Edzard
When Harald Walach et al first published it, I did report about their paper entitled “Treatment effects in pharmacological clinical randomized controlled trials are mainly due to placebo”. The objective of their analysis was to determine what contributes to the size of the placebo effect in clinical drug trials by meta-regressions of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials.
Walach and his co-authors concluded that the high correlation of r= .73 between placebo improvement and treatment improvement rates is genuine and not explainable by study or disease characteristics. We conclude from our data that the placebo-effect is the major driver of treatment effects in clinical trials that alone explains 69% of the variance. This leaves only limited space for effects due to pharmacological substances. Context effects are more important than pharmacological ones in the conditions studied by us.
At the time, I called this SLOPPY SCIENCE and explained:
- The authors lumped together trials of various drugs as though they are a homogeneous entity in terms of effectiveness beyond placebo (which, of course, they are not).
- The placebo response is the measured improvement of a patient in a clinical trial after receiving a sham treatment. Yet, the authors claim “the placebo response in clinical trials has four components: regression to the mean (RTM), measurement artefacts, natural tendency (NT) of the disease, and the genuine placebo effect”. This is nonsense, and I even fear that the authors know it.
- The paper’s ‘highlight’ claims that contextual factors like expectations and doctor-patient interactions drive healing. Yet, these phenomena are seperate from the placebo-effect and were not the subject of this investigation.
- Correlation is not causation.
Now RETRACTION WATCH have published interesting news about Walach’s article:
… Stephen Rhodes, a researcher at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center in Ohio, criticized the study in a letter to the editor in February, citing a “number of errors that lead to some sweeping conclusions.” In the letter, Rhodes wrote those leaps “reflect a misunderstanding of what a ‘treatment effect’ is,” noting that in a placebo-controlled trial, the measure can’t be “due to placebo.”
We asked Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a sleuth and research fellow at the University of Wollongong in Australia, to take a look at the paper. Meyerowitz-Katz called the work “bizarre” and told us the results seem to indicate “simply being in a clinical trial is the main component of healing.” The studies included in the analysis had “very low average treatment effects,” meaning they didn’t show a huge benefit for the interventions tested. The clinical trials included had another issue: one was retracted in 2018 after journal editors realized all its participants had been enrolled and randomized on the same day. “I do not think that a meta-analysis which includes work retracted nearly a decade ago can be relied on as evidence,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. When he attempted to replicate the methods, Meyerowitz-Katz wasn’t able to do so. The researchers claimed to have taken one of the formulas from a previous paper; however, the referenced paper used a regression model, and the formula was not listed, he said. Meyerowitz-Katz also pointed out a potential undisclosed conflict of interest. Walach runs the Change Health Science Institute, which promotes “homeopathy and various COVID-19 conspiracy theories,” he said.
Walach, in response to Meyerowitz-Katz’s comments, called the term “conspiracy theory” “an analytically void terminology, because it is dependent on the political mainstream view, which is in turn dependent on political power.” He did not respond to any of Meyerowitz-Katz’s critiques of the paper.
Meyerowitz-Katz touched on many of the same issues Rhodes had raised in his letter. Rhodes questioned if the results really suggest there is “limited space for effects due to pharmacological substances,” quoting from the original paper. He also wrote by weighing clinical trials by study size rather than standard deviation, the researchers are “throwing information away.”
The researchers responded to Rhodes in their own letter to the editor, conceding they should have used “treatment response” rather than “treatment effect” in the title “to avoid confusion.” The authors also argued they had demonstrated “whenever a treatment is very effective, so is the improvement in the placebo group and vice versa.”
Retraction Watch sent questions to the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, including the above critiques of the paper. Andrea Tricco, the co-editor-in-chief of the publication, told us the journal was investigating the concerns and was “treating this as a matter of highest urgency.” Stefan Schmidt, the corresponding author of the paper, told us his group has been asked to give “a detailed reply within 30 days.”
PS
I think it is only fair to add this note by RETRACTION WATCH:
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Donald Trump has recently made a range of nominations/appointments in the US health sector. They will influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US and beyond. It therefore reasonable to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and evaluate their suitability for these leadership roles.
In part 1 of this series, I discussed Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Dave Weldon; in part 2, we evaluated Janette Nesheiwat and Casey Means; in part 3, I looked at Marty Makary and Mehmet Oz. In the 4th and last part of the series, I discuss Jay Bhattacharya and Gustav Chiarello.
Jay Bhattacharya – Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Jay Bhattacharya is a physician and health economist. He also is a critic of Fauci and a co-author of the infamous Great Barrington Declaration (2020), which advocated for “herd immunity” over lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. His new role would involve overseeing the NIH’s $48 billion budget. According to Kennedy’s plan, he would redirect much of the NIH funding toward alternative health approaches.
As Bhattacharya has not managed large research institutions, his ability to lead NIH effectively might be limited. His economic perspective could prioritize cost-effective research, and his opposition to lockdowns may appeal to those skeptical of them.
In summary, Bhattacharya’s academic credentials make him a fairly reasonable choice for NIH director, but his unreasonable pandemic views and lack of large-scale administrative experience raise concerns about his ability to lead the NIH effectively and without major disruptions.
Gustav Chiarello – Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (HHS)
Gustav Chiarello has degrees in economics, public policy, and law. He is/was the Senior Special Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, former attorney at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and advisor to FTC Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen during Trump’s first term. He has legal and policy experience as well as skills for overseeing HHS financial resources. However, his limited healthcare-specific experience may hinder his ability to address complex HHS budgeting challenges.
In summary, Chiarello appears competent for the new role. However, his lack of healthcare expertise may prove to be a drawback.
Context and concerns
A recurring theme across the mentioned nominees and appointments is their stance against vaccinations or public health mandates. This is already eroding trust in immunization programs, increasing infection rates and creating risks to public health. Another common concern is the lack experience of most individuals in managing large bureaucracies. This is likely lead to inefficiencies or mismanagement in crucial healthcare agencies.
The nominees/appointments will drive deregulation, reduce Medicaid funding and shift NIH research priorities toward alternative health. These changes are unlikely to generate improvements in US public health. Policies driven by misinformation or ideological agendas will lead to increased uninsured rates, reduced research funding, and public health setbacks.
The group’s competence is undermined by a pattern of vaccine skepticism, promotion of pseudoscience and limited administrative experience. The risks of disrupting scientific research, immunization programs, and healthcare access are real and substantial.
Because my expertise and understanding is limited to medicine, my discussions were confinded to the realm of healthcare. But Trump appointed people in all areas, of course. My limited expertise tells me that some of these have been even more disasterous than the ones we evaluated here. I have little doubt that Trump is about to change the world – and I fear that this will not be to the better.
Donald Trump has recently made a range of nominations/appointments in the US health sector. They will influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US and beyond. It therefore seems worth to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and critically evaluate their suitability for these leadership roles.
In part 1 of this series, I discussed Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Dave Weldon. In part 2 we evaluated Janette Nesheiwat and Casey Means. Today, I will look at Marty Makary and Mehmet Oz.
Marty Makary – Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Marty Makary is a surgical oncologist at the Johns Hopkins University, member of the National Academy of Medicine, and author of two bestsellers. He also has published over 250 scientific papers and led World Health Organization patient safety initiatives. In addition, he has expertise in researching medical errors and healthcare transparency. Since his FDA role would involve regulating food safety, drugs, and vaccines, such experience can be relevant.
Yet, there are concerns: Makary opposed both COVID-19 vaccine mandates and child masking. He wrongly predicted herd immunity by April 2021. In an interview with CBS News, he said that the FDA was looking at updated coronavirus vaccines and there was “a bit of a public trust problem.” He has no experience running a large regulatory agency like the FDA.
In summary, Makary is among the more qualified of Trump’s nominees. However, his lack of regulatory experience and controversial views on aspects of the COVID-pandemic are reasons for concern.
Mehmet Oz – Administrator of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Mehmet Oz has already featured several times on my blog, e.g.:
- Donald Trump nominated SCAM promoter, Mehmet Oz, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
- Columbia University cut ties with Dr. Mehmet Oz … or did they?
- Quackery promoter, Dr. Mehmet Oz, is running for the U.S. Senate
By training, Oz is a cardiothoracic surgeon and might thus be seem by some to be solidly grounded in evidence based medicine. However, as a talk show host and media personality, he promoted (for good money) every form of medical quackery under the sun. His wife is a Reiki healer, and it can be assumed that she influenced his descent into overt charlatanism. Rational thinkers view Oz as one of America’s foremost purveyor of medical nonsense.
Furthermore, Oz has no experience in managing large government agencies such as Medicare and Medicaid which, after all, serve over 100 million Americans. He therefore is a significant liability for the CMS, which administers a substantial portion of the federal budget.
In summary, Oz’s clinical expertise is dated and overshadowed by his lack of administrative experience as well as his long history of promoting (and profitting from) dangerous quackery. His appointment is likely to be a disaster and not in the interest of the US public.
Donald Trump has recently made a range of appointments in the health sector of the US. They will strongly influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US as well as worldwide. It therefore seems worth to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and critically evaluate their fit for leadership roles in healthcare. In part 1 of this series, we looked at Robert F.Kennedy Jr. and David Weldon. Now I will focus on Trumps nominations for Surgeon General
Janette Nesheiwat – Surgeon General
We featured Janette once before. She trained as a family and emergency medicine physician, became the medical director at CityMD and also a Fox News contributor. She has no significant public health leadership experience. As the Surgeon General, she would require shaping national health policy and communicating science to the public, areas where she has no training or experience. She also lacks expertise in public health and epidemiology. Her Fox News role and online vitamin sales raise doubts about her prioritization of evidence-based public health over media-driven health promotion. The Surgeon General is the nation’s leading spokesperson on public health, overseeing the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and issuing science-based health advisories. Nesheiwat would be a disaster for such a position.
Nesheiwat’s nomination was eventually withdrawn by Trump. This suggests internal concerns about her fitness for the job.
Casey Means – Surgeon General
RFK Jr wrote on X: “The Surgeon General is a symbol of moral authority who stands against the financial and institutional gravities that tend to corporatize medicine. Casey Means was born to hold this job. She will provide our country with ethical guidance, wisdom, and gold-standard medical advice.” Yet her suitability for Surgeon General is a contentious issue.
Means holds a 2014 MD from Stanford University and a bachelor’s degree in human biology. She is an advocate for addressing chronic diseases through nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle changes. Her book “Good Energy”, co-authored with her brother Calley, argues that metabolic dysfunction is a root cause of most chronic illnesses. As a “wellness influencer”, Means has demonstrated an ability to communicate health concepts to a broad audience.
Donald Trump has recently made a range of appointments in the health sector of the US. They will strongly influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US as well as worldwide. It therefore seems worth to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and critically evaluate their fit for leadership roles in healthcare.
In this series of posts, I intend to scrutinize them two by two:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- RFKJr. is an environmental lawyer, former presidential candidate, vocal vaccine skeptic, critic of the pharmaceutical industry, and advocate of the long-debunked assumption that autism is caused by MMR vaccinations. He has no scientific, medical or public health education or training and is a prominent figure in the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, emphasizing chronic disease reduction and agency reform.
He lacks experience managing large bureaucracies or healthcare systems. He has no experience or expertise in running agencies like HHS, which oversees a $1.7 trillion budget and 80,000 employees.
Kennedy’s leadership undermines public trust in immunization programs, potentially increasing preventable disease outbreaks. He aims to purge staff at FDA and NIH and redirect half of NIH’s $48 billion budget to preventive, alternative, and holistic approaches. This will inevitably disrupt scientific research and weaken evidence-based policy-making. His lack of public health experience and unscientific views pose risks to healthcare access, reproductive rights, and innovation.
In summary, Kennedy’s lack of relevant experience and history of promoting misinformation make him a high-risk choice for HHS. His actions so far indicate that he will significantly disrupt US healthcare and cause long-term damage to the US and beyond. His appointment was not in the best interest of progress and the US public.
Dave Weldon – Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Weldon is an internist, former Republican congressman, and Army veteran. He has 40 years of medical practice but limited public health leadership experience. Weldon’s congressional tenure focused on fiscal and social issues. He has no record of managing public health crises or large agencies. He has in the past endorsed debunked claims linking thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative for vaccines, to autism thus raising alarms about his alignment with anti-vaccine sentiments and hindering the CDC’s task of promoting immunization. Paul Offit has therefore criticized Weldon’s nomination, noting his lack of traditional public health training.
Trump’s statement that Weldon will “restore the CDC to its true purpose” suggests a focus on transparency and combating corruption. However, as there’s no compelling evidence of systemic corruption in the CDC, this seems akin to the promotion of a conspiracy theory.
In summary, Weldon’s lack of relevant experience and history of promoting misinformation make him an odd choice for the directorship of the CDC. It is to be feared that his appointment will weaken medical progress and the US healthcare system.
A Winnipeg woman is suing her chiropractor, claiming he injured her by tearing an artery during treatment and that she suffered a stroke as a result. The woman had been a patient at Maples Chiropractic in Winnipeg for some time, and she had previously indicated that she did not want the chiropractor treating or adjusting her neck. In May 2023, the patient suffered a right vertebral artery dissection as a result of treatment. “Due to this injury from the treatment, [the plaintiff] suffered a stroke,” says the statement of claim, filed late last month in Court of King’s Bench at Winnipeg.
Maples Chiropractic is claimed to have failed to give the patient immediate care to minimize the effects of her injury. The patient was admitted to hospital at the Health Sciences Centre. The allegations have not been tested in court and statements of defence have not yet been filed. The lawsuit names as defendants the chiropractor, Gilbert Miranda, and his company, Everybody Health Inc., which operates Maples Chiropractic. The lawyer for the plaintiff declined to comment on the case.
The claim states that the patient will need ongoing therapy, psychological treatment and medical attention. It seeks an unspecified amount in damages for the patient’s alleged pain and suffering, loss of income and loss of enjoyment of life. The chiropractor allegedly failed to warn the patient about the risks associated with the chiropractic treatment, “specifically failing to warn her that a stroke could occur from the treatment or from any injury caused by the treatment”. The claim states that the chiropractor was negligent for not obtaining informed consent from the plaintiff about the treatment in general, and specifically for the treatment that allegedly resulted in injury.
__________________
Let me be clear: this case report – like so many similar ones – lacks important details and thus cannot be interpreted properly. Chiropractors will therefore claim – as they did so many times before – that the case does not amount to evidence. They will also pretend that chiropractic manipulations are safe and that there is no sound evidence to prove otherwise. They can make this claim because the chiropractic profession has – since ~120 years! – resisted adopting an adequate monitoring system for registering events like the one above.
And let me be clear again: such claims by chiropractors are based on self-interest and willful ignorance, polite expressions for ‘dishonesty’.
I had never tried it before, but yesterday I could no longer resist. so, I asked GROK the following question:
Who are the leading researchers in alternative medicine?
Here is the answer in full:
-
Andrew Weil, MD
-
Contribution: Founder of integrative medicine, Weil is a prominent figure advocating for the combination of conventional and alternative therapies. He established the Andrew Weil Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona, which trains physicians and conducts research on CAM practices.
-
Focus: His work emphasizes holistic health, nutrition, and mind-body interventions. He has authored numerous books, such as Spontaneous Healing, promoting evidence-based alternative approaches.
-
Impact: Weil’s influence is significant in mainstreaming integrative medicine, though critics argue his advocacy sometimes outpaces rigorous scientific evidence for certain therapies.
-
-
Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD
-
Contribution: A former professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter, Ernst is one of the most prolific researchers evaluating the efficacy and safety of CAM. He co-authored Trick or Treatment with Simon Singh, critically assessing therapies like acupuncture and homeopathy.
-
Focus: Ernst’s work focuses on applying rigorous scientific standards to CAM, often highlighting methodological flaws in existing studies. He is a skeptic of unproven therapies, advocating for evidence-based practice.
-
Impact: His critical approach has shaped the debate on CAM’s scientific validity, though some alternative practitioners view his work as overly dismissive.
-
-
Dietlind L. Wahner-Roedler, MD
-
Contribution: A researcher at the Mayo Clinic, Wahner-Roedler has studied physician attitudes toward CAM and the knowledge base for therapies like acupuncture and herbal medicine. Her 2006 study surveyed internists at Mayo Clinic, revealing mixed attitudes toward CAM integration.
-
Focus: Her research explores how CAM can be integrated into conventional medical settings, emphasizing evidence-based applications and physician education.
-
Impact: Her work provides insights into bridging CAM and conventional medicine, particularly in academic medical centers.
-
-
George Lewith, MD
-
Contribution: A UK-based professor at the University of Southampton, Lewith was a leading advocate for CAM research, particularly in acupuncture and homeopathy. He published extensively on clinical trials and mechanisms of action for these therapies.
-
Focus: Lewith’s research aimed to provide scientific validation for CAM, exploring placebo effects and patient outcomes.
-
Impact: His work helped legitimize CAM research in the UK, though some studies faced criticism for small sample sizes or inconclusive results.
-
-
David Eisenberg, MD
-
Contribution: A Harvard Medical School professor, Eisenberg is known for his landmark 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, which documented the widespread use of CAM in the United States. His work prompted increased federal funding for CAM research.
-
Focus: Eisenberg’s research focuses on CAM utilization trends, safety, and integration into healthcare systems.
-
Impact: His studies have influenced policy, leading to the establishment of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH).
-
-
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH): Part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, NCCIH funds research into CAM therapies, prioritizing rigorous clinical trials. It supports studies on acupuncture, herbal supplements, and mind-body practices, with a budget of $128.8 million in 2010. Critics note that despite significant funding, many studies yield inconclusive results due to methodological challenges.
-
CAMbrella: A European research network involving 16 institutions across 12 countries, CAMbrella fosters collaborative research on CAM’s efficacy and safety.
-
International Society for Complementary Medicine Research (ISCMR): This multidisciplinary organization supports global research into CAM, facilitating knowledge exchange among professionals.
The field of alternative medicine is polarized. Proponents like Weil and Lewith argue for its potential to address gaps in conventional medicine, such as chronic disease management or patient dissatisfaction. However, skeptics like Ernst highlight that much CAM research suffers from poor methodology, small sample sizes, or bias, with therapies often failing to outperform placebos in well-designed trials. The NCCIH’s substantial funding has not always translated into clear evidence of efficacy, raising questions about resource allocation. Additionally, some alternative therapies rely on anecdotal evidence or cultural tradition rather than scientific validation, complicating their acceptance in mainstream medicine.
-
Diversity of CAM: CAM includes hundreds of practices, from acupuncture to energy healing, making it difficult to identify researchers who lead across all areas. Most specialize in specific modalities.
-
Lack of Centralized Data: Unlike conventional medicine, CAM lacks a unified research infrastructure, and many practitioners are not primarily researchers, focusing instead on clinical practice.
-
Evolving Field: The shift from “alternative” to “complementary and integrative” medicine reflects growing acceptance, but research standards are still developing, and many studies are underpowered or inconclusive.
-
Mild to Moderate Side Effects (Common):
-
Temporary soreness, stiffness, or discomfort at the manipulation site (affects 30-55% of patients).
-
Headaches or fatigue, typically resolving within 24-48 hours.
-
-
Serious Complications (Rare):
-
Vertebral Artery Dissection (VAD): Cervical manipulation (neck adjustments) can, in rare cases, cause a tear in the vertebral artery, potentially leading to stroke. Estimated incidence: 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 5.8 million adjustments. Risk is higher in patients with pre-existing vascular conditions.
-
Disc Herniation or Nerve Compression: Spinal manipulation may worsen or cause disc issues, leading to pain, numbness, or weakness (incidence unclear but rare).
-
Cauda Equina Syndrome: Extremely rare, where lumbar manipulation might compress nerves, causing severe neurological symptoms like loss of bladder control.
-
-
Other Risks:
-
Misdiagnosis or Delayed Diagnosis: Chiropractors may miss serious conditions (e.g., fractures, tumors, infections) if not properly evaluated, delaying medical treatment.
-
Contraindications: Manipulation is riskier for patients with conditions like osteoporosis, spinal cord compression, or inflammatory arthritis. Inappropriate application can lead to fractures or worsening symptoms.
-
-
Practitioner Variability:
-
Risks increase with inexperienced or poorly trained chiropractors. Techniques like high-velocity, low-amplitude thrusts require precision to avoid injury.
-
-
Choose a licensed chiropractor with verified credentials.
-
Disclose full medical history, especially vascular or neurological conditions.
-
Seek medical evaluation for red flags (e.g., severe pain, neurological symptoms) before chiropractic care.
The French newspaper ‘L’Express’ just published an open letter that might be of considerable relevance to the readers of this blog. Here is my translation:
Since 2016, all private sector employers have been required by law to offer supplementary health insurance to their employees. As a result, 96% of the population is now covered. The costs for this are also borne by each household, social security contributions and common taxes used to fund the general health insurance scheme.The same obligation applies since 2020 for the State in respect of its civil servants, and the French Ministry of Education, the country’s largest public employer, has just signed contracts with MGEN and CNP assurance. This contract, which complies with the ministerial order implementing the law and setting out the cover provided, is a cause for concern, as it provides for coverage of non-conventional healthcare practices (e.g. homeopathy, osteopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, chiropractic, relaxation therapy, etc.). According to the Ministry of Health itself, most of these practices have ‘not been the subject of scientific or clinical studies demonstrating their modes of action, their effects, their effectiveness or their harmlessness’.This coverage would reinforce the general public’s belief that these treatments are effective. This is happening while proven therapies such as psychology, prescription sport and dietetics are rarely covered by mutual insurance companies.In a report published in September 2024, the French Senate proposed to counter the sharp rise in complementary health insurance charges by reviewing the coverage of unconventional healthcare practices (so-called alternative medicine, SCAM). According to this report, the cost of these practices has increased fivefold over the last eight years, reaching almost €1 billion in 2023, excluding the cost of spa treatments.
Therapeutic excesses
We support this proposal. It is clear to us that, in addition to being useless, these unproven practices mislead patients as to what constitutes genuinely effective treatments, when in fact they are nothing more than an expenditure that does nothing to improve the health of anyone, at the expense of genuinely beneficial care. What’s more, they expose us to the risk of therapeutic aberrations, or even the abandonment of care in cases where it is necessary.The government says it wants to make savings on health spending. Wouldn’t it be more effective, and also better understood by the general public, to do so by promoting treatments whose effectiveness is supported by a scientific consensus? And would it not be better to stop the reimbursement of unproven practices likely to lead to delays in treatment and health abuses? We need to set a limit on ‘private solidarity’ expenditure, the cost of which continues to rise well above the rate of inflation, particularly for the most vulnerable households and the elderly.
The Ministry’s announcement of initiatives to combat misinformation in the health sector cannot be reconciled with the funding of unconventional therapies, about which Miviludes has repeatedly warned. The work of the Descartes Foundation shows that sensitivity to these practices and sensitivity to esotericism are linked, creating a breeding ground for health misinformation and conspiracy theories.
An individual choice
Mutual insurance companies cannot legitimise wellness practices at the expense of optimum reimbursement for proven treatments. Health issues are everybody’s business, and the most vulnerable should be able to count on national solidarity in the interests of all French people.
The Collectif No FakeMed is calling on the authorities to be rigorous in ensuring that only practices based on scientific knowledge, in both health economics and evidence-based medicine, are covered by the public purse and mutual insurance companies. It is possible to offer a cover for some wellness treatments, but this must be a matter of personal CHOICE, and therefore an option, not an obligation.
Signatories
Institutions and associations:
- Collectif No Fakemed;
- Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs-kinésithérapeutes;
- Conseil national de l’Ordre des Sages Femmes;
- Conseil national de l’Ordre des pédicures-podologues;
- Collectif ‘Vaccins France informations & discussions’;
- Collectif Chanology France; syndicat ReAGJIR.
Individual signatories:
- Pr Agnès Buzyn, ancienne ministre, présidente du think tank Evidences ;
- Dr Pierre de Bremond d’Ars, médecin généraliste et président du Collectif No Fakemed ;
- Isabelle Derringer, présidente du Conseil de l’Ordre des Sages Femmes ;
- Pascale Mathieu, présidente du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Eric May, médecin généraliste, directeur santé Malakoff, président de la Fédération Nationale de Formation des Centres de Santé ;
- Éric Prou, président de l’Ordre national des pédicures podologues ;
- Dr Sophie Augros, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Mehdi Bahaji, anesthésiste-réanimateur ;
- Marie-Ange Barbier, diététicienne, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr Damien Barraud, médecin hospitalier ;
- Karine Brezellec, trésorière adjointe du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Laurent Brindel, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Gérald Bronner, professeur à la Sorbonne, membre de l’Académie nationale de médecine, membre de l’Académie des technologies ;
- Dr Matthieu Calafiore, Maître de conférences des universités, directeur du département de médecine générale de l’Université de Lille ;
- Dr Julie Chastang, médecin généraliste, maîtresse de conférence des universités (Sorbonne Université) ;
- Pr Laurence Compagnon, médecin généraliste ;
- Dominique Costagliola, membre de l’Académie des sciences, directrice de recherche émérite Inserm ;
- Laurent Cordonier, docteur en sciences sociales, Chercheur associé au GEMASS, Sorbonne Université – CNRS (UMR 8598) ;
- Dr Raphaël Dachicourt, président de Réagir ;
- Dr Jeremy Descoux, Cardiologue, Président fondateur du Collectif No Fakemed ;
- Arthur Dian, ancien ostéopathe, M2 en histoire et philosophie des sciences ;
- Jean-François Dumas, secrétaire général du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Pr Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, FMEdSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCP(Edin.) professeur émérite à l’Université d’Exeter;
- Élisabeth Feytit, créatrice du podcast d’éducation à l’esprit critique Méta de Choc ;
- Dr Jean-Jacques Fraslin, médecin généraliste ;
- Roger-Philipe Gachet, Secrétaire Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Julien Gere, neurologue ; Pr André Grimaldi, diabétologue ;
- Florian Gouthière, journaliste scientifique ;
- Dr Nicolas Groëll, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Jérome Grosjean, biologiste ;
- Kalou, créateur de contenu dédié à l’information et la prévention du phénomène sectaire ;
- Jean-Paul Krivine, rédacteur en chef de Science et pseudo-sciences, Association française pour l’information scientifique ;
- Dr Corentin Lacroix, Whydoc, médecin généraliste et vulgarisateur ;
- Marion Lagneau, trésorière du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Guillaume Limousin, ingénieur, docteur en sciences, professeur de mathématiques en collège ;
- Dr Christian Lehmann, médecin généraliste et écrivain ;
- Dr Stéphanie Marsan, médecin généraliste, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ; Dr Elodie Lemarthe, secrétaire générale du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr François Maignen, docteur en pharmacie et statisticien ;
- Dr Hervé Maisonneuve, médecine de santé publique ;
- Gilles Marchiano, secrétaire adjoint du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Pr Matthieu Molimard, professeur de pharmacologie CHU de Bordeaux ;
- Dr François Morel, chirurgien, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr Nathan Peiffer Smadja, infectiologue ;
- Grégoire Perra, enseignant et lanceur d’alerte sur les écoles Steiner-Waldorf et l’anthroposophie ;
- Sylvain Peterlongo, masseur-kinésithérapeute, membre du bureau du collectif No FakeMed ;
- Pr Nicolas Pinsault, vice-président du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Franck Ramus, CNRS ;
- Mathieu Repiquet, étudiant en médecine et en santé publique ;
- Pierre Rigal, secrétaire adjoint du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Laurent Salsac, infirmier, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Natalia Trouiller, lanceuse d’alerte sur les violences sexuelles dans l’Eglise catholique ;
- Stéphanie de Vanssay, enseignante, militante contre les dérives scolaires ;
- Brigitte Vincent, vice-présidente du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Frederic Villebrun, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Nicolas Winter, praticien hospitalier aux urgences pédiatriques Valenciennes et vulgarisateur sur les réseaux To be or not Toubib ;
- Dr Florian Zores, cardiologue.
I suppose we all heard that DONALD TRUMP has recently turned his genius towards the film industry. Specifically, he wrote:
“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death. Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!”
Well done Donnie!
After this decisive move, the hero of the mentally challenged announced another, even more far-reaching and long-awaited measure:
“TARIFFS ON RATIONAL THOUGHT”
On his patform ‘UNTRUTH ASOCIAL’, Trump proclaimed:
Rational thinking in America is DYING a very fast death. Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw scientists and other experts away from the United States. Universities and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated and pseudo-science is thriving as a result. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing all my government Departments and other relevant bodies of the US administration, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all RATIONAL THOUGHTS coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT SCIENCE MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!
Trump’s latest move earned criticism as soon as it became public. Democrats pointed out that it was Trump himself who had driven US scientists to seek employment outside their home country. A spokesperson of the Whit House responded with merely a two-word-statement:
FAKE NEWS!
- None compared acupuncture to placebo or behavioral therapy.
- Subdomain analysis of the Conners’ Parent Rating Scale indicated that acupuncture and Methylphenidate had comparable effects on Conduct Problems and Learning Problems, but acupuncture was more effective in controlling Impulsive/Hyperactive symptoms. Insufficient sample size prevented confirmation of potential false positives.
- Acupuncture was safer and reduced Methylphenidate-related side-effects, including appetite loss, sleep disturbances, dry mouth, abdominal pain, and constipation.
- Acupuncture combined with behavioral therapy outperformed behavioral therapy alone in improving Psychosomatic symptoms. In the Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test, ADHD patients receiving acupuncture alongside conventional care performed better than those receiving conventional care alone.
- The methodological quality of the included trials was very low to low, with significant bias risk, and 88% lacked follow-up.
- Almost all of the RCTs originated from China, a country that has been shown many times to never reposrt negative findings from acupuncture studies.
- The quality of most RCTs was simal.
- Only 8 RCTs reported safety outcomes (the authors nonetheless conculded that it is also safe and well-tolerated)
I also have my doubts about the authors of this review. There are several reasons for my skepticism, e.g.:
- They failed to discuss the lack of plausibility of acupuncture as a treatment of ADHD.
- They failed to discuss the limitations of the primary trials fully.
- They conclude that acupuncture is safe without having the data to prove it.
- They failed to discuss the well-known bias of Chinese acupuncture researchers.
But the most important reason for my doubt is the authors’ conclusion. Bases on the evidence provied, the correct conclusion must be something along the following lines:
This review shows that there are plenty of positive RCTs of acupuncture for ADHD. However, based on their poor quality, its effectiveness remains unproven.
