Some papers on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are such that I am almost lost for words. Here is the abstract of such an article:
Background: Autism Spectrum Disorder is a complex neurodevelopmental condition with characteristic
challenges like persistent deficits in social communication, restricted and repetitive behaviors, sensory
processing anomalies. Defined by DSM-5criteria, it affects about 1in 100 children globally and 1in 36 in
united states and poses a significant burden for families and healthcare systems. Research on homoeopathy
and Bach flower Remedies as adjunctive or primary therapies has often explored by families and clinical
interest in complementary and alternative medicine for additional support.
Materials and Methods: A comprehensive study of related review articles, related different components
of Autism spectrum disorder treated with homeopathy treatment, Bach Flower Remedies and
complementary medicine in children were search out. Databases search is PubMed, Google Scholar,
ResearchGate and Web of Science, Scopus and Homoeopathic journal.
Result: Reviewed evidence indicates that no systematic studies have been done to manage autism
spectrum disorder with Bach flower Remedies as an adjuvant or primary treatment along with
homoeopathy. Although individualized homoeopathic treatment has promising results in reducing core
and associated symptoms in children including improvement in social interaction, hyperactivity,
communication and behavioral regulation. Although there is less data available thorough trails, Bach
Flower Remedies especially Rescue remedy that have help in treating the emotional dysregulations and
anxiety that are frequently connected with autism spectrum condition.
Conclusion: The available clinical data on autism spectrum with homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies
is not enough to provide new and sufficient evidence. To overcome this more well-designed study of RCT
and larger sample with standardized procedures will be able to help to this rising burden of autism
spectrum disorder.
In the article itself, the authors state the following: “This review article indicates that both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing. Based on the reviewed data from case series, controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews it can be state that individualized homeopathic treatment leads to clinically relevant improvement in core and associated symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.
Studies on Bach flower remedies specifically in autism spectrum disorder are very less but it suggests that Bach flower remedies offer practically accessible intervention for emotional and behavioural dimension mostly in anxiety, emotional dysregulation, sensory hyperactivity and resistance to change. Evidence from controlled trials and clinical studies shows a statistical and significant in symptom.
Homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies should not replace evidence-based behavioural and development intervention for autism spectrum disorder, but rather be investigation as complementary modalities within an integrative care framework. Despite of growing clinical observations, the field of homoeopathy and Batch Flower remedies in autism spectrum disorder is characterised by substantial and identifiable research gaps that limit the formulation of evidence-based clinical guidelines and urgent research priorities include the multicentric, double-blind RCTs with standardised diagnostic criteria and validated core outcome sets; longitudinal follow-up.”
Bearing in mind that this comes from the “Head of the Department, Department of Practice of Medicine, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to beUniversity), Homoeopathic Medical College”, this is remarkably embarrassing!
Why?
The review is badly written and poorly done. More importantly, according to the data provided by the authors, there is only one rigorous RCT. Here is its abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Bach flower remedies in the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in a double blind prospective controlled study.
Methods: Fourty Children with ADHD, aged 7-11 years, diagnosed according to the DSM criteria, were randomised to Bach flower remedies or placebo treatments for a period of 3 months. Children’s performance was evaluated by the teacher before commencement of treatment and subsequently each month during the study period.
Results: Bach flower remedies have no statistically significant effect when compared to placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD. There was a significant correlation between treatment duration’s and improvement of performance, with no difference between the treatment group compared to the placebo.
Conclusions: There is no statistically significant difference between the effects of Bach flower remedies compared with placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD.
If a head of department nonetheless concludes that “both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing”, it is, I fear, high time to replace him.
5 Responses to Homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies for Autism Spectrum Disorder – is this the most misleading paper on the subject?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I suggest all Skeptics should take a mix of Gentian/Beech/Rock water/Cerato in a controlled study.
Nothing happening would be for many an expected result. Imagine a universe though where we had those on here proclaiming Bach flower enlightment following the remedy! We would though require a mechanism of action. How about nanoparticles? Quantum nanotechnology particles sounds good.
QUESTION TO CHAT GPT
‘If bach flower remedies did work as stated and were not placebo then skeptics would be wrong. In this case which bach flower remedy would help them regarding their skepticism?’
CHAT GPT ANSWER
Bach flower remedies truly worked exactly as claimed—and their effects weren’t just placebo—then skeptics wouldn’t need convincing… they’d need treatment 😄
Within the Bach system itself, skepticism rooted in doubt, cynicism, or disbelief would most closely map to remedies aimed at uncertainty or rigidity of belief. Two in particular stand out:
Gentian (Bach Flower Remedy)
Used for people who feel doubt when things don’t immediately make sense or work. A skeptic who says “this can’t be real” might, in Bach logic, be seen as needing more openness after discouragement.
Beech (Bach Flower Remedy)
Intended for those who are overly critical or judgmental. A hardened skeptic dismissing everything outright could be framed (within that system) as needing more tolerance.
You could also make a case for:
Rock Water (Bach Flower Remedy) – for rigid thinking
Cerato (Bach Flower Remedy) – for not trusting inner belief
Of course, here’s the twist: if the remedies did work, then skepticism would naturally fade once people observed consistent, repeatable effects. In that scenario, skeptics wouldn’t need a specific remedy—the evidence itself would do the job.
So the slightly ironic answer is:
According to Bach theory, skeptics might need Beech or Gentian—but if the remedies truly worked, they probably wouldn’t stay skeptics long enough
Good try, JK…but these cult members are professional skeptics. The last thing that they want to do is to ever admit that they have been wrong. Cognitive dissonance is strong in this cult. They are not science-based…they believe in scientism, the religion.
Still, keep trying…because there are a select number of SILENT people at this site who are not the cultists…and sometimes, your message will reach them.
@Dana Ullman
Interesting how on one hand you pretend to value and even support science, yet on the other hand insult ~99% of scientists by calling them ‘cult members’. Because the overwhelming majority of scientists reject homeopathy as the obsolete quackery that it is. And this is for some very good reasons:
– the basic principles of homeopathy fly in the face of modern-day science,
– there is no good evidence that homeopathic preparations have any effects beyond placebo,
– there is no good evidence that any conditions actually respond to homeopathic treatment,
– the way that homeopathic preparations are tested (‘proving’) is ludicrously unscientific.
(and ‘good evidence’ meaning LOTS of high-quality trials or experiments, not just a handful of dubious reports from scientifically incompetent water-shaking clowns like you)
Face it: you are the cultist, the pseudoscientific hypocrite who – as the old saying goes – uses science as a drunk man uses a lamp post: for support, not enlightenment.
Good try, @Dullman, how you apologists for pseudoscience are always patting each other on the back. After all, you do not have anyone else.
On reading the paper itself, it struck me as not so much science as a fishing trip, with some poor quality bait (really, some of the papers they looked at are dodgy looking at best) and full of ifs, buts and maybes. Not to mention the blurring between ADHD and autism at times and some, errrr, interesting “outcome measures”.
Not very good at all.