractic maintenance care is being promoted or written about. Here are the texts of recent Tweets that I found on 23/6 informing us on this issue:
- Chiropractic care encompasses three main phases: 1. Acute / Intensive Care 2. Healing / Corrective Care 3. Wellness / Maintenance Care
- Maintenance is key! Once you’ve completed your care plan, routine chiropractic visits can help keep you feeling your best. Think of it as preventative maintenance for your body; you deserve it!
- Chiropractic maintenance care now encompasses all sorts of patients; no matter their history, symptoms or reasons for seeking a chiropractor
- Chiropractic care goes beyond back pain relief! It’s all about proactive health maintenance, not just reactive illness treatment. Discover the pathway to a healthier, more balanced life
- Understanding the proper documentation and coding of maintenance care in your office will help you sleep better at night knowing you are doing this correctly.
- Staying well with chiropractic has never been easier! Researchers have discovered that people who receive maintenance chiropractic care have better long term outcomes and may even be able to prevent future episodes of back pain. Interested in learning more? Give us a call today.
- Researchers have discovered that people who receive maintenance chiropractic care have better long term outcomes and may even be able to prevent future episodes of back pain. Interested in learning more? Give us a call today!
- Many patients willingly choose to keep getting regular, maintenance Chiropractic care. Just like going to the dentist periodically, spinal hygiene and chiropractic adjustments are part of a healthy lifestyle.
- Consider your body as a biological machine, just like a car needing maintenance. Chiropractic care at The Joint provides essential upkeep, not just alleviating existing pain but also preventing future discomfort.
- We advocate regular maintenance Chiropractic care to keep your spine and posture in as great shape as possible. If you have not been to the clinic for a while, why not call our reception team
- When you finally get that special car you always wanted; you don’t want to trust just anybody for care & maintenance. The same is true with your healthcare.
- Around 22 million Americans turn to chiropractic care each year for pain relief, holistic healing, and preventive maintenance! Experience natural, non-invasive solutions that keep you feeling your best. Discover the benefits today!
- We believe in the beauty of regular maintenance care. Nurture your well-being & witness the transformative difference in your life
- Chiropractic and Maintenance Care “Do I need to keep coming back for treatment to prevent this from happening again?” This method of chiropractic care is known as Maintenance care.
- If you are wanting to improve your overall quality of life. Maintenance care is very important
- Chiropractic “discharge” plans are always something else. “Patient has no pain or complaints and is released from regular chiropractic care. She is recommended to return 4x/mo for maintenance care“. I’m not sure there is a profession that I think less of.
I ought to stress that most of these Tweets were accompanied by pictures of patients receiving spinal manipulations.
Who then is correct, Dale or Edzard?
I let you decide.
An article in ‘METRO’ caught my eye – not least because it quotes me. Here are a few edited excerpts:
Peter Stott lost his first wife to cancer in 1998. Her death, he believes, was due to geopathic stress (GS) – harmful energies that originate from the Earth. ‘I found out that the house where we had lived had a serious GS problem,’ he says. The discovery prompted him to become a professional ‘dowser’, devoting his life to finding and managing geopathic stress.
But what exactly is this mysterious force erupting from the surface of the Earth – and can it really harm people?Geopathic stress is said to cause discomfort and health issues for certain individuals. These energies, also called ‘harmful Earth rays’ by believers, can be detrimental, beneficial or neutral according to those who think they are ‘in the know’.
The word ‘geopathic’ is derived from the Greek words ‘Geo’ meaning the Earth and ‘pathos’, meaning disease or suffering – hence the term pathogens, the medical terms for bugs that make us ill.
Dowsing, practitioners say, is a method used to detect the presence of various subtle Earth energies and assess their nature and quality. They argue that some of these energies can be linked to geomagnetic anomalies caused by flowing underground water, dry faults and fissures, subterranean cavities, or mineral and crystal deposits.
Dowsing is carried out by a dowser, practitioners who try to find the source of these energies using special tools, such as pendulums, rods, and bobbers – essentially sexed-up tree branches. The person holds the tool, waiting for it to move or react, which they take as a sign that they’ve found what they’re looking for. The odd practice can allegedly also be used to identify leaks, stress fractures, environmental pollutants, electromagnetic fields, nutritional deficiencies, black spots, and, rather oddly, sexing pigeons.
Peter claims that a skilled dowser effectively advises on the optimal placement of buildings and structures to mitigate the impact of geopathic stress, and often possesses the ability to reduce or eliminate it through the use of various methods. He emphasises the fact that GS ‘does not affect everybody in the same way. Cancer has been described as “a disease of location”,’ he says. ‘And if there is a family history of cancer – as there was in my late wife’s case – a person can be more susceptible to GS being a contributing factor in succumbing to the disease.’ Peter believes that GS impacts our immune system, depleting its resources and hindering its ability to function optimally. By eliminating GS from our surroundings, we allow our immune system to operate more efficiently, he contends. Our susceptibility to GS varies, he says, with some experiencing mild symptoms like sleep disturbances and fatigue, while others may face more severe health issues such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis and cancer.
In 2017, rather incredibly, a report revealed that 10 out of 12 water companies in the UK were employing the practice of water dowsing to identify and locate leaks. Even more incredibly, last year, it emerged that Thames Water and Severn Trent Water were still using this form of ‘witchcraft’ for leak detection, despite scientific research indicating its lack of efficacy.
But water companies aren’t the only ones turning to dowsers for help. Peter believes that ‘it is also possible to carry a token or amulet on your person that has been imbued with the powers of protection by someone who is proficient in [dowsing]’. ‘This can protect you from GS and other detrimental energies wherever you go anywhere throughout the world,’ he claims. ‘Other protection techniques can also offer a degree of protection.’
However, Dr Edzard Ernst, a man who has dedicated years of his life to examining questionable, science-based claims, won’t be enlisting the services of a GS specialist or house healer anytime soon. ‘Geopathic stress cannot cause health problems for the simple reason that it does not exist,’ says the retired physician. ‘It is a sly invention of quacks who exploit gullible consumers. The methods to diagnose GS are as bogus as the ones that allegedly treat it. But the quacks don’t mind – as long as the consumer pays.’
Peter fully acknowledges ‘that dowsing and this work in general is not a catch-all solution for every ailment or every person’s situation’. ‘However, often we are approached by people who are “at the end of their tether” due to their exasperation of experiencing events or circumstances in their lives that are not well catered for in the mainstream wellbeing sector,’ he says. ‘I can only speak personally, I cannot speak for the possibly tens of thousands of dowsers around the world. If our work can help ease a person’s experience of life then that is a good enough reason to continue to help where I can’. He adds that ‘we are never going to change the minds of people like Dr Edzard Ernst’, someone ‘who seems to focus exclusively on debunking anything for which there is not a scientific explanation’. Moreover, science, he notes, ‘is moving on with research done into quantum physics and the theory that everything in the universe is connected and is also accessible to everyone’.
_________________________
Oh, dear Peter!
Perhaps you should learn the difference between critical evaluation and debunking (this ‘debunker’ has shown more forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to be worthy of integrating into the NHS than anyone else).
Perhaps you should read up about the difference between evidence and belief?
And perhaps the chapter on dowsing in my book could help you in this endeavour:
Dowsing is a common but unproven method for divining water and other materials. In alternative medicine, it is sometimes used as a technique for diagnosing diseases or the causes of health problems.
-
-
- Dowsers employ a motor automatism, amplified through a pendulum, divining rod or similar device. The effect is that the device seemingly provides an independent, visible reaction, while the dowser is, in fact, its true cause.
- Dowsing is used by some homeopaths as an aid to prescribe the optimal remedy and as a tool for identify a miasm or toxin load.
- The assumptions upon which dowsing is based lack plausibility.
- Dowsing has not often been submitted to clinical trials.
- All rigorous attempts to test water dowsing have failed, and it is no longer considered a viable method for this purpose.
- The only randomized double-blind trial that has tested whether homeopaths are able to distinguish between a homeopathic remedy and placebo by dowsing failed to show that it is a valid method. Its authors (well-known homeopaths) drew the following conclusion: “These results, wholly negative, add to doubts whether dowsing in this context can yield objective information.”[1]
- If dowsing is employed for differentiating between truly effective treatments (rather than homeopathic remedies), the risk of false choices would be intolerably high, and serious harm would inevitably be the result.
-
We have recently heard much about spinal manipulations for kids. It might therefore be relevant to learn about an international taskforce of clinician-scientists formed by specialty groups of World Physiotherapy – International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) & International Organisation of Physiotherapists in Paediatrics (IOPTP) – to develop evidence-based practice position statements directing physiotherapists clinical reasoning for the safe and effective use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations (<18 years) with varied musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions.
A three-stage guideline process using validated methodology was completed: 1. Literature review stage (one scoping review, two reviews exploring psychometric properties); 2. Delphi stage (one 3-Round expert Delphi survey); and 3. Refinement stage (evidence-to-decision summative analysis, position statement development, evidence gap map analyses, and multilayer review processes).
Evidence-based practice position statements were developed to guide the appropriate use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations. All were predicated on clinicians using biopsychosocial clinical reasoning to determine when the intervention is appropriate.
1. It is not recommended to perform:
• Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants.
• Cervical and lumbar spine manipulation on children.
•Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants, children, and adolescents for non-musculoskeletal paediatric conditions including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, infantile colic, nocturnal enuresis, and otitis media.
2. It may be appropriate to treat musculoskeletal conditions including spinal mobility impairments associated with neck-back pain and neck pain with headache utilising:
• Spinal mobilisation and manipulation on adolescents;
• Spinal mobilisation on children; or
• Thoracic manipulation on children for neck-back pain only.
3. No high certainty evidence to recommend these interventions was available.
Reports of mild to severe harms exist; however, risk rates could not be determined.
It was concluded that specific directives to guide physiotherapists’ clinical reasoning on the appropriate use of spinal manipulation or mobilisation were identified. Future research should focus on trials for priority conditions (neck-back pain) in children and adolescents, psychometric properties of key outcome measures, knowledge translation, and harms.
Whether one agrees with these directions or not (and I am not sure I fully do), I have always thought that people who, despite the largely lacking or flimsy evidence for spinal manipulations, insist on having manual therapy should consult a physiotherapist, rather than a chiropractor or osteopath.
Why?
Because, in my experience, physiotherapist:
- display less cult-dependent behaviours,
- do not follow the gospel of charlatans, like Palmer and Still,
- do not believe in the fiction of subluxation,
- are not so money-minded,
- less prone to use un- or disproven methods, like applied kinesiology, homeopathy, cranial osteopathy, etc.,
- unlikely to try to sell you useless dietary supplements,
- tend to judge better their limits of professional competence,
- are far less likely to try to persuade you of BS related to anti-vax, anti-drug, anti-science, anti-EBM, etc.
‘Chiropractic economics’ might be when chiropractors manipulate their bank accounts or tax returns, I thought. But, no, it is a publication! And a weird one at that – it even promotes the crazy idea of maintenance care:
The concept of chiropractic maintenance care has evolved significantly. Initially seen as a method for managing chronic pain, it now includes a broader range of patients and focuses on overall wellness. Modern maintenance care aims to keep patients healthy regardless of their symptoms or history, alleviating and preventing pain through regular, prolonged care. This approach is largely preventive, serving as both secondary and tertiary care. Studies show chiropractic maintenance care often includes diverse treatments such as manual therapy, stress management, nutrition advice and more, with flexible intervals typically around three months. This evolution underscores the importance of evidence-based, individualized patient care. This article shares the evolution of chiropractic maintenance care, looks at what a modern maintenance care appointment can include and explores best practices for DC maintenance care in 2024.
An interview study of Danish chiropractic care showed maintenance care sessions included a range of treatment modalities, including manual treatment and ordinary examinations alongside multiple packages of holistic additions, like stress management, diet, weight loss, advice on ergonomics, exercise and more. In other anecdotal accounts, chiropractic maintenance care seemed to follow a more traditional guideline of lower back pain management and adjustment. The study hypothesized that maintenance care could also help patients from a knowledge perspective, stating, “DCs could obviously play an important role here as ‘back pain coaches,’ as the long-term relationship would ensure knowledge of the patient and trust towards the DC.”
Researchers found that three-month intervals were the most common spacing of maintenance care treatments for patients. Most commonly, patients sought or scheduled chiropractic maintenance care over the course of one to three months.
Chiropractic maintenance care has evolved past simply being a method of ongoing chronic pain management. Today’s patients want to achieve overall wellness, and regular trips to their DC can become a part of that if you work to transition patients into a wellness plan after their acute phase of care is over.
_____________________________
The author of this article seems to have forgotten two little details:
- Chiropractic maintenance care is not supported by sound evidence, particularly in relation to economics (even the above cited paper stated: “We found no studies of cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Care”).
- Chiropractic maintenance only serves one economic purpose: it boosts the chiropractors’ income.
Yes, easy to forget, particularly if your name is ‘Chiropractic Economics’.
And also easy to forget that maintenance care would, of course, require informed consent. How would that look like?
Chiro (C) to patient (P):
If you agree, we will start a program that we call maintenance care.
P: Can you explain?
C: It consists of regular sessions of spinal manipulations.
P: That’s all?
C: No, I will also give you advice on keeping fit and living healthily.
P: Why do I need that?
C: It’s a bit like servicing your car so that it works reliably when you need it.
P: Is it proven to work?
C: Yes, of course, there are tons of evidence to show that a healthy life style is good for you.
P: I know, but I don’t need a chiro for that – what I meant do the manipulations keep my body healthy even if I have no symptoms?
C: The evidence is not really great.
P: And the risks?
C: Well, yes, if I’m honest, spinal manipulations can cause harm.
P: So, to be clear: you ask me to agree to a program that has no proven benefit and might cause harm?
C: I would not put it like that.
P: And how much would it cost?
C: Not much; just a couple of hundred per year.
P: Thanks – but no thanks.
