Monthly Archives: December 2024
The year 2024 brought many disappointments. But let’s not dwell on those, lets get in the mood for tonights celebrations! And what could be more fitting for that than a review of the positive cardiovascular effects of wine drinking? After all wine involves both aromatherapy as well as antioxidants, botanical medicine and naturopathy! As luck would have it, we even have some recent evidence on this very subject.
The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were:
- (i) to examine the association between wine consumption and cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and coronary heart disease (CHD),
- (ii) to analyse whether this association could be influenced by personal and study factors, including the participants’ mean age, the percentage of female subjects, follow-up time and percentage of current smokers.
The searched several databases for longitudinal studies from their inception to March 2023.
A total of 25 studies were included in the systematic review, and 22 could be included the meta-analysis. The pooled risk ration (RR) for the association of wine consumption and the risk of CHD using the DerSimonian and Laird approach was 0.76 (95% CIs: 0.69, 0.84), for the risk of CVD was 0.83 (95% CIs: 0.70, 0.98), and for the risk of cardiovascular mortality was 0.73 (95% CIs: 0.59, 0.90).
The authors concluded that their research revealed that wine consumption has an inverse relationship to cardiovascular mortality, CVD, and CHD. Age, the proportion of women in the samples, and follow-up time did not influence this association. Interpreting these findings with prudence was necessary because increasing wine intake might be harmful to individuals who are vulnerable to alcohol because of age, medication, or their pathologies.
What, you suspect that this paper was sponsored by the wine industry?
No, you are mistaken! It was funded by FEDER funds, by a grant from the University of Castilla-La Mancha, and by a grant from the science, innovation and universities.
So, maybe just for tonight we put the worries about our livers aside and enjoy a (non-homeopathic) dose of wine.
Cheers!
Two fatalities have been reported evidently caused by Thai massage. Thai singer Chayada Prao-hom, also known as Ping Chayada, 20, died in a hospital in the northeastern city of Udon Thani on December 8 after claiming she was left paralysed by a series of three “neck-twisting” massage sessions. Ping Chayada posted a poignant final message on social media as she battled ill-health following the massage: “The first time I got a massage, my symptoms were normal. I went for another massage, the same therapist in the same room, this time twisting my neck. After two weeks, I started to have very, very tight pain to the point that I couldn’t lie on my back or stomach. I’ve been learning massage since I was a child. I really like massage. I thought it was just another side effect of the massage, this kind of body pain. I went again. But this new person massaged hard and it was swollen and bruised for a week. After that, I took medicine to relieve the symptoms all the time.” The talented star died on Sunday December 8.
Just a day earlier, on December 7, a male Singaporean tourist, 52-year-old Lee Mun Tuk, died in Phuket after a 45-minute oil body massage – following which he reportedly went into cardiac arrest and could not be revived.
Harnelis, a massage therapist with the White Swallow Massage School in the city of Medan in neighbouring Indonesia, said that, while the deaths were tragic, they were not surprising. “Neck and back massage is inherently dangerous and deals with the most vulnerable part of the body,” she said. “You can’t do it carelessly, you have to do it keeping in mind where all the veins and blood vessels are. If you get it wrong, it can be fatal.”
Singer Prao-hom wrote that she had endured two “neck-twisting” sessions and a “heavy handed” third massage at a local parlour before experiencing numbness which spread through her body. She reportedly first went to the parlour, which had the required certification under Thai law, to relieve stiffness in her neck, but found that her symptoms continued to worsen. She was rushed to intensive care but died just two weeks later. Following an autopsy, her cause of death was listed as sepsis, a swollen spinal cord and a fungal infection.
The death of the singer has sparked an urgent investigation by the Thai Department of Health Service Support (DHSS). In the meantime, medical experts are warning of the dangers posed by violent manoeuvres given by poorly trained or unlicensed practitioners.
Thai massage is a widely used massage technique in Thailand and is accepted by the Thai Ministry of Public Health. The technique can be described to be a kind of acupressure massage. Even though there is very little reliable evidence, it is said to be effective for a wide range of conditions, e.g.:
Increased range of motion. Thai massage combines compression, acupressure, and passive stretching. These increase the range of motion in your joints and muscles. This can also improve your posture.
Helps with back pain. Thai massage tends to focus on areas that can contribute to back pain, like the inner thigh and abdomen. However, if you have constant back pain, it’s best to visit a doctor before getting any type of massage.
Reduces headache intensity. One study showed that nine sessions of traditional Thai massage in a 3-week period can reduce painful headaches in people who have chronic tension headaches or migraines.
Lowers stress. In another study, researchers showed that Thai massage reduced stress, especially when combined with plenty of rest.
Helps stroke patients. A 2012 study suggested that stroke patients who get Thai massage regularly may be better able to recover the ability to do daily activities. They may also have lower pain levels and sleep better.
Other benefits of Thai massage may include:
- Better sleep
- Better relaxation
- Improved digestion
- Calm mind or increased mindfulness
As always with such news reports, many essential details are missing for the two cases reported above. What seems obvious, however, is that the massage itself, even tough occasionally forceful, is not the main danger of Thai massage. The fatal complications seem to occur after spinal manipulation and are thus akin to the ones of chiropractic manipulations.
So-called alternatve medicine (SCAM) and the anti-vaccination conspiracy are – as we have seen so often here – closely related. Therefore, I feel that the case of Daniel Armstrong, a 35-year-old consultant psychiatrist, is worth reporting. Dr. Armstrong has been struck off the UK medical register for his promotion of conspiracy theories about COVID vaccinations. The allegation that has led to Dr Armstrong’s GMC hearing can be summarised as follows:
that on 17 July 2023, he published a video online in which he identified himself as a doctor and used his position as a doctor to promote his opinion. It is alleged that Dr Armstrong’s conduct undermined public health information and public confidence in the medical profession.
The GMC tribumal found that he undermined public health information and confidence in the medical profession questioning the safety and effectiveness of Covid vaccines, which he claimed were at the heart of a grand deception.
‘I am using my doctor title, my registration under the GMC in the UK, to bring you this message about what the truth is, but also highlight the deception,’ Armstrong said in a near two-hour video entitled Navigating the Truth-Deception Reality.
‘We are being lied to on a cosmic scale, a global scale, and there is a huge agenda why they are lying to us. In essence, you know that you were lied to.
‘Whether you took the jab or not, they lied to us all. They said it was safe and effective, and they couldn’t have known whether it was safe or effective.
‘They couldn’t have known after three months.
‘My message is clear to everyone: don’t take any more. You’ve a doctor here, he’s got his licence on the line – given it up. Don’t take any more of the injections. These guys are evil.’
The GMC panel concluded that the doctor’s words ranged beyond free speech, drawing on an ‘outlandish’ rationale and ‘inflammatory and emotive words’ to justify ‘unprofessional and unacceptable conduct’.
‘The tribunal recognized that Dr Armstrong has a right to express himself freely, to hold his opinions and share them with others,’ said the panel.
‘However… the opinions advanced could be described as “scaremongering”, in that they contained clear and unambiguous assertions that Covid vaccines are not safe and instruction/ direction that people should not take them.
‘He asserted that the public has been deceived, but the tribunal found that much of the rationale relied upon by Dr Armstrong to support his opinions is outlandish and bears no obvious relationship to medicine or medical research.
‘The opinions included representations of wholesale deceit by the pharmaceutical industry, and statements about collusion between that industry and other authorities.’
In the concluding minutes of his video, Armstrong branded big pharma ‘a big con’ and referred to the GMC as ‘scumbags’.
Was the GMC’s decision justified?
Even though I twice served as their expert, I am not always a friend of the GMC. On this occasion, however, I agree with them – I just hoped that they would also apply the same logic to their members who promote dangerous SCAMs.
The use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is popular among cancer patients. SCAM includes vitamins, minerals, phytotherapy, homeopathy, nutritional supplements and probiotics. SCAM use may lead to unwanted risks by interacting with anticancer drugs; therefore, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of SCAM use by their patients. This article describes the prevalence and potential risk of SCAM use in an adult Dutch cancer population. This is the first study in which SCAM use was investigated using medication reconciliation.
A descriptive, observational study was conducted at Amsterdam UMC between August 2021 and July 2022. Data regarding the use of SCAM was obtained by medication reconciliation reviews with inpatients and outpatients with cancer who received systemic anticancer treatment. Acquired data were evaluated by the research team, and the risks of interactions were classified into relevant, potential, unknown or no interaction. Ultimately, patient-specific recommendations on the use of SCAM were provided.
Of the 100 included patients, 73% used SCAM during the past year and 41% used SCAM actively while receiving anticancer treatment. The most common SCAMs were vitamins and multivitamins (both 28%). Some 10% of SCAM were classified as having a relevant interaction with one or more concurrently used anticancer drugs. No association between age or gender and SCAM use was found, while outpatients used significantly more SCAM than inpatients (72.7% vs 32.1%; p=0.001). Patients received personalised advice from the hospital pharmacy about their SCAM use.
The authors conclused that more than 40% of oncology patients investigated in this study used SCAM while receiving anticancer treatment, leading to unwanted risks. This prevalence is higher than reported in other studies, possibly due to the use of medication reconciliation interviews. To guarantee safety and efficacy of anticancer treatment, communication between healthcare professionals and patients about SCAM is essential.
I concur wholeheartedly with the authors’ conclusions. In fact, I have warned about the dangers of SCAM-cancer drug interactions for about 30 years.
Did my warnings have any effects?
I am sad to say that probably they resulted in very little.
Findings like the above beg the question: WHY DO CANCER PATIENTS USE SCAM?
One answer is that they a desperate, and I entirely understand and sympathise with their fear. But patients should realise that the risks of using SCAM is not offset by any benefit.
The authors of the above investigation state that the most frequently reason for using SCAM was the hope for an improvement in the immune system. But – as pointed out many times on this blog – SCAM cannot not do that. Yes, it is often advertised for this purpose, but such claims are bogus.
No SCAM improves the natural history of any cancer and many SCAMs have the potential do make it worse. Those SCAM entrepreneurs who claim otherwise are, in my view, criminal. And those patients who fall for their bogus claims surely deserve better.
This study examined individual correlates of beliefs in the efficacy of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). In all, 2126 adults were tested, and the results showed significant correlates for the following variables:
- sex,
- political ideology,
- religious beliefs (strongest correlation, r = 0.28 ),
- belief on Life after Death (strongest correlation, r = 0.32),
- optimism (strongest correlation, r = 0.20).
A regression that accounted for 17% of the variance indicated that females more than males; more religious rather than less religious, more politically conservative rather than liberal; more those who believed rather than did not believe in the afterlife; and those who rated themselves as more rather than less optimistic believe in the efficacy of SCAM.
Not significantly related to beliefs about SCAM were:
- age,
- degree status,
- self-esteem.
The authors state that perhaps the most original finding in their study was the relatively strong relationship between self-rated optimism and the belief in SCAM. Some may see this as naivety that only optimistic people could believe in the efficacy of SCAM given the lack of evidence. Equally, if optimism is the opposite of fatalism, it may be that optimists are happy to pin their hopes on any new treatment.
The question ‘WHO BELIEVES IN SCAM’ is of obvious interest. Yet, it also is complex. We have previously discussed some of the correlaaates, and many but not all confirm the findings of this investigarion. Interesting variables that were not studies in this study include:
- IQ,
- belief in conspiracy theories,
- rationality,
- gullibility,
- emotionality,
- mistrust,
- science literacy,
- and many other variables.
One does not need to be a genius to predict that these correlations would vary according to country, cultural environment and – perhaps most importantly – the type of SCAM.
It’s the season to be jolly!
But there seems to be so little to be jolly about!
No worries – I found something that will surely make you laugh out loud.
This article by Iurii Titarenko (PhD in Psychology, Private Scientific Institution “Scientific and Research University of Medical and Pharmaceutical Law”; European Academy of Digital Medical Technologies – “Re-Generation” Center, Ukraine) is the best comic relief Santa can offer:
Bioresonance therapy is a cutting-edge approach that uses electromagnetic waves to restore the body’s natural bioelectric balance and activate inherent self-healing mechanisms. It is steadily gaining recognition across diverse medical fields – ranging from allergology and neurology to metabolic disorders and oncology.
This article examines the clinical outcomes associated with employing bioresonance for the treatment and support of various patient groups, including those with allergies, autoimmune conditions (notably those related to Lyme disease), metabolic imbalances, chronic pain, depression, cancer, and other health challenges.
Of particular importance is the therapy’s demonstrated effectiveness in alleviating allergic reactions, stabilizing metabolic processes, managing neurological conditions, and mitigating the adverse effects of conventional cancer treatments. Beyond these benefits, bioresonance not only enhances patients’ overall well-being, but also complements traditional therapies by improving their outcomes, minimizing side effects, and hastening recovery. It has shown promise as a means to refine and optimize existing treatment regimens, thereby paving the way for more comprehensive patient care. The article also highlights the method’s potential applications in routine medical practice and emphasizes the necessity of further clinical trials to identify optimal therapeutic parameters and clarify its mechanisms of action.
Bioresonance therapy could become a crucial adjunct to traditional medical strategies, substantially improving patients’ quality of life. As ongoing research continues to elucidate its role, incorporating bioresonance into integrated treatment plans may broaden therapeutic horizons, enabling personalized, preventive, and more effective healthcare solutions for the future.
For those who do not know much about bioresonance, let me just confirm that is pure nonsense. One of the best tests of bioresonance is this one. Its results show that bioresonance:
- failed to diagnose serious diseases in the patients,
- gave a clean bill of health to a corpse,
- diagnosed a host of health risks in healthy volunteers,
- produced variable results for a sample of liver pate as well as a wet towel with standard deviations for repeated tests exceeding 200%,
- was unable to differentiate between a wet towel and the healthy volunteers.
But such findings did not stop the author of the above paper to arrive at his pseudo-scientific conclusion:
Bioresonance therapy is a promising method that opens up new opportunities in the treatment and support of patients with various diseases …
Needless to mention that he does not supply any reliable evidence for his outlandish claims.
(Mainly, I guess, because there is no such evidence)
The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has signed a memorandum of understanding with NHS England, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to collaborate where there is suspected criminal activity on the part of a GCC member in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making.
I find this interesting and most laudable!
But I also have seven questions, e.g.:
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor explains that the patient’s problem is caused by a subluxation of the spine, an entity that does not even exist? Apparently this happens every day.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor treats a patient without prior informed consent? Apparently, this happens regularly.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor fails to warn a patient that his/her manipulations can cause harm and even put him/her in a wheelchair? Apparently this (the lack of warning) happens all the time, and some chiropractors even insist that their manipulations are entirely safe.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor claims that spinal manipulations are effective for curing the patient’s problem, while the evidence does not support the claim? Apparently this happens more often than not.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor persuades a patient to have expensive long-term maintenance therapy for preventing health problems, while the evidence for that appoach is less than convincing? Apparently this happens rather frequently.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if the chiropractor issues advice that is both outside his/her competence and detrimental to the health of the patient (for instance, advising parents not to vaccinate their kids)? Apparently this happens a lot.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor advises a patient not to do what a real doctor told him/her to do? Apparently this is far from a rare occurance.
I would be most grateful, if the GCC would take the time to answer the above questions.
Many thanks in advaance.
The objective of this paper, as stated by its authors, was to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) through a broad-based consensus process on best practices for chiropractic management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain.
Using systematic reviews identified in an initial literature search, a steering committee of experts in research and management of patients with chronic MSK pain drafted a set of recommendations. Additional supportive literature was identified to supplement gaps in the evidence base. A multidisciplinary panel of experienced practitioners and educators rated the recommendations through a formal Delphi consensus process using the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles, methodology.
The Delphi process was conducted January–February 2020. The 62-member Delphi panel reached consensus on chiropractic management of five common chronic MSK pain conditions:
- low-back pain (LBP),
- neck pain,
- tension headache,
- osteoarthritis (knee and hip),
- fibromyalgia.
Recommendations were made for non-pharmacological treatments, including:
- acupuncture,
- spinal manipulation/mobilization,
- other manual therapy;
- low-level laser (LLL);
- interferential current;
- exercise, including yoga;
- mind–body interventions, including mindfulness meditation and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT);
- lifestyle modifications such as diet and tobacco cessation.
Recommendations covered many aspects of the clinical encounter, from informed consent through diagnosis, assessment, treatment planning and implementation, and concurrent management and referral. Appropriate referral and comanagement were emphasized.
Therapeutic recommendations for low back pain:
- Consider multiple approaches. Both active and passive, and both physical and mind–body interventions should be considered in the management plan. The following are recommended, based on current evidence.
- Exercise
- Yoga/qigong (which may also be considered “mind–body” interventions)
- Lifestyle advice to stay active; avoid sitting; manage weight if obese; and quit smoking
- Spinal manipulation/mobilization
- Massage
- Acupuncture
- LLL therapy
- Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or interferential current may be beneficial as part of a multimodal approach, at the beginning of treatment to assist the patient in becoming or remaining active.
- Combined active and passive: multidisciplinary rehabilitation
- CBT
- Mindfulness-based stress reduction
Therapeutic recommendations for neck pain:
- Consider multiple approaches. Both active and passive, and both physical and mind–body interventions should be considered in the management plan for maximum therapeutic effect. The following are recommended, based on current evidence.
- Exercise (range of motion and strengthening).
- Exercise combined with manipulation/mobilization.
- Spinal manipulation and mobilization
- Massage
- Low-level laser
- Acupuncture
- These modalities may be added as part of a multimodal treatment plan, especially at the beginning, to assist the patient in becoming or remaining active:
- Transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS), traction, ultrasound, and interferential current.
- Yoga
- Qigong
Therapeutic recommendations for tension headache:
- Consider multiple approaches. Both active and passive, and both physical and mind–body interventions should be considered in the management plan for maximum therapeutic effect. The following are recommended, based on current evidence:
- Reassurance that TTH does not indicate presence of a disease.
- Advice to avoid triggers.
- Exercise (aerobic).
- Spinal manipulation
- Acupuncture
- Cold packs or menthol gels
- Combined active and passive
- CBT
- Relaxation therapy
- Biofeedback
- Mindfulness Meditation
Therapeutic recommendations for knee osteoarthritis:
- Consider multiple approaches. Both active and passive, and both physical and mind–body interventions should be considered in the management plan. The following are recommended, based on current evidence:
- Exercise
- Manual therapy
- Ultrasound
- Acupuncture, using “high dose” (greater treatment frequency, at least 3 × week)
- LLL therapy
Therapeutic recommendations for hip osteoarthritis:
- Consider multiple approaches. Both active and passive, and both physical and mind–body interventions should be considered in the management plan. The following are recommended, based on current evidence6
- Exercise
- Manual therapy
Therapeutic recommendations for fibromyagia:
- Consider multiple approaches. Both active and passive, and both physical and mind–body interventions should be considered in the management plan. The following are recommended, based on current evidence:
- Exercise (aerobic and strengthening)
- Advice on healthy lifestyle
- Education on the condition
- Spinal manipulation
- Myofascial release
- Acupuncture
- LLL therapy
- multidisciplinary rehabilitation
- CBT
- mindfulness meditation
- yoga
- Tai chi,
- Qigong
The authors concluded that these evidence-based recommendations for a variety of conservative treatment approaches to the management of common chronic MSK pain conditions may advance consistency of care, foster collaboration between provider groups, and thereby improve patient outcomes.
This paper is an excellent example of a pseudo-scientific process resulting in unreliable outcomes.
- The Delphi process was conducted some 4 years ago
- Because of the truly weird inclusion criteria, the findings are based essentially on just 3 systematic reviews.
- Anyone who has ever tried to conduct a consensus excercise knows that the outcome will almost entirely depend on who is chosen to sit on the panel. So, all you have to do to obtain pro-chiro recommendations is to select a few pro-chiro ‘experts’ who then write the recommendations!
- A “best practices for chiropractic management” may sound reasonable but, looking at the therapeutic recommendation, one easily realizes that the authors cast their nets so wide that the result has little to do with what differentiates chiropractic from Physiotherapists or osteopaths.
It is therefore not surprising that the recommendations are laughably unreliable: can, for instance, anyone explain to me why “advice on healthy lifestyle and education on the condition” are recommended for fibromyalgia but not for any other condition?
This paper is, in my view, chiropractic pseudo-science at its most ridiculous!
All it really does is it tries to legitimise all sorts of therapies as part of the chiropractic toolbox. My advice to patients is to:
- consult a physio if you need exercise therapy or LLL or manual therapy or ultrasound or interferential current or TENS or cold packs or massage;
- consult a clinical psychologist if you need CBT, or mindfulness, biofeedback;
- consult a doctor if you want rehab or education or lifestyle advice or reassurance;
- etc. etc.
And please avoid chiropractors who pretend they can do all of the above, while merely wanting to manipulate your neck.
“An American doctor invented a drug that claims to cure COPD within three days.” Does this announcement herald a medical sensation or a bogus and potentially dangerous falsehood?
The inventors proudly opt for the former: “we have created a revolutionary pill that combines over 60 natural herbs specifically designed to treat respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, and pulmonary fibrosis”
There are also videos promoting a “revolutionary pill” that allegedly cured chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) “within three days” went viral on Facebook. The videos featured public figures like Fox News anchor Jesse Watters, as well as the alleged developer of the drug, surgeon and TV personality Mehmet Oz, popularly known as “Dr. Oz”. Although the images used in the videos varied from post to post, all the videos we found used the exact same narration and promised “to pay one million dollars” if the drug failed to cure COPD. However, these videos showed clear signs of manipulation.
Altered or artificial intelligence-generated videos featuring celebrities and major TV networks have been profusely used for scams over the past few years. Science Feedback documented several examples of such doctored videos falsely promoting diabetes cures and cannabidiol (CBD) gummies as a treatment for a wide range of medical conditions. “Dr. Oz” has often been mentioned either as a developer of these products or as endorsing them, though he’s repeatedly denied any involvement in these ads. In a 2019 article for the Wall Street Journal that he also shared on Facebook and Twitter, Oz stated that these ads weren’t “legit” and warned about potential scams exploiting his image.
Likewise, the COPD videos posted on Facebook are also false. First, COPD currently has no known cure, so any product claiming to cure it is simply a scam. Second, the poor synchronization between video and audio suggests that the audio isn’t authentic.
‘SCIENCE FEEDBACK‘ thus conclused as follows:
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease for which no cure currently exists. Along with medication, lifestyle changes like quitting smoking, avoiding polluted environments, and keeping physically active can help manage the symptoms and slow down the progression of the disease. Products claiming to cure COPD are deceptive and potentially dangerous, as they may contain harmful ingredients or interact with medications in unpredictable ways.
I could not agree more and might add that – as always in suspect cases – if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
“Crusade Against Naturopathy” (Kreuzzug gegen Naturheilkunde) is the title of a recent article (in German – so, I translated for you) published in ‘MULTIPOLAR‘. It is a defence of – no, not naturopathy – quackery. The authors first defend the indefencible Heilpraktiker. Subsequently, they address what they call ‘The Homeopathy Controversy‘. This is particularly ridiculous because homeopathy is not a form of naturopathy. Yes, it uses some natural materials, but it also employs any synthetic substance that you can think of.
The section on homeopathy contains many more amusing surprises; therefore, I have translated it for you [and added a few numers in square brackets that refer to my brief comments below]:
According to a representative survey conducted by the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research in 2023, 35 per cent of homeopathy users are fully convinced of its effectiveness, while 55 per cent rate it as partially effective. Only nine per cent of respondents described homeopathic medicines as completely ineffective. [1]
Nevertheless, Health Minister Karl Lauterbach announced at the beginning of 2024 that he wanted to abolish homeopathy as a health insurance benefit. Stefan Schmidt-Troschke, paediatrician and managing director of the ‘Gesundheit Aktiv Association’, then launched a petition for the preservation of homeopathic medicines as statutory benefits in statutory health insurance. The petition was signed by more than 200,000 people. In March 2024, the cancellation of homeopathy and anthroposophic medicines as additional statutory benefits was revoked. [2]
Shortly afterwards, in May 2024, the ‘German Medical Assembly’ passed a motion against homeopathy to bring about a total ban for doctors. Dr Marc Hanefeld, official supporter of the ‘Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie’, was behind the motion. Doctors should be banned from practising homeopathy in future, as well as billing via statutory and private health insurance. [3]
The case of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin shows just how much influence opponents of homeopathy have: for years, the hospital’s website stated ‘that homeopathic medicine can cure or improve even the most serious conditions’. After fierce protests – including from the health journalism portal MedWatch – the statement was removed. [4]
My comments:
- Effectiveness is not something to be quantified by popular votes. Responsible healthcare professionals employ rigorous clinical trials for that purpose.
- Lauterbach caved in because of the pressure from the Green Party and insists that his plans are merely postponed.
- The ‘German Medical Assembly’ decided that the use of homoeopathy in diagnostics and therapy does not constitute rational medicine. German doctors continue to be free to practice homeopathy, if they so wish.
- The notion that ‘homeopathic medicine can cure or improve even the most serious conditions’ is so obviously and dangerously wrong that it had to be corrected. This has little to do with the influence of opponents but is due to the influence of the evidence.
I feel that, if proponents of homeopathy want to save their beloved quackery from the face of the earth, they could at least get their facts right and think of some agruments that are a little less ridiculous.
