alternative medicine
For many years, ‘HOMEOPATHY‘ (the ‘flag-ship’ journal of homeopathy which started its life in 1911 as THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOMOEOPATHY) was edited by Peter Fisher. When Peter fired me from its editorial board, it arguably lost its only expert who was critical of homeopathy. Then the journal was transferred from Elsevier to Thieme. When Peter tragically died, the journal lost its editor who, despite everything, had at least tried to keep the most dangerous loons within the homeopathy cult at bay.
Now, under the new editor, this seems no longer possible. The current issue of HOMEOPATHY holds several papers about the role of homeopathy in the present pandemic:
First paper entitled ‘The COVID-19 Pandemic: A View from New York City’
This article provides a view of homeopathic clinical practice in the New York City area in the first few months of 2020 as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began to evolve in the United States. Key symptoms used to generate a short list of potentially curative remedies are given, and the pandemic syndrome is viewed as appearing in stages or as having various clinical manifestations each with its own main remedy. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is briefly described, as are the preliminary presenting signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection. Several clinical examples are given, some with positive laboratory confirmation.
Second paper entitled The Hydra-Headed Coronaviruses: Implications of COVID-19 for Homeopathy
Successful homeopathic prescriptions are based on careful individualization of symptoms, either for an individual patient or collectively in the case of epidemic outbreaks. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic was initially represented as a severe acute respiratory illness, with eventual dramatic complications. However, over time it revealed to be a complex systemic disease with manifestations derived from viral-induced inflammation and hypercoagulability, thus liable to affect any body organ or system. As a result, clinical presentation is variable, in addition to variations associated with several individual and collective risk factors. Given the extreme variability of pathology and clinical manifestations, a single, or a few, universal homeopathic preventive Do not split medicine(s) do not seem feasible. Yet homeopathy may have a relevant role to play, inasmuch as the vast majority of patients only exhibit the mild form of disease and are indicated to self-care at home, without standard monitoring, follow-up, or treatment. For future pandemics, homeopathy agencies should prepare by establishing rapid-response teams and efficacious lines of communication.
During the COVID-19 epidemic in Italy, hospital outpatient clinics progressively decreased their activities; in March 2020 they were closed except for emergencies. During this period, the activities of the public Homeopathy Outpatient Clinic of Lucca aimed at guaranteeing therapeutic continuity to patients by means of telephone or video consultations, and searching for homeopathic medicines that best responded to early COVID-19 symptoms. In March 2020, the Complementary Medicine Working Group participated in the organization of a mission of COVID-19 Chinese experts for the online training of professionals working in the Tuscan Healthcare System. The medical staff of the Lucca Clinic also cooperated in telephone health surveillance of infected patients at home, seroprevalence investigations using the capillary blood rapid test, and the implementation of the CLIFICOL (Clinical Files Collection) project.
Why is this a regrettable development?
In my mind, there is little doubt that homeopathy has no role to play in the current pandemic. To state or imply otherwise is not just false but dangerous. It endangers the lives of millions.
Others might see it differently and argue that it is not a bad thing at all. By coming out on the side of the loons within homeopathy, the ‘flag-ship’ journal of homeopathy has done a favour to rational healthcare: it has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that HOMEOPATHY (both the journal and the cult) cannot be taken seriously and can therefore be safely discarded to the waste-basket of medical history.
Mindfulness is one of the 150 so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) that I have evaluated in my recent book ‘Alternative Medicine: A Critical Assessment of 150 Modalities‘. Here is an excerpt from my text:
Mindfulness is a form of meditation which involves bringing one’s attention to experiences occurring in the present moment while sitting silently and paying attention to thoughts, sounds, the sensations of breathing or parts of the body.
-
- Many experts do not consider mindfulness to be an alternative therapy but see it as a set of psychological methods that have long become well-accepted, conventional treatments.
- There are several forms of mindfulness meditation; one of the best-known and most thoroughly researched is Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn (1944- ). It uses a combination of mindfulness meditation, body awareness, and yoga to help people become more mindful.
- Mindfulness programs are currently popular and have been widely adopted in schools, hospitals, and other settings. They are also being applied to initiatives such as for healthy aging, weight management, athletic performance enhancement, for children with special needs, and as a help during the perinatal period.
- Novices are advised to start with short periods of about 10 minutes of meditation practice per day. With regular practice, it becomes easier to keep the attention focused and the length of time spent practising can be extended.
- There has been much research interest in mindfulness, and many studies are now available. However, the quality of these trials is often poor which is one reason why the evidence is less clear than one would hope.
- Several systematic reviews have assessed mindfulness for various medical conditions, e. g.:
-
- A systematic review of mindfulness for chronic headaches concluded that, due to the low number, small scale and often high or unclear risk of bias of included randomized controlled trials, the results are imprecise; this may be consistent with either an important or negligible effect. Therefore, more rigorous trials with larger sample sizes are needed.[1]
- A systematic review of mindfulness for addictions found support for the effectiveness of the mindfulness-based interventions.[2]
- An overview included 26 reviews and found a substantially consistent picture… Improvements in depressive disorders, particularly recurrent major depression, were strongly supported. Evidence for other psychological conditions was limited by lack of data. In populations with physical conditions, the evidence for significant improvements in psychological well-being was clear, regardless of population or specific mindfulness intervention. Changes in physical health measures were inconclusive; however, pain acceptance and coping were improved.[3]
-
- Some reports have linked mindfulness to increasing fear and anxiety panic or “meltdowns” after treatments. However, these seem to be rare events; in general, mindfulness is considered to be a safe therapy.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29863407
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29651257
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29306938
Now there is new evidence regarding the safety of Mindfulness, including an estimate of the incidence of adverse effects. An article in the NEW SCIENTIST warned that about one in 12 people who try meditation experience an unwanted negative effect, usually a worsening in depression or anxiety, or even the onset of these conditions for the first time, according to the first systematic review of the evidence. “For most people it works fine but it has undoubtedly been overhyped and it’s not universally benevolent,” says Miguel Farias at Coventry University in the UK, one of the researchers behind a paper which as yet is not available on-line.
Farias’s team combed through medical journals and found 55 relevant studies. Once the researchers had excluded those that had deliberately set out to find negative effects, they worked out the prevalence of people who experienced harms within each study and then calculated the average, adjusted for the study size, a common method in this kind of analysis. They found that about 8 per cent people who try meditation experience an unwanted effect. “People have experienced anything from an increase in anxiety up to panic attacks,” says Farias. They also found instances of psychosis or thoughts of suicide.
I will add a link to the original paper, once it has been published
At present, we see a wave of promotion of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) as a treatment of corona-virus infections. In this context, we should perhaps bear in mind that much of the Chinese data seem to be less than reliable. Moreover, I find it important to alert people to a stern warning recently published by two Australian experts. Here is the crucial passage from their paper:
We wish to highlight significant concerns regarding the association between traditional herbal medicines and severe, non-infective interstitial pneumonitis and other aggressive pulmonary syndromes, such as diffuse alveolar haemorrhage and ARDS which have emerged from Chinese and Japanese studies particularly during the period 2017−2019. Initially the association between traditional herbal therapies and pneumonitis was based on isolated case reports. These included hypersensitivity pneumonitis associated with the use of traditional Chinese or Japanese medicines such as Sai-rei-to, Oren-gedoku-to, Seisin-renshi-in and Otsu-ji-to (9 references in supplemental file). Larger cohorts and greater numbers now support this crucial relationship. In a Japanese cohort of 73 patients, pneumonitis development occurred within 3 months of commencing traditional medicine in the majority of patients [3], while a large report from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, described more than 1000 cases of lung injury secondary to traditional medications, the overwhelming majority of which (852 reports) were described as ‘interstitial lung disease [4].
Currently the constituent of traditional herbal medicines which is considered most likely to underlie causation of lung disease is Scutellariae Radix also known as Skullcap or ou-gon, which has been implicated through immunological evidence of hypersensitivity as well as circumstantial evidence, being present in all of those medicines outlined above [3]. Notably, skullcap is a constituent of QPD as used and described in the paper by Ren et al. relating to COVID-19 [1]. Scutellariae Radix-induced ARDS and COVID-19 disease share the same characteristic chest CT changes such as ground-glass opacities and airspace consolidation, therefore distinguishing between lung injury due to SARS-CoV-2 and that secondary to TCM may be very challenging. The potential for iatrogenic lung injury with TCM needs to be acknowledged [5]…
Morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 are almost entirely related to lung pathology [6]. Factors which impose a burden on lung function such as chronic lung disease and smoking are associated with increased risk for a poor outcome. Severe COVID-19 may be associated with a hypersensitivity pneumonitis component responsive to corticosteroid therapy [7]. Against this background the use of agents with little or no evidence of clinical efficacy and which have been significantly implicated in causing interstitial pneumonitis that could complicate SARS-CoV-2 infection, should be considered with extreme caution.
In conclusion, the benefits of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 remain unproven and may be potentially deleterious. We recognise that there is currently insufficient evidence to prove the role of TCM in the causation of interstitial pneumonitis, however the circumstantial data is powerful and it would seem prudent to avoid these therapies in patients with known or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, until the evidence supports their use.
Declaration of Competing Interest: There are no conflicts to declare.
I have to admit that the ‘Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Development‘ did not formerly belong to my reading list. This will have to change, I guess, because any journal capable of publishing such a hilarious spoof ought to be read regularly.
The article in question is entitled ‘An Integrative Medicine Is Prudential Hope for Covid-19 Therapeutics‘ and is authored by Mayank dimri, Rajendra Singh Pawar, Virbal Singh Rajwar, Luv Kush from the SBS University Balawala, Dehradun- Uttarakhand, India. The paper is so unique that I simply could not resist showing you an excerpt. I hope you have as much fun reading it as I had when I was alerted to this masterpiece.
…
Antiviral Astrological Rationality The viral infectivity is governed by Saturn, Rahu and Ketu. COVID-19 is geminian virus, ruled by mercury. It rules lungs / respiratory system and also health/ nutrition house (6th). Antiviral astrological advices are: Stay away from crowds, maintain maximum cleanness and personal hygiene, dietary regimens should be enriched by vitamins, vegetables, nuts and fruits. The foods and drinking water should be warm. The cold and unhealthy environment may be avoided.
The complimentary / alternative integrative medicine conceptualized ethical use of traditional re- medies with
self-responsibility. The concept of herd immunity (epidemological) relates to population. The orthomolecular
medicine10prescribe nutritional supplements for restoration of antiviral immunity. Both have antiviral benefits for fighting global pandemic of COVID-19.
The desirable antiviral activities are anti-replicating to block viral replication, anti-inflammatory for preventing
viral inflammation. Immune stimulatory for strengthening innate immunity and anti-mutagenic for curbing viral mutations.
The ayurvedic herbs have antiviral phytochemicals. Some of them are listed here: Ursolic acid, Apigenin, Rosmarinic acid, Oleanolic acid, Elenoic acid, Hypercin,Liquiritigenin, Acetoside, Glycyrrhizin etc. They have anti RSV activity and possibly prevent viral entry to host cells. The plant extract of Plantago asiatica and Clerodendrum trichotomum proved to be effective antiviral. Fifatrol is an ayurvedic prized medicine against viruses. It is useful in treatment of viral upper respiratory infections and relief from nasal congestion. It is a supportive therapy against COVID-19 virus.
The synergism of vitamins (A, C, D, E) acts as revitaler for fighting against COVID-19. Vitamin C has great potential
as antiviral for respiratory infections. It prevents cytokine induced lung damage and natural immune booster.
Eucalyptus oil has multiple benefits.It is supporter of respiratory system, immune booster and anti-inflammatory. Aromadendrene is an aroma therapeutical, present in oil and moderate antiviral….
I know that the last few months have not been easy for many of us. Therefore, we should be all the more thankful for those who lighten our spirits with some comic relief…
… or did they actually mean what they wrote?
Intravenous (IV) vitamin C seems to be recommended more and more, particularly by practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). At least this is what this survey suggests:
We surveyed attendees at annual CAM Conferences in 2006 and 2008, and determined sales of intravenous vitamin C by major U.S. manufacturers/distributors. We also queried practitioners for side effects, compiled published cases, and analyzed FDA’s Adverse Events Database. Of 199 survey respondents (out of 550), 172 practitioners administered IV vitamin C to 11,233 patients in 2006 and 8876 patients in 2008. Average dose was 28 grams every 4 days, with 22 total treatments per patient. Estimated yearly doses used (as 25g/50ml vials) were 318,539 in 2006 and 354,647 in 2008. Manufacturers’ yearly sales were 750,000 and 855,000 vials, respectively. Common reasons for treatment included infection, cancer, and fatigue.
Yet, the potential harm associated with the use of IV vitamin C has not been systematically assessed. An international team of researchers aimed to fill this gap by reviewing the available evidence on harm related to such treatment. They included studies in adult populations that reported harm related to IV high-dose vitamin C which they defined as greater than or equal to 6 g/d, greater than or equal to 75 mg/kg/d, or greater than or equal to 3 g/m/d.
They identified 8,149 reports, of which 650 full text were assessed for eligibility, leaving 74 eligible studies. In these studies, 2,801 participants received high-dose vitamin C at a median (interquartile range) dose of 22.5 g/d (8.25-63.75 g/d), 455 mg/kg/d (260-925 mg/kg/d), or 70 g/m/d (50-90 g/m/d); and 932 or more adverse events were reported. Among nine double-blind randomized controlled trials (2,310 patients), adverse events were reported in three studies with an event rate per patient for high-dose vitamin C identical to placebo group in one study (0.1 [1/10] vs 0.1 [1/10]), numerically lower in one study (0.80 [672/839] vs 0.82 [709/869]), and numerically higher in one study (0.33 [24/73] vs 0.23 [17/74]). Six double-blind randomized controlled trials reported no adverse event in either group. Five cases of oxalate nephropathy, five cases of hypernatremia, three cases of hemolysis in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency patients, two cases of glucometer error, and one case of kidney stones were also reported overall.
The authors concluded that there is no consistent evidence that IV high-dose vitamin C therapy is more harmful than placebo in double-blind randomized controlled trials. However, reports of oxalate nephropathy, hypernatremia, glucometer error, and hemolysis in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency patients warrant specific monitoring.
So, is IV vitamin C safe or not?
I would interpret these findings as follows:
- Clinical trials are often very poor yard-sticks for estimating safety; they are too small and often neglect to mention adverse effects.
- When it come to evaluating the safety of therapeutic interventions, we must therefore often rely on case-reports, case series and other uncontrolled data.
- Such data show that IV vitamin C has been associated with adverse effects, some of which are serious.
- The incidence of such event remains unclear.
The aim of this paper was to systematically review the available clinical evidence of homeopathy in urological conditions. Relevant trials published between Jan 1, 1981 and Dec 31, 2017 were identified through a comprehensive search. Internal validity of the randomized trials and observational studies was assessed by The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) criteria respectively, homeopathic model validity by Mathie’s six judgmental domains, and quality of homeopathic individualization by Saha’s criteria.
Four controlled (three randomized and one sequentially allocated controlled study) trials and 14 observational studies were included. Major focus areas were benign prostatic hypertrophy and kidney stones.
All the observational studies generated positive findings. One of the four controlled trials had ‘adequate’ model validity, but suffered from ‘high’ risk of bias. None of the non-randomized studies was of good methodological quality. Nine observational studies had ‘adequate’ model validity and quality criteria of individualization. The evidence from the controlled trials of individualized was inconclusive.
The authors concluded that, although observational studies appeared to produce encouraging effects, lack of adequate quality data from randomized trials hindered to arrive at any conclusion regarding the efficacy or effectiveness of homeopathy in urological disorders. The findings from the RCTs remained scarce, underpowered and heterogeneous, had low reliability overall due to high or uncertain risk of bias and sub-standard model validity. Well-designed trials are warranted with improved methodological robustness.
This new systematic review of homeopathy offers a number of surprises:
- When evaluating the effectiveness/efficacy of a therapy, observational studies are not informative and should therefore not be included in the analyses.
- The paper is badly written (what was the editor thinking?).
- The review is of poor methodological quality (what were the reviewers thinking?).
- The literature searches are now almost three years old; this means the review is outdated before it was published.
- The conclusion of the review is confusing; essentially, the authors admit that there is no good evidence for homeopathy as a treatment of urological conditions. Yet they seem to be bending over backwards to hide this message the best they can.
- The journal in which the paper was published is the ‘Journal of Complementary & Integrative Medicine‘; suffice to say that it is not a publication many people would want to read.
- The article was authored by an international team with impressive affiliations:
- Homoeopathy University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
- Former Director General, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, New Delhi, India.
- Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, New Delhi, India.
- Secretary, Information and Communication, Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis, Izmir, Turkey.
- Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, Izmir, India.
- Department of Neuro-Urology, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
- Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- State National Homoeopathic Medical College, Lucknow, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, India.
- Department of Materia Medica, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, Kolkata, India.
- Independent Researcher, Champsara, Baidyabati, Hooghly, West Bengal, India.
- Homoeopathic Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, under Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of New Delhi, New Delhi, India.
I am pleased with my last point: at least one feature that is impressive about this new review.
The purpose of this feasibility study was to:
(1) educate participants about the concept of Reiki,
(2) give participants the opportunity to experience six Reiki therapy sessions and subsequently assess outcomes on chronic pain,
(3) assess participants’ impression of and willingness to continue using and recommending Reiki therapy as adjunct for the treatment of chronic pain.
Using a prospective repeated measures pre- and postintervention design, a convenience sample of 30 military health care beneficiaries with chronic pain were educated about Reiki and received six 30-minute Reiki sessions over 2 to 3 weeks. Pain was assessed using a battery of pain assessment tools as well as assessment of impression of and willingness to share the concept of Reiki.
Repeated measures ANOVA analyses showed that there was significant decrease (P < 0.001) in present, average, and worst pain over the course of the six sessions with the most significant effect occurring up to the fourth session. When a variety of descriptor of pain was assessed, Reiki had a significant effect on 12 out of the 22 assessed, with the most significant effect on pain that was described as tingling/pins and needles (P = 0.001), sharp (P = 0.001), and aching (P = 0.001). Pain’s interference with general activity, walking, relationships, sleep, enjoyment of life, and stress significantly decreased (P < 0.001 to P = 0.002). Impression of improvement scores increased 27 % by session 6, and one’s knowledge about Reiki improved 43%. Eighty-one percent of the participants stated that they would consider scheduling Reiki sessions if they were offered with 70% desiring at least four sessions per month.
The authors concluded that 30-minute Reiki session, performed by a trained Reiki practitioner, is feasible in an outpatient setting with possible positive outcomes for participants who are willing to try at least four consecutive sessions. Reiki has the ability to impact a variety of types of pain as well as positively impacting those activities of life that pain often interferes with. However, education and the opportunity to experience this energy healing modality are key for its acceptance in military health care facilities as well as more robust clinical studies within the military health care system to further assess its validity and efficacy.
Where to begin?
- As a feasibility study, this trial should not evaluate outcome data; yet the paper focusses on them.
- To educate people one does certainly not require to conduct a study.
- That Reiki ‘is feasible in an outpatient setting‘ is obvious and does not need a study either.
- The finding that ‘Reiki had a significant effect’ is an unjustified and impermissible extrapolation; without a control group, it is not possible to determine whether the treatment or placebo-effects, or the regression towards the mean, or the natural history of the condition, or a mixture of these phenomena caused the observed outcome.
- The conclusion that ‘Reiki has the ability to impact a variety of types of pain as well as positively impacting those activities of life that pain often interferes with’ is quite simply wrong.
- The authors mention that ‘This study was approved by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Institutional Review Board’; I would argue that the review board must have been fast asleep.
Many homeopaths will tell you that they like to treat children because they respond particularly well to their remedies. This notion is widely promoted and often is the reason why mothers take their kid to homeopath. Some parents even take it for established wisdom. Yet there is a major problem with it:
IT IS NOT TRUE!
A systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the benefits and risks for oral homeopathic remedies used to
treat and prevent acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in children. Extensive literature searches were used to identify all double-blinded randomized trials in children, treated with oral homeopathic remedies versus placebo or conventional treatments for ARTI. Studies were reviewed in duplicate for inclusion, data extraction and risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed on only 4 outcomes. Other outcomes were reported narratively.
Eight studies (1562 children) were included. Four studies examined treatment and 4 prevention of ARTIs. Four studies involved homeopaths individualizing treatment versus four with non-individualized treatments. Three studies had high risk of bias in at least one domain. All studies with low risk of bias showed no benefit from homeopathy; trials at uncertain and high risk of bias reported beneficial effects. Two individualized treatment studies (N=155) did not show benefit on short-term or long-term cure. Prevention trials showed no significant outcomes: recurrence of ARTIs. No serious adverse events were reported.
The authors concluded that the effectiveness for homeopathic remedies for childhood ARTIs is not supported in higher quality trials.
This paper is the up-date of the current Cochrane review which concluded that pooling of two prevention and two treatment studies did not show any benefit of homeopathic medicinal products compared to placebo on recurrence of ARTI or cure rates in children. We found no evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic medicinal products for ARTIs in children. Adverse events were poorly reported, so conclusions about safety could not be drawn.
And to prevent errors about conditions other than ARTIs, let me remind you of our systematic review of homeopathy for ANY childhood disease. It concluded that the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition.
So, next time you hear a homeopath claim that his/her treatments are especially good for kids, be warned: the claim merely supports his/her income but not your child.
Misinformation seems to be everywhere and perhaps nowhere more intense than in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Correcting it is one of the main reasons/ambitions of this blog. But are such activities effective?
A meta-analysis estimated the efficacy of correcting health-related misinformation on social media. To better understand the causal relationship between exposure to corrective messages on social media and subsequent effects on health-related outcomes, the researchers restricted the meta-analysis to experimental studies that attempted to debunk health misinformation.
The findings indicate that correction can often mitigate the influence of misinformation but the size of the effect is usually small to moderate. The pooled effect was comparable with previous meta-analyses that focused on the correction of misinformation in contexts such as crime, politics, and science. The results provide no evidence of a so-called “boomerang” or backfire effect, whereby attempts to correct misinformation can unintentionally increase people’s acceptance of the falsehood.
The authors concluded that, although there is still much to be learned, the current study’s results are cause for optimism. The vast majority of corrective interventions are at least somewhat successful in diminishing the impact of misinformation, and our findings regarding moderating factors should inform future research into designing effective countermeasures. The continued efforts of the broader research community will only further refine our understanding of best practices to address the threat presented by health misinformation on social media.
Brilliant!
What better motivator to carry on?
Steiner with his wife (right) and Ita Wegman, his lover (left).
Anthroposophic medicine was founded by Steiner and Ita Wegman in the early 20th century. Currently, it is being promoted as an extension of conventional medicine. Proponents claim that “its unique understanding of the interplay among physiological, soul and spiritual processes in healing and illness serves to bridge allopathy with naturopathy, homeopathy, functional/nutritional medicine and other healing systems.” Its value has repeatedly been questioned, and clinical research in this area is often less than rigorous.
Anthroposophic education was developed in the Waldorf school that was founded by Steiner in 1919 to serve the children of employees of the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory in Stuttgart, Germany. Pupils of Waldorf or Steiner schools, as they are also frequently called, are encouraged to develop independent thinking and creativity, social responsibility, respect, and compassion.
Waldorf schools implicitly infuse spiritual and mystic concepts into their curriculum. Like some other alternative healthcare practitioners – for instance, doctors promoting integrative medicine, chiropractors, homeopaths and naturopaths – some doctors of anthroposophic medicine take a stance against childhood immunizations. In a 2011 paper, I summarised the evidence which showed that in the UK, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany, Waldorf schools have been at the centre of measles outbreaks due to their stance regarding immunisations.
More recently, a study evaluated trends in rates of personal belief exemptions (PBEs) to immunization requirements for private kindergartens in California that practice alternative educational methods. The investigators used California Department of Public Health data on kindergarten PBE rates from 2000 to 2014 to compare annual average increases in PBE rates between schools.
Alternative schools had an average PBE rate of 8.7%, compared with 2.1% among public schools. Waldorf schools had the highest average PBE rate of 45.1%, which was 19 times higher than in public schools (incidence rate ratio = 19.1; 95% confidence interval = 16.4, 22.2). Montessori and holistic schools had the highest average annual increases in PBE rates, slightly higher than Waldorf schools (Montessori: 8.8%; holistic: 7.1%; Waldorf: 3.6%).
The authors concluded that Waldorf schools had exceptionally high average PBE rates, and Montessori and holistic schools had higher annual increases in PBE rates. Children in these schools may be at higher risk for spreading vaccine-preventable diseases if trends are not reversed.
As the world is hoping for the arrival of an effective vaccine against the corona virus, these figures should concern us.
