bias
Donald Trump has nominated Dr. Mehmet Oz, a celebrity physician known for his US television show, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Some 20 years ago, I had the pleasure to briefly meet Oz at a conference. I can honestly say that I rarely met anyone who was – in my view – oozing that much quackery as he was. Oz’s nomination has sparked (not just my but) widespread disbelief, mainly due to Oz’s long history of irresponsibly promoting even the worst forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for his own fame and fortune.
After being nominated, Oz posted a comment on X: “I am honored to be nominated by @realDonaldTrump to lead CMS. I look forward to serving my country to Make America Healthy Again under the leadership of HHS Secretary @RobertKennedyJr“
Personally, I am beginning to find Trump’s recent appointments too tiresome and ridiculous for further detailed comments. They seem to me like a deliberate provocation and an indication of the systematic destruction that Trump has in mind for his second term in office.
Instead of a comment, let me therefore show you some of the comments on the appointment that have appeared on X.
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr @RobertKennedyJr Very excited that my friend @DrOz has agreed to run CMS. Thank you @realDonaldTrump for this outstanding nomination. Welcome Dr. Oz to The Avengers. Let’s Make America Healthy Again!
- Elizabeth Warren @SenWarren Running Medicare and Medicaid for over 100 million Americans isn’t like hosting a daytime talk show. Dr. Oz is another rich guy who doesn’t care if your health care costs go up or an insurance company denies you coverage. These decisions have life and death consequences.
- Billboard Chris @BillboardChris Dr. Oz has been appointed to head Medicare and Medicaid. He needs to come out and publicly disavow this abhorrent garbage he pushed on his show about ‘transgender children.
- Michael Steele @MichaelSteele Robert F. Kennedy at HHS; now Dr. Mehmet Oz to run Medicare and Medicaid. And Republicans want to cut the social safety net to pay for renewing Trump’s tax cuts. Reality TV personalities for a Reality TV administration. Unfortunately, we live in a world where diseases are real, people are poor and reality hits many of us hard every day
- The Resistor Sister @the_resistor More like The Apprentice Administration NONE of them are qualified.
- seanmack @seanmack1025 When does Dr Doolittle get a job. I bet doctor Phil feels left out.
- Peter Morley @morethanmySLE Donald Trump’s CMS pick Dr. Mehmet Oz suggested in 2020 Lupus patients were IMMUNE to COVID if we took Hydroxychloroquine. FACT: I have Lupus & have been on this since medication since 2014 & I had Covid 3x. This man should NOT be overseeing Medicare & Medicaid!
___________________________________________
The bon mot that describes the situation best: If you put a clown in a palace, the clown does not become a king, but the palace turns into a circus.
Guest post by Catherine de Jong
Academic circles have reacted with surprise to the announcement on 12 November of the appointment of chiropractor Sidney Rubinstein as endowed professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The website of the Dutch Chiropractors Association (NCA) states:
“On 1 August 2024, Mr. Sidney Rubinstein was appointed professor by special appointment at the chair “Optimizing Management of Musculoskeletal Health” at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. In addition to his work as a chiropractor in his own practice, Rubinstein has been working at the Vrije Universiteit for a long time. In addition to treating patients, he has always focused on research and development within chiropractic and musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders.”
Chiropractic is an alternative method of treatment. There is no scientific evidence for clinically relevant positive treatment outcomes. For that reason, chiropractic is not mentioned as a treatment option in the guidelines of general practitioners and medical specialists in the Netherlands. Both the profession and the education are not recognized in the Netherlands. On the website of the NVAO (Dutch-Flemish Academic Organization, www.nvao.net), chiropractic does not appear as an accredited program. There is now plenty of research, especially case reports, on the damage that treatment by a chiropractor can cause, such as cerebral infarctions due to arterial dissection of carotid arteries due to cracking of the neck by chiropractors.
On June 20, 2008, the website of Medisch Contact (magazine of KNMG, Dutch Society of Medical Doctors) stated: “First Dutch chiropractor gets his PhD: Sidney Rubinstein will be the first chiropractor in the Netherlands to obtain a PhD today. Rubinstein states that most of the side effects of chiropractic are harmless and temporary.”
This dissertation, for which Sidney Rubinstein obtained his doctorate at VU Amsterdam, was substandard and was criticized in a letter sent to the same journal. The subsequent correspondence with, among others, the supervisor can be read here. In short, a dissertation that VU Amsterdam cannot be proud of.
The Cochrane database contains two reviews published by Rubinstein on chiropractic, or Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) for acute and chronic back pain, respectively. The conclusion was the same in both cases: In summary, SMT appears to be no better or worse than other existing therapies for patients with acute/chronic low‐back pain. In a 2013 update (Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the Cochrane review. Spine 2013; 38(3): E158-77), Rubinstein comes to the same conclusion: SMT is no more effective for acute low back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. SMT also seems to be no better than other recommended therapies. Rubinstein himself has concluded years ago that chiropractic or SMT has no greater effect than other treatments (like standard physiotherapy), but still it needs to be researched again and again?
At the end of the news item on the NCA’s website, the truth is revealed: the NCA subsidizes half of the chair! The members of this organization (there are now more than 500 chiropractors in the Netherlands) have diligently raised the money for this chair. Since its foundation in 1896 by the grocer/magnetizer D.D. Palmer, chiropractic has had every chance to prove its usefulness, but it has not succeeded. That Rubinstein can change that situation is, of course, extremely unlikely.
This appointment is therefore in fact a political publicity stunt for a still pointless alternative treatment. It will do both the practice of Sidney Rubinstein and that of other chiropractors a lot of good that there is now a professor of chiropractic in the Netherlands.
The other half of the chair is paid for by the university. This means that public money that could have been better spent is now going to be wasted on research into an alternative treatment that we already know is useless, by a researcher who has already shown that there is no added value of treatment by a chiropractor.
A substandard dissertation and a purchased chair, but Sidney Rubinstein can call himself a professor. With the appointment of chiropractor Sidney Rubinstein as endowed professor at VU Amsterdam, the university is jeopardizing its good name and contributing to the unjustified elevation of Sidney Rubenstein’s status and his pointless method of treatment, chiropractic.
Can this appointment really be reconciled with the scientific norms and values that VU Amsterdam wants to uphold?
While medical experts across the world have expressed dismay at Trump’s appointment of Robert Kennedy, the ‘International chiropractors Association’ has just published this remarkable note:
Donald J. Trump made it official that he was nominating Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Secretary-designee Kennedy has spent his entire career championing the health of the nation through education, advocacy, research and when needed litigation.
Among his many accomplishments are protecting the environment with Riverkeeper and the Natural Resources Defense Council His work at Riverkeeper succeeded in setting long-term environmental legal standards. Kennedy won legal battles against large corporate polluters. He became an adjunct professor of environmental law at Pace University School of Law in 1986 and founded the Pace’s Environmental Litigation Clinic which he co-directed for a decade.
It would be in the Pace Law Review that the landmark paper, “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury” (https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr) would be published in 2011.
Kennedy became laser focused on the autism epidemic while giving lectures on the dangers of mercury in fish, he was repeatedly approached by the mothers of children born healthy who regressed into autism after suffering adverse reactions from childhood vaccines, including their concern about the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, being used in vaccines including the Hepatitis B vaccine given at birth. Kennedy’s approach to the issue was the same as it always, looking at the science. He assembled a team who gathered all the science and reviewed the issues with him. This resulted in the publication of the book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak
The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines.
After establishing and leading the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense, last year Kennedy stepped back from the organization to throw his hat in the ring to be President. Becoming the embodiment of his uncle John F. Kennedy’s famous quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!”, Kennedy reached out to President Trump to form an alliance to focus on the crisis of chronic disease in the United States, and suspended his campaign to focus on the Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) Initiative.
ICA President, Dr. Selina Sigafoose Jackson, who is currently in Brazil promoting the protection of chiropractic as a separate and distinct profession stated, “Many ICA members have been supporters of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s philanthropic activities and are all in on the MAHA Initiative. The Mission, Vision, and Values of the ICA align with the stated goals of the MAHA Initiative. We stand ready to provide policy proposals and experts to serve as advisors to the incoming Administration and to Secretary Kennedy upon his swearing in.”
____________________________
Perhaps I am permitted to contrast this with some health-related truths about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (my apologies, if the list is incomplete – please add to it by posting further important issues):
- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has, since about 20 years, been a leading figure of the anti-vaccine movement.
- During the epidemic, he pushed the conspiracy theory that “the quarantine” was used as cover to install 5G cell phone networks.
- He claimed that “one out of every six American women has so much mercury in her womb that her children are at risk for a grim inventory of diseases, including autism, blindness, mental retardation and heart, liver and kidney disease.”
- He wrote that, “while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, Dr. Fauci declared that hydroxychloroquine should only be used as part of a clinical trial. For the first time in American history, a government official was overruling the medical judgment of thousands of treating physicians, and ordering doctors to stop practicing medicine as they saw fit.”
- He pushed the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 had been “ethnically targeted” to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.”
- He claimed in a 2023 podcast interview that “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective”.
- In a 2021 podcast, he urged people to “resist” CDC guidelines on when kids should get vaccines.
- He founded Children’s Health Defense’ that spreads fear and mistrust in science. One chiropractic group in California had donated $500,000 to this organisation.
- In 2019, he visited Samoa where he became partly responsible for an outbreak of measles, which made 5,700 people sick and killed 83 of them.
- He called mercury-containing vaccines aimed at children a holocaust. In 2015, he compared the horrors committed against Jews to the effects of vaccines on children. “They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”
- He repeatedly alleged that exposure to chemicals — “endocrine disruptors” — is causing gender dysphoria in children and contributing to a rise in LGBTQ-youth. According to him, endocrine disruptors are “chemicals that interfere with the body’s hormones and are commonly found in pesticides and plastic.”
- He stated “Telling people to “trust the experts” is either naive or manipulative—or both.”
- He plans to stop water fluoridation.
- He slammed the FDA’s “suppression” of raw milk.
- He said that a worm ate part of his brain which led to long-lasting “brain fog.”
- He has a 14-year-long history of abusing heroin from the age of 15. The police once arrested him for possession; he then faced up to two years in jail for the felony but was sentenced to two years probation after pleading guilty.
- He stated: “WiFi radiation … does all kinds of bad things, including causing cancer…cell phone tumors behind the ear.”
- He claimed that rates of autism have increased even though “there has been no change in diagnosis and no change in screening either.” Yet, both have changed significantly.
- He wrote: (Fauci’s) “obsequious subservience to the Big Ag, Big Food, and pharmaceutical companies has left our children drowning in a toxic soup of pesticide residues, corn syrup, and processed foods, while also serving as pincushions for 69 mandated vaccine doses by age 18—none of them properly safety tested.”
- He stated that cancer rates are skyrocketing in the young and the old – a statement that is evidently untrue.
- He authored a viral post on X: “FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma. If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.”
- He has also aligned himself with special interests groups such as anti-vaccine chiropractors.
- He stated categorically: “You cannot trust medical advice from medical professionals.”
- He said he’s going to put a pause on infectious diseases research for 8 years.
- He promoted the unfounded theory that the CIA killed his uncle, former President John F. Kennedy.
- He linked school shootings to the increased prescription of antidepressants.
- An evaluation of verified Twitter accounts from 2021, found Kennedy’s personal Twitter account to be the top “superspreader” of vaccine misinformation on Twitter, responsible for 13% of all reshares of misinformation, more than three times the second most-retweeted account.
PS
Let me finish with a true statement: The World Health Organization has estimated that global immunization efforts have saved at least 154 million lives in the past 50 years.
This study evaluated the real-world impact of acupuncture on analgesics and healthcare resource utilization among breast cancer survivors.
The authors selected from a United States (US) commercial claims database (25% random sample of IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics) 18–63 years old malignant breast cancer survivors who were experiencing pain and were ≥ 1 year removed from cancer diagnosis. Using the difference-in-difference technique, annualized changes in analgesics [prevalence, rates of short-term (< 30-day supply) and long-term (≥ 30-day supply) prescription fills] and healthcare resource utilization (healthcare costs, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits) were compared between acupuncture-treated and non-treated patients.
Among 495 (3%) acupuncture-treated patients (median age: 55 years, stage 4: 12%, average 2.5 years post cancer diagnosis), most had commercial health insurance (92%) and experiencing musculoskeletal pain (98%). Twenty-seven percent were receiving antidepressants and 3% completed ≥ 2 long-term prescription fills of opioids. Prevalence of opioid usage reduced from 29 to 19% (P < 0.001) and NSAID usage reduced from 21 to 14% (P = 0.001) post-acupuncture. The relative prevalence of opioid and NSAID use decreased by 20% (P < 0.05) and 19% (P = 0.07), respectively, in the acupuncture-treated group compared to non-treated patients (n = 16,129). However, the reductions were not statistically significant after adjustment for confounding. Patients receiving acupuncture for pain (n = 264, 53%) were found with a relative decrease by 47% and 49% (both P < 0.05) in short-term opioid and NSAID fills compared to those treated for other conditions. High-utilization patients (≥ 10 acupuncture sessions, n = 178, 36%) were observed with a significant reduction in total healthcare costs (P < 0.001) unlike low-utilization patients.
The authors concluded that, although adjusted results did not show that patients receiving acupuncture had better outcomes than non-treated patients, exploratory analyses revealed that patients treated specifically for pain used fewer analgesics and those with high acupuncture utilization incurred lower healthcare costs. Further studies are required to examine acupuncture effectiveness in real-world settings.
Oh, dear!
Which institutions support such nonsense?
- School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California Irvine, 802 W Peltason Dr, Irvine, CA, 92697-4625, USA.
- School of Pharmacy, Chapman University, RK 94-206, 9401 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA.
- College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.
- Integrative Medicine Program, Departments of Supportive Care Medicine and Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
- School of Pharmacy, Chapman University, RK 94-206, 9401 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA. [email protected].
- School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California Irvine, 802 W Peltason Dr, Irvine, CA, 92697-4625, USA. [email protected].
And which journal is not ashamed to publish it?
It’s the BMC Med!
The conclusion is, of course, quite wrong.
Please let me try to formulate one that comes closer to what the study actually shows:
This study failed to show that a ‘real world impact’ of acupuncture exists. Since the authors were dissatisfied with a negative result, subsequent data dredging was undertaken until some findings emerged that were in line with their expectations. Sadly, no responsible scienctist will take this paper seriously.
The BMJ just published an article entitled “Disinformation enabled Donald Trump’s second term and is a crisis for democracies everywhere“. Please allow me to show you a few excerpts from this paper:
Donald Trump did not win the 2020 election, but asserting that he did became a prerequisite for Republicans standing for nomination to Congress or the Senate to win their primaries. An entire party became a vehicle for disinformation. Trump did win the 2024 presidential election, and key to that victory was building on the success of that lie. If you control enough of the information ecosystem, truth no longer matters…
… Readers of The BMJ will recall the huge amounts of misinformation (wrong or misleading content that is unknowingly shared) and disinformation (false content that is deliberately spread) during the covid-19 pandemic, some generated or amplified by politicians. This reduced vaccine uptake, promoted ineffective treatments, and encouraged attacks on health workers. In the past, factually incorrect statements might have had only local consequences, but a lie can now circle the world in seconds. Yet the speed in which disinformation can spread is only part of the problem…
… Part of Musk’s reason for buying Twitter was to influence the social discourse. And influence he did—by using his enormous platform (203 million followers) to endorse Trump, spread disinformation about voter fraud and deep fakes of Kamala Harris, and amplify conspiracy theories about everything from vaccines to race replacement theory to misogyny. Musk’s platform is effective: his endorsement of Trump coincided with Republican leaning posts being algorithmically favoured over Democrat leaning posts. A more mundane example: after Musk published three non-evidence based posts on X that favoured one medication over another, sales of the former rose by 18% while the other fell by 11%. …
The warning signs are clear for democracies around the world. Firstly, governments must regulate social media companies more rigorously. Brazil’s victorious dispute with X shows what is possible, and a major battle between the European Commission and Musk is under way. Beyond that, we must grapple with how to hold the world’s richest people to account when they directly interfere with national and international politics.
Secondly, public health agencies must create robust surveillance systems for infodemics just as they have for epidemics. They must monitor the emergence of disinformation and counter it or, ideally, anticipate and counter (pre-bunk) it among vulnerable audiences (and build population resilience). Independent organisations that are countering disinformation are already being deliberately targeted (https://counterhate.com/). And we must accelerate research on “inoculating” people against the algorithms and content that attempt to radicalise them.
Finally, politicians and the public health community must not be afraid of calling out disinformation, and we must all support and applaud them in doing so. And moving beyond responding to false rhetoric, we must also get on the front foot and create compelling counter narratives of a better politics that can support a kinder, more inclusive, and socially just world.
___________________________
I’d like to thank the authors (Martin McKee, professor of European public health, Christina Pagel, professor of operational research, and Kent Buse, co-founder of ‘Global Health) for their courage to speak out and stand up for the truth. I am in full agreement with them and encourage all my readers to study their excellent paper in full.
Two years ago, I reported about an acupuncture review that was, in my view, a fairly clear case of scientific misconduct. To remind you, here is my from 22/11/22 about it:
Acupuncture is emerging as a potential therapy for relieving pain, but the effectiveness of acupuncture for relieving low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) during pregnancy remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of acupuncture on pain, functional status, and quality of life for women with LBPP pain during pregnancy.
The authors included all RCTs evaluating the effects of acupuncture on LBPP during pregnancy. Data extraction and study quality assessments were independently performed by three reviewers. The mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for pooled data were calculated. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and quality of life. The secondary outcomes were overall effects (a questionnaire at a post-treatment visit within a week after the last treatment to determine the number of people who received good or excellent help), analgesic consumption, Apgar scores >7 at 5 min, adverse events, gestational age at birth, induction of labor and mode of birth.
Ten studies, reporting on a total of 1040 women, were included. Overall, acupuncture
- relieved pain during pregnancy (MD=1.70, 95% CI: (0.95 to 2.45), p<0.00001, I2=90%),
- improved functional status (MD=12.44, 95% CI: (3.32 to 21.55), p=0.007, I2=94%),
- improved quality of life (MD=−8.89, 95% CI: (−11.90 to –5.88), p<0.00001, I2 = 57%).
There was a significant difference in overall effects (OR=0.13, 95% CI: (0.07 to 0.23), p<0.00001, I2 = 7%). However, there was no significant difference in analgesic consumption during the study period (OR=2.49, 95% CI: (0.08 to 80.25), p=0.61, I2=61%) and Apgar scores of newborns (OR=1.02, 95% CI: (0.37 to 2.83), p=0.97, I2 = 0%). Preterm birth from acupuncture during the study period was reported in two studies. Although preterm contractions were reported in two studies, all infants were in good health at birth. In terms of gestational age at birth, induction of labor, and mode of birth, only one study reported the gestational age at birth (mean gestation 40 weeks).
The authors concluded that acupuncture significantly improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Additionally, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are still needed to further confirm these results.
What should we make of this paper?
In case you are in a hurry: NOT A LOT!
In case you need more, here are a few points:
- many trials were of poor quality;
- there was evidence of publication bias;
- there was considerable heterogeneity within the studies.
The most important issue is one studiously avoided in the paper: the treatment of the control groups. One has to dig deep into this paper to find that the control groups could be treated with “other treatments, no intervention, and placebo acupuncture”. Trials comparing acupuncture combined plus other treatments with other treatments were also considered to be eligible. In other words, the analyses included studies that compared acupuncture to no treatment at all as well as studies that followed the infamous ‘A+Bversus B’ design. Seven studies used no intervention or standard of care in the control group thus not controlling for placebo effects.
Nobody can thus be in the slightest surprised that the overall result of the meta-analysis was positive – false positive, that is! And the worst is that this glaring limitation was not discussed as a feature that prevents firm conclusions.
Dishonest researchers?
Biased reviewers?
Incompetent editors?
Truly unbelievable!!!
In consideration of these points, let me rephrase the conclusions:
The well-documented placebo (and other non-specific) effects of acupuncture improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are not needed to further confirm these results.
PS
I find it exasperating to see that more and more (formerly) reputable journals are misleading us with such rubbish!!!
_________________________
Now – 2 years later! – the journal (BMJ-Open) has retracted the article and posted the following notice about the decision:
BMJ Open has retracted this article.1 After publication, multiple issues were raised with the journal concerning the design and reporting of the study. The editors and integrity team investigated the issues with the authors. There were fundamental flaws with the research, including the control group selection and data extraction, not amenable to correction.
I am delighted that this misleading paper is now officially discredited. Yet, I do have some concerns:
WHY DOES IT TAKE 2 YEARS TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING AS FRAUDULENT RUBBISH, WHEN IT TOOK ME ALL OF ~30 MINUTES?
Instead of just insisting on a triumphant ‘I TOLD YOU SO’, let me provide some constructive advice to reviewers and journal editors.
- Many journal editors are to lazy to find reviewers themselves and ask the submitting author to name a few. Having myself published in the BMJ Open (the journal that published the paper in question) I fear that this might have been the case in the present instance. This habit invites poor reviews, e.g. reviews from colleagues who owe a favour to the submitting authors. It does not promote objective reviews and should be abandonned.
- Papers on acupuncture originating from China (as the one in question) are very likely to be biased (or worse), as we have so often discussed on this blog. Editors should be extra careful with such submissions.
- Reviewers who have in the past overlooked obvious flaws in a paper should be banned from further reviewing in future.
- Editors should understand the reviewers’ comments only as guidelines and still have an obligation to check the actual submissions themselves. the responsibility for publishing an article lies with them alone.
- Editors who repeatedly make such mistakes should be dismissed.
I think that adhering to these suggestions might improve the quality of published research … and, by Jove, this would be badly needed in the realm of so-called alternative medicine!!!
The ‘WORLD JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH‘ just published a paper entitled RESEARCH TRIAL TO EVALUATE THE EFFICACY OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES IN ACUTE PHARYNGITIS- AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY. It is remarkable, in my view; please let me show you its abstract:
This observational study aims to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in the management of acute pharyngitis. Acute pharyngitis, commonly caused by viral or bacterial infections, presents with symptoms such as sore throat, fever, and difficulty swallowing, significantly affecting patient quality of life. Despite the widespread use of conventional treatments, there is a growing interest in homeopathic remedies as a potential alternative. This trial involved a cohort of patients diagnosed with acute pharyngitis who received individualized homeopathic treatments based on their specific symptoms and constitutional type. Clinical outcomes were assessed using standardized symptom severity scales at baseline and follow-up visits. Data analysis focused on symptom resolution, patient-reported outcomes, and overall satisfaction with treatment. Preliminary results indicate a significant reduction in symptom severity and improvement in quality of life among participants receiving homeopathic interventions compared to standard care. These findings suggest that homeopathic medicines may offer a viable complementary approach to the management of acute pharyngitis, warranting further research to establish definitive therapeutic protocols and validate these observations.
Yes, you are right:
- This study cannot possibly assess the ‘efficacy of homeopathic medicines’. Its design does simply not allow this.
- The results are to be expected due to the natural history of the condition and say nothing about the ‘efficacy’ of the interventions.
Despite these obvious caveats, the authors reinforce their wrong message many times in the article; here are a few further quotes:
- According to the study, there was significant improvement in 61.67% of cases.
- Overall, our study emphasizes Homoeopathy as an effective treatment for acute pharyngitis and suggests its wider consideration in clinical practice.
- Homoeopathy provides a holistic, individualized, and safe approach to treating acute pharyngitis, with benefits such as minimal side effects, long-term health improvements, and enhanced patient empowerment, establishing it as a valuable therapeutic option for managing this common condition.
Who publishes such nonsense?
Surely not professionals with a higher degree!
Wrong! In fact, the authors are three professors:
- M.D. (Hom.), Phd, Assistant Professor- Department of Community Medicine State
Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. - MD (Hom.), PhD, Associate Professor- Department of Pathology, G.C. Homoeopathic
Medical College, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. - M.D. (Hom.), PhD, Professor- PG Department of Homoeopathic Pharmacy S.S. Agrawal
Homoeopathic Medical College, Navsari, Gujarat.
And what does the ‘WORLD JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH‘ think they are doing when publishing such scientific misconduct? They think they serve Science & Mankind at the highest levels of Professional Ethical Conduct.
No, I am not kidding; here is a quote from their website:
“The Journal particularly aims to foster the dissemination of scientific information by publishing manuscripts related to current Pharmaceutical Drug Delivery and related fields. We started with a Mission to encourage contribution to Research in Sciences & Technology for achieving better future lives for all. We serve Science & Mankind at the highest levels of Professional Ethical Conduct.”
This study seeked to examine and compare the respective impacts of warm foot baths and foot reflexology on depression in patients undergoing radiotherapy.
A randomized clinical trial was conducted at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Iran in 2019, following CONSORT guidelines. Participants included non-metastatic cancer patients aged 18-60 undergoing a 28-day radiotherapy course. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either warm footbaths or foot reflexology as interventions, performed daily for 20 min over 21 days. The data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.
Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in demographic attributes between the two groups. Both interventions led to a significant reduction in depression scores post-treatment compared to pre-treatment assessments. Foot reflexology showed a greater reduction in depression scores compared to footbaths with warm water.
The authors concluded that both warm footbaths and foot reflexology are effective in alleviating depression in patients undergoing radiotherapy, with foot reflexology showing a greater impact on improving depression levels. The study recommends foot reflexology as a preferred intervention for managing depression in these patients if conditions and facilities permit.
Proponents of reflexology suggest that manipulating specific points on the sole of the foot influences the physiological responses of corresponding organs. By exerting pressure on these reflex areas, numerous nerve endings in the soles are claimed to get activated, triggering the release of endorphins. This process helps block the transmission of pain signals, promotes comfort, reduces tension, and fosters a sense of tranquility. These assumptions fly in the face of science, of course. Yet, they impress many patients. By contrast, a footbath is just a footbath. Nobody makes any hocucpocus claimes about it.
What I am trying to explain is this: the placebo effect associated with a footbath is bound to be smaller than that of reflexology. And the minimal difference in outcomes (9.5 versus 8.9 on a scale ranging from 0 to 63) observed in this study are likely to be unrelated to reflexology itself – most probably, they are due to placebo responses.
So, what would you prefer, a footbath that is straight forwardly agreeable, or a treatment like reflexology that generates slightly better effects due to placebo and expectation but indoctrinates you with all sorts of pseudoscientific nonsense that undermines rational thinking about your health?
This paper discussed the potential for collaboration of Rongoā Māori, the Indigenous healing practices of Māori, with New Zealand’s contemporary healthcare system. It aims to bridge the gap between Rongoā Māori and Western medicine by exploring the perspectives of practitioners from both fields, identifying barriers to integration, and highlighting potential areas for collaboration.
Qualitative interviews were conducted with both Rongoā practitioners and Western surgeons. The data collected were subjected to thematic analysis to extract key themes related to the integration process, challenges faced, and the potential for mutual recognition and respect between the two healing paradigms.
The study reveals a deep respect for Rongoā Māori among Western surgeons but identifies significant systemic barriers that impede its integration. These include bureaucratic challenges and the absence of clear referral pathways. Rongoā practitioners express concerns over being overlooked within the healthcare system and highlight a lack of awareness among healthcare professionals about their practices. Despite these challenges, there is a shared interest in collaborative approaches to healthcare that respect and incorporate Rongoā Māori.
The authors concluded that their findings underscore the need for systemic changes to facilitate the integration of Rongoā Māori into mainstream healthcare, including the development of clear referral pathways and initiatives to raise awareness among healthcare professionals. The study highlights the need for a more collaborative healthcare approach that values the contributions of Rongoā Māori, aiming to improve patient care through holistic practices.
The authors also stated that Rongoā Māori, the Indigenous healing system of Māori, encompasses a holistic approach to health that acknowledges the complex interplay of cultural values, connection to wairua, tinana, tikanga, whakaora, whānau, and whenua. Despite its comprehensive approach to health and well-being, Rongoā Māori remains largely marginalized within New Zealand’s mainstream healthcare system.
I beg to differ!
A ‘healing system’ – no matter what its origin or tradition might be – does not need to be adopted into current healthcare because it is ‘holistic’ or because it ‘acknowledges the complex interplay of cultural values’. It must be considered for integration once it has been shown to be effective and safe, i.e. if it demonstrably generates more good than harm.
And has Rongoā Māori been shown to fulfill these criteria?
No!
In this case, please do the research. Until compelling evidence is available, do me a favour and stop the BS!
During the past years, I have had multiple COVID vaccinations (5, if I remember correctly). Not once did I experience an adverse reation, and evidently, I did not die either!
This, however, if you remember, was vociferously predicted by many anti-vaxers many of them staunch advocates of so-called alternative medicine and several keen contributors to the comments section of my blog. Some anti-vaxers claimed that all vaccinated people would die within months; others said that not all but many or most of us would die. Therefore, they insisted, excess mortality would sky-rocket.
None of this happened!
Not only did excess mortality of the vaccinated population not increase, in the UK and US, it even fell slightly – as the graph below clearly shows.
So, the anti-vaxers were wrong!
Do they admit it?
No!
Do they apologise for scaring many and deterring thousands from getting vaccinated?
No!
Is it time they did?
Yes!
