bias
As we all know, the FDA cannot require that dietary supplements be proven effective before they are sold. Yet, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. once said the FDA is exhibiting an “aggressive suppression” of vitamins, dietary supplements, and other substances and that he will end the federal agency’s “war on public health”.
With Kennedy now in the driver’s seat, the supplement industry expects to make bolder health claims for its products and to get the government, private insurers, and flexible spending accounts to pay for supplements, essentially putting them on an equal footing with FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.
The day Kennedy was sworn in as secretary of Health and Human Services, Trump issued a “Make America Healthy Again” agenda instructing health regulatory agencies to “ensure the availability of expanded treatment options and the flexibility for health insurance coverage to provide benefits that support beneficial lifestyle changes and disease prevention.” Kennedy added that dietary supplements are one key to good health. Supplement makers now want programs like health savings accounts, Medicare, and even benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to pay for vitamins, fish oil, protein powders, herbal remedies and probiotics.
In speeches and in a pamphlet called “The MAHA Mandate,” Emord and alliance founder Robert Verkerk said Kennedy would free companies to make greater claims for their products’ alleged benefits. Emord said his group was preparing to sue the FDA to prevent it from restricting non-pharmaceutical products.
With their ‘Mandate’ Emord and Verkerk want “to shift the healthcare paradigm towards one that restores the health of the American people through a holistic and individual-centered approach that works with, rather than against, nature”.
But do they ever question whether:
- vitamins do anything at all to people who eat a normal diet?
- fish oil is effective and safe for which conditions?
- protein powders have any effects beyond eating a steak?
- herbal remedies generate more good than harm?
- probiotics work for which conditions?
The short answer is no. To me, it seems that the MAHA are as uninterested in the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (quite possible they know how flimsy it is) as they are keen on the promotion of quackery.
On this blog and elsewhere, we have many people doubting that COVID vaccinations were effective; some even claim that they were detrimental to our long-term health. In this context, cardiac conditions are often mentioned, as they constitute a significant category of potentially serious post-COVID conditions.
Perhaps these doubters will find this new analysis relevant. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the factors associated with the development of post-COVID cardiac conditions, the frequency of clinical outcomes in affected patients, and the potential prognostic factors. A systematic review was conducted using the databases EBSCOhost, MEDLINE via PubMed, BVS, and Embase, covering studies from 2019 to December 2023. A total of 8343 articles were identified, and seven met the eligibility criteria for data extraction. The protective effect of vaccination stood out among the associated factors, showing a reduced risk of developing post-COVID cardiac conditions. Conversely, COVID-19 reinfections were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Regarding the main outcomes in these patients, most recovered, although some cases persisted beyond 200 days of follow-up. The study included in the analysis of prognostic factors reported that the four children who did not recover by the end of the study were between two and five years old and had gastrointestinal symptoms during the illness.
The authors concluded that the present findings provide valuable contributions to a better understanding of the evolution of post-COVID cardiac conditions. Despite the limited number of eligible studies, this review offers insights that describe the progression of cardiac conditions, from their onset to medium-term follow-up of patients. The protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccination regimen was observed beyond the acute phase of the disease, reducing the risk of developing post-COVID cardiac conditions. Public policies encouraging vaccination should be promoted to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and reinfections. Given that both COVID-19 and heart diseases occupy a significant place on the global health agenda, post-COVID cardiac conditions deserve due attention. Although most patients recover in the short term, some require care for many months to prevent chronicity and complications, particularly in vulnerable groups such as children and older adults. COVID-19 emerged as a pandemic in 2020, and four years later, it continues to impact the entire planet. This study provides important evidence to guide government policies on post-COVID conditions surveillance, prevention, and targeted healthcare interventions. Although this review compiles the available evidence on the topic, it is clear that there is still much to learn about post-COVID cardiac conditions. Strengthening the research agenda by proposing and conducting primary studies on the subject is important. Additionally, this review should be regularly updated as new studies are published in the field.
I would be delighted to hear that this new analysis has persuaded some doubters that COVID vaccinations are, after all. helpful interventions – but (as always on such occasions) I will not hold my breath!
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is, according to the authors of this paper, gaining popularity among patients experiencing pain, alongside traditional treatments. Their survey aimed to explore the views of pain clinicians and researchers on SCAM interventions.
An anonymous, online survey was distributed to 46 223 authors who had published pain-related research in MEDLINE-indexed journals. The survey included multiple-choice questions and open-ended sections to gather detailed opinions.
A total of 1024 participants responded, most identifying as either pain researchers (43.59%) or both researchers and clinicians (39.88%). Many held senior positions (61.55%). Among the SCAM modalities, mind-body therapies such as meditation, yoga, and biofeedback were viewed as the most promising for pain prevention, treatment, and management, with 68.47% of participants endorsing these approaches. While a majority (43.89%) believed that most SCAM therapies are safe, only 25.55% expressed confidence in their effectiveness. There was broad agreement on the need for more research into SCAM therapies, with 45.88% agreeing and 42.53% strongly agreeing that further investigation is valuable. Additionally, many respondents supported the inclusion of SCAM training in clinician education, either through formal programs (46.40%) or supplementary courses (52.71%). Mind-body therapies received the most positive feedback, while biofield therapies were met with the most skepticism.
The authors concluded that these findings highlight the interest in SCAM among pain specialists and emphasize the need for more research and education tailored to this area.
It is not often that I come across an article that makes me laugh out loud. Here are some of the reasons for my amusement:
- Since when is 44% a majority?
- In fact, the majority of respondents seems not to believe that SCAM is safe;
- only 26% were confident that SCAM is effective, yet we are made to believe that “many respondents supported the inclusion of SCAM training in clinician education”.
The biggest laugh needs to go to the response rate of this survey: 46 223 people received the questionnaire and 1024 responded to it! This gives a response rate of just over 2%! and seems to indicate that the vast majority of pain researchers are not bothered about SCAM. If that is so, should we not adjust the conclusion accordingly? Perhaps something like this would fit the data much better:
These findings highlight the disinterest in SCAM among pain specialists and emphasize that no more research and education tailored to this area are required.
Constipation is characterized by persistent difficulty in defecating. It is a common disorder in the community particularly affecting the elderly and those with intellectual disabilities and neuropsychiatric disorders. It can also be caused by numerous medications including analgesic, antidepressant, antihypertensive and anticholinergic agents. It may be asymptomatic or it may produce abdominal pain/cramps, bloating, nausea and anorexia progressing to urinary incontinence and fecal impaction, or paradoxical diarrhea due to overflow.
This review demonstrated that constipation may also kill you. A wide range of mechanisms associated with constipation may result in death including:
- bowel obstruction,
- stercoral colitis with ulceration,
- perforation and peritonitis,
- respiratory compromise,
- abdominal compartment syndrome,
- venous thrombosis with pulmonary thromboembolism.
Moreover, constipation may exacerbate pre-existing diseases and treatments such as laxative and enemas may be lethal. The autopsy examination of a case with constipation and megacolon should take into account all of the pre-existing conditions, as well as the possibility of underlying disorders such as Hirschprung disease. Review of the decedent’s medical and drug history and level of supportive care will be important. Toxicological evaluations may be useful.
____________________
Constipation is defined as having fewer than three bowel movements per week or experiencing difficulty in passing stool. The condition is common and often difficult to treat. WebMD recommends diet and lifestyle changes, such as:
- Drink an extra two to four glasses of water a day, unless your doctor tells you to limit fluids for another reason.
- Try warm liquids, especially in the morning.
- Add fruits and vegetables to your diet.
- Eat prunes and bran cereal.
- Exercise most days of the week. When you move your body, the muscles in your intestines are more active, too.
- Don’t ignore the urge to poop. Listen to your body when it’s telling you it’s time to go.
- Eat foods with probiotics such as yogurt and kefir.
- Skip processed meats, fried foods, and refined carbs such as white bread, pasta, and potatoes. You can eat lean meats such as poultry and low-fat dairy products.
- Keep a food diary and make a note of any foods that constipate you.
- Adjust how you sit on the toilet. Raising your feet, leaning back, or squatting may make it easier to poop.
- Take an over-the-counter fiber supplement (Metamucil®, MiraLAX®, Citrucel® or Benefiber®). Start with a small amount at first.
- Avoid reading or using your phone or other devices while you’re trying to move your bowels.
- Drink less alcohol and caffeinated drinks, which can make you dehydrated.
- Talk to your doctor about bowel training. It can help train your body to pass stool shortly after breakfast every morning.
- Don’t rush when going to the bathroom. Give yourself time to relax, which can help your digestive muscles relax.
- Talk to your doctor about any medications that could be causing your constipation.
___________________
Because conventional options are often not as successful as hoped, many sufferers turn to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But is SCAM really a solution?
A recent review found that “acupuncture or electroacupuncture and herbal medicine are effective in treating
constipation, whereas findings on massage and moxibustion are inconclusive.” Our own assessment [‘Oxford Handbook…’ (2008)] of the evidence disagrees and rated as follows:
- Beneficial: Psyllium
- Likely to be beneficial: abdominal massage, biofeedback, fibre
- Unknown effectiveness: acupuncture, aloe vera, ayurvedic medicine, meditation, Padma Lax, probiotics, herbal tea.
Whichever way we turn it, constipation is a more serious condition than many of us think, and neither conventional healthcare nor SCAM are convincingly successful in helping those who suffer from it.
As we have discussed previously, there is an outbreak of measles affecting unvaccinated children in the US. In an attempt to reassure the US public, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said that the U.S. Department of the Health and Human Services is watching the Texas measles outbreak. “It’s not unusual,” he claimed when pressed by reporters. “We have measles outbreaks every year.” This, of course, is quite misleading.
Yes, there are regular outbreaks, but they are hardly comparable to the current one. The last person to succumb to measles in the US died in 2015 during an outbreak in Clallam County, Washington state, in which only a couple dozen people were infected. Measles was then identified as the cause of death of a woman. The autopsy found that she had “several other health conditions and was on medications that contributed to a suppressed immune system,” the US Health Department said at the time.
Kennedy misstated a number of further facts:
- Kennedy claimed that most of the patients who had been hospitalized were there only for “quarantine.” Dr. Lara Johnson at Covenant, the hospital in question, contested that characterization. “We don’t hospitalize patients for quarantine purposes,” said Johnson, the chief medical officer.
- Kennedy claimed that two people had died of measles. Yet Andrew Nixon, the spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services clarified that, at the time, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified only one death.
Gaines County has reported 80 measles cases so far. It has one of the highest rates of school-aged children in Texas who have opted out of at least one required vaccine, with nearly 14% skipping a required dose last school year.
Some of the hospitalised patients’ respiratory issues progressed to pneumonia, and they needed an oxygen tube to breathe, Johnson explained. Others had to be intubated, though Johnson declined to say how many. “Unfortunately, like so many viruses, there aren’t any specific treatments for measles,” she said. “What we’re doing is providing supportive care, helping support the patients as they hopefully recover.”
Last week, Trump seemed to buy into the already thoroughly debunked vaccines-cause-autism conspiracy that Kennedy famously has been promoting for years. Trump claimed that the Pennsylvania Dutch’s simplistic and unvaccinated lifestyle could be used as a potential model to avoid the disorder.
Meanwhile, multiple vaccine projects have been stopped by Kennedy. He paused a multimillion-dollar project to create a new Covid-19 vaccine in pill form on Tuesday. This project was a $460 million contract with Vaxart to develop a new Covid vaccine in pill form, with 10,000 people scheduled to begin clinical trials on Monday. Of that, $240 million was reportedly already authorized for preliminary research.
Furthermore, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, or VRBPAC, was scheduled to meet in March to discuss the strains that would be included in next season’s flu shot, but federal officials told the committee that the meeting was canceled, said committee member Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Offit told NBC News that no explanation was given for the cancellation of the yearly spring meeting, which comes in the middle of a flu season in which 86 children and 19,000 adults have died, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In an email to NBC, Norman Baylor, a former director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccine Research and Review, said, “I’m quite shocked. As you know, the VRBPAC is critical for making the decision on strain selection for the next influenza vaccine season.”
Finally, an upcoming CDC vaccine advisory committee meeting was also postponed last week. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, was scheduled to meet Feb. 26 through Feb. 28. The group of independent experts convenes three times a year on behalf of the CDC to weigh the pros and cons of newly approved or updated vaccines. The postponement will put Kennedy at odds with Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who is a doctor and the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which oversees HHS. Kennedy had promised Cassidy to give the Senate prior notice before making changes to certain vaccine programs. “If confirmed, he [Kennedy] will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without change,” Cassidy said in a speech on the Senate floor supporting Kennedy’s HHS nomination earlier this month.
The dangerous mess the new US governement got itself into within days of alledgedly governing seems monsterous. It is hard to conclude that Kennedy is competent or has abandonned his longstanding anti-vax stance. He clearly does not persue a reasonable strategy to protect the US from outbreaks of infections, endemics or pandemics. On the contrary, he is playing fast and loose with the health of US citizens and. as a consequence, with the health of all of us.
Reflexology (originally called ‘zone therapy’ by its inventor) is a manual technique where pressure is applied to the sole of the patient’s foot (and sometimes also other areas such as the hands or ears). It must be differentiated from a simple foot massage that is agreeable but makes no therapeutic claims beyond relaxation. Reflexology is said to have its roots in ancient cultures. Its current popularity goes back to the US doctor William Fitzgerald (1872–1942) who did some research in the early 1900s and thought to have discovered that the human body is divided into 10 zones each of which is represented on the sole of the foot.
Reflexologists thus drew maps of the sole of the foot where all the body’s organs are depicted. Numerous such maps have been published and, embarrassingly, they do not all agree with each other as to the location of our organs on the sole of our feet. By massaging specific zones which are assumed to be connected to specific organs, reflexologists believe to positively influence the function of these organs. Reflexology is mostly used as a therapy, but some therapists also claim they can diagnose health problems through feeling tender or gritty areas on the sole of the foot which, they claim, correspond to specific organs.
The assumptions made by reflexologists contradict our current knowledge of anatomy and physiology and are thus not biologically plausible. Reflexology has been submitted to clinical trials in numerous different conditions. A systematic review concluded that “the best clinical evidence does not demonstrate convincingly reflexology to be an effective treatment for any medical condition.” Recent review tend to be more positive suggestin, for instance, that foot reflexology produced significant improvements in sleep disturbances , or that reflexology may provide additional nonpharmacotherapy intervention for adults suffering from depression, anxiety, or sleep disturbance. However, due to the poor quality of most of the primary studies, such statements must be interpreted with caution.
[references see my book]
This randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of foot reflexology on the sexual function of lactating women. It was conducted in selected health centers of Isfahan in 2022 on 64 lactating women (32 women in each group of intervention and control). The samples were selected using the convenience sampling method and were randomly divided into two groups using a random number table. Each participant in the intervention group received 10 sessions of foot reflexology, and each session lasted for 50 minutes (25 minutes for each foot) and was held every three days. The female sexual function index (FSFI) questionnaire was completed by all participants before the intervention and four weeks after the end of the treatment period. The control group received routine care and completed the questionnaire before the intervention and 9 weeks later. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 and independent/paired t-tests.
Results showed that the subjects of the two groups were homogeneous in demographic and fertility characteristics at the beginning of the study. The total mean score of sexual function in the intervention group was 20.36 ± 4.16 before the intervention and 28.05 ± 2.89 after the intervention. In the control group, this score was 20.51 ± 3.75 before the intervention and 20.54 ± 3.71 nine weeks after it. A comparison of the total mean score of sexual function and dimensions showed a significant difference between the two groups four weeks after the intervention (p <0.001). In the intervention group, significant changes were observed in the total mean score of sexual function and its dimensions four weeks after the intervention compared to before the intervention. However, in the control group, there were no significant changes in this score and its dimensions nine weeks later compared to before the intervention.
The authors concluded that lactating women in the two groups did not have a desirable sexual function before the intervention. However, foot reflexology in the present study could effectively improve the sexual function of women in the reflexology group. Therefore, it is recommended to employ foot reflexology therapy in health centers to help lactating women restore their sexual function.
This conclusion might hold if we assume that firstly reflexology was a plausibe therapy (which it is not, see above) and secondly postulated that patient-blinding and placebo effects (features that the present trial did not have) are unimportant in such a study. Yet, the latter assumption cannot be true. A total of 500 minutes of a foot massage must surely prompt a placebo response! Therefore, the notion that the reflexology treatment caused the observed outcomes is unwarranted – almost certainly the effects were mainly due to placebo.
So, what we have here is a hugely over-optimistic conclusion, something we all long got used to in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But far worse, in my view, is the fact that the authors do not even leave it at that. They also issue a gerneral and far-reaching recommendation for foot reflexology as a means for restoring sexual function to lactating women.
This is not just poor science, it is stupid and irresponsible!
I was fascinated and horrified in equal measure to watch Donald Trump speaking at the CPAC talking about a medical topic – autism to be precise. Here are his words (minus the gibberish he always adds to disguise the stupidity of his phrases):
…15 years ago, there was one case per 10 000, some say 20 000 US citizens. Now the figure is 1 in 36. There’s something wrong. Bobby (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) is gonna find it, working with Dr. Oz; by the way, working with Dr. Oz…
The audience of conservatives cheered blissfully!
What Trump said at the CPAC was not original. He uttered almost identical nonsense before (except he also claims the rate is now 1 in 34); it seems to be one of his set pieces for amusing the intellactually challenged.
A few days ago Trump signed an executive order (EO) calling for the creation of a ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Commission, which the White House says will be “tasked with investigating and addressing the root causes of America’s escalating health crisis.” In the EO, the figures are, however, a little different: “Autism spectrum disorder now affects 1 in 36 children in the United States — a staggering increase from rates of 1 to 4 out of 10,000 children identified with the condition during the 1980s.”
- 15 years ago was not the 1980s;
- 1 in 10 000 is not the same as 1 to 4 out of 10,000 children.
But, as we are often told, we must not take Trump literally; it’s the ‘BIG PICTURE’ that counts!
A little research reveals that the 1 in 36 prevalence figure originates from this survey. It was not focussed on autism but on autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
- Autism is a specific disorder within the broader category of ASD.
- ASD refers to a range of conditions that share some commonalities.
- Autism has distinct characteristics and symptoms.
- ASD includes conditions like autism, Asperger’s syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, and an unspecified form of pervasive developmental disorder.
Is it really too difficult for Trump to differentiate between autism and ASD?
Or is the reason that this would not fit his agenda?
The survey concluded that “findings from the ADDM Network 2020 surveillance year indicate higher ASD prevalence than previous estimates from the ADDM Network and continuing evidence of a marked shift in the demographic composition of children identified with ASD compared with previous years. Although earlier ADDM Network reports have shown higher prevalence among higher-SES White children compared with other groups, the latest data indicate consistently higher prevalence among Black and Hispanic children compared with White children, and no consistent association between ASD and SES. Furthermore, this is the first ADDM Network report in which the prevalence of ASD among girls has exceeded 1%. Since 2000, the prevalence of ASD has increased steadily among all groups, but during 2018–2020, the increases were greater for Black and Hispanic children than for White children. These data indicate that ASD is common across all groups of children and underscore the considerable need for equitable and accessible screening, services, and supports for all children.”
The authors of the survey caution that the findings in their report are subject to at least seven limitations.
- First, the methods rely on the availability, quality, and completeness of existing information and records to ascertain ASD cases and other indicators. Although all sites had access to special education classification data, certain sites did not have access to education records for their entire population, limiting the ability to identify children with ASD exclusively identified and served through their schools. Sites requested records from public school special education programs but did not review private school education records. Incomplete information could lead to misclassifying children’s cognitive ability, overestimating the age when they were first evaluated or when ASD was diagnosed, or failing to ascertain that the children were identified as having ASD. Sex information reflects what is represented in children’s records and might not reflect their gender identity.
- Second, the case definition for intellectual disability was measured using a child’s latest cognitive test or examiner statement of a child’s cognitive ability. Diagnostic and special education eligibility criteria for intellectual disability requires concurrent adaptive functioning deficits. IQ scores are not necessarily stable measures of intellectual ability over time, can increase among children with ASD in response to intensive early therapeutic interventions, and might be unstable during early childhood. The age at which children had their most recent test or examiner impression of cognitive ability varied by site.
- Third, the ADDM Network sites are not intended to be representative of the states in which the sites are located. ADDM Network sites are selected through an objective and competitive process, and findings do not necessarily generalize to all children aged 8 years in the United States. Interpretations of temporal trends can be complicated by changing surveillance areas, case definitions, data source access, and diagnostic practices.
- Fourth, small numbers result in imprecise estimates for certain sites and subgroups, and estimates falling below the selected threshold for statistical precision were suppressed.
- Fifth, the surveillance data system does not collect the number of ASD ICD codes a child received at a specific source, limiting comparability to analyses of claims/billing databases that consider number of ICD codes received.
- Sixth, the COVID–19 pandemic resulted in reduced access to records from some sources at certain sites; it was often possible to electronically obtain some data elements from these sources but not manually review the full contents of records. Disruptions in services and school closures during 2020 might have resulted in less documentation of ASD in records, which could decrease ASD ascertainment by ADDM sites.
- Seventh, the prevalence of undetected ASD in each community as well as false-positive ASD diagnoses and classifications are unknown.
So, Trump charged Robert F. Kennnedy Jr. to investigate why ASD is on the increase. As it happens, Kennedy already knows the conclusion of this investigation. He has often stated widely debunked claims that autism is caused by vaccinations. For instance, in a 2023 interview with Fox News, he squarely claimed that “autism comes from vaccines”. This theory was popularised by the discredited ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield based on a fraudulent paper that was later retracted by the Lancet. Multiple studies have subsequently demonstrated that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
Luckily Kennedy has Dr. Oz – yes the very Dr. Oz who has featured many times on my blog (see for instance here, here and here) – to help him get to the bottom of what Trump believes to be a mystery. Those two will be quite an unbeatable team (neither of them has ever done proper research in this area; Oz promotes any quackery that fills his pockets, and Kennedy would not recognise reliable science, if it bit him in his behind)! Perhaps they could start their investigation by reading the many papers that have already found at least some of the plausible reasons for the above-cited figures, e.g:
- The Real Reasons Autism Rates Are Up in the U.S. | Scientific American
- Is Autism Really Increasing?
- Factors Causing an Increase in Autism | Psych Central
- Autism: Cases on the Rise; Reason for Increase a Mystery
- Recognising autism in healthcare – PubMed
Oh, I almost forgot: they don’t need to read such demanding papers. They already have the answer to the autism mystery!
PS
- acupuncture (39%),
- aromatherapy (35%),
- creative arts (20%),
- massage therapy (5%)
- hypnosis (1%).
After SCAM treatments, heart rate decreased and symptom scores improved for anxiety, fatigue, nausea, pain, and sadness (Cohen’s d effect sizes 0.22-0.99). Adjusted mixed-effects models suggested that the Faces Scale scores improved over time (b= -0.19, p<.01).
- after SCAM treatments, heart rate decreased and symptom scores improved for anxiety, fatigue, nausea, pain, and sadness;
- adjusted mixed-effects models suggested that the Faces Scale scores improved over time.
Of note is that they formulate these findings cleverly. Yet, the language nevertheless implies that SCAM was the cause of the observed effects.
To this I object!
In fact, I postulate that the findings show that SCAM treatments :
- delayed improvements in heart rate decreased, symptom scores, anxiety, fatigue, nausea, pain, and sadness.
- hindered the Faces Scale scores from improving over time.
On what grounds, you ask?
As the study had no control group, the basis for my claim is just as solid as the suggestions of causality made by the authors!
Hair loss is prevalent and can affect both males and females of different age groups. Despite the availability of many conventional treatment options, these might cause side effects, leading to a growing interest in natural and herbal remedies (HRs).
This review aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of various HRs for hair loss and examine the current scientific evidence behind them. A literature search identified relevant studies published up to March 2024. The results suggested potential benefits in promoting hair growth and treating various forms of hair loss (HL). Several remedies were found to be effective in different conditions, including:
- androgenetic alopecia (AGA),
- telogen effluvium,
- alopecia areata (AA).
Various mechanisms of action (MOA) seem to be involved,
including
- 5α-reductase inhibition,
- increased microcapillary blood flow,
- antioxidant effects,
- modulation of the hair growth signaling pathways.
The authors concluded that natural and herbal remedies show promise in treating hair loss, However, many of these studies have limitations such as lack of long-term follow-up, small sample sizes, and short treatment durations. Due to this variation in the quality of evidence, further well-designed randomized trials with larger sample sizes are required to confirm the efficacy of these HRs.
The herbal remedies included in this review are:
- rosemary,
- saw palmetto,
- onion juice,
- Korean red ginseng,
- pumpkin seed oil,
- azelaic acid,
- olive oil,
- coconut oil,
- henna,
- honey,
- rice bran extract,
- Ashwagandha,
- Amla.
The authors claim that they “show promise”. Is it ‘splitting hair’ to ask: all of them? Closer inspection finds significant ‘hair in the soup’ and reveals that this statement is ‘pulled by the hair’ and based largely on wishful thinking. The truth is that evidence from rigorous clinical trials is almost totally absent.
I am tempted to say that this review is ‘hair-raising’ – alas there is not much hair left on my head to raise – even for a review as poor and misleading as this one.
In case you are new here and don’t know, the ‘ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME’ is an illustrious group of people researching so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). They have been elected [by myself] for one main reason: they have managed to go through their entire carrer publishing nothing but positive results related to their ‘pet SCAM’.
So far, the group consists of:
- Josef M Schmid (homeopathy, Germany)
- Meinhard Simon (homeopathy, Germany)
- Richard C. Niemtzow (acupuncture, US)
- Helmut Kiene (anthroposophical medicine, Germany)
- Helge Franke (osteopathy, Germany)
- Tery Oleson (acupressure , US)
- Jorge Vas (acupuncture, Spain)
- Wane Jonas (homeopathy, US)
- Harald Walach (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Andreas Michalsen ( various SCAMs, Germany)
- Jennifer Jacobs (homeopath, US)
- Jenise Pellow (homeopath, South Africa)
- Adrian White (acupuncturist, UK)
- Michael Frass (homeopath, Austria)
- Jens Behnke (research officer, Germany)
- John Weeks (editor of JCAM, US)
- Deepak Chopra (entrepreneur, US)
- Cheryl Hawk (chiropractor, US)
- David Peters (osteopathy, homeopathy, UK)
- Nicola Robinson (TCM, UK)
- Peter Fisher (homeopathy, UK)
- Simon Mills (herbal medicine, UK)
- Gustav Dobos (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Claudia Witt (homeopathy, Germany/Switzerland)
- George Lewith (acupuncture, UK)
- John Licciardone (osteopathy, US)
Inspired by my post from yesterday which focussed on a study by NAFKAM, I had a look at the director of this institute, Miek C Jong. Her pet SCAM seems to be homeopathy. She has published, as far as I can see, 4 clinical trials and two reviews of homeopathy (in case I have missed any, please let me know). Here are the links and key sentences from all of these papers:
CLINICAL TRIALS
- …the added value of homeopathy compared with usual care was demonstrated by significant differences in symptom score changes…
- An integrative treatment approach where SilAtro-5-90 (a homeopathic product) is given alongside mainstream symptomatic treatment may bring therapeutic benefit to patients suffering from recurrent tonsillitis.
- Both complex homeopathic products led to a comparable reduction of URTIs.
- In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment.
REVIEWS
- This meta-analysis revealed that the proportion of patients experiencing adverse effects was significantly higher when receiving conventional medicine and herbs, compared to patients receiving homeopathy.
- Our systematic evaluation demonstrated that the reporting rate of ADRs associated with anthroposophic and homeopathic solutions for injection is very low.
I hope you agree that publishing all these homeopathy-papers without even a hint of a negative finding is a remarkable effort (bearing in mind that trials of highly diluted homeopathic remedies are, in fact, testing one placebo against another) In my view, this achievement is so remarkable that, today, I take the pleasure to admit Miek Jong into my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME.
WELCOME MIEK JONG!
