In the Republic of Ireland, chiropractors are not regulated and there is no legislation governing the profession. That means anyone who feels like it can call him/herself a chiropractor and start treating or advising patients regardless of what condition they may be suffering from. The ‘CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND‘ (CAI) is the professional organisation that represents chiropractors in the country. The purpose of the CAI is to maintain professional standards, liaise with various government and health bodies, and to be a professional voice for Chiropractic.
Recently, the CAI has warned that a proposed law banning practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) from claiming they can treat cancer without any medical evidence could have “unintended and unforeseen” consequences for its members. The CAI wrote to health minister Simon Harris claiming that a lack of “clarity” in the bill could have serious implications for chiropractic patients and chiropractors.
I am inclined to agree: the bill would reduce the cash-flow of many charlatans trying to make a fast buck on the desperation of cancer patients. But most probably, Tony Accardi, the president of the CAI, did not have this in mind when he said that, if patients with cancer inform a medical practitioner they are seeing a chiropractor, it may be construed that the chiropractor is “attempting to treat the cancer even though [it] may be for neck/back pain or overall wellbeing”.
As the evidence is hardly convincing that chiropractic is effective for neck/back pain or wellbeing (see numerous previous posts on this blog), we might well ask what else chiropractors have to offer for cancer patients. This website, for instance, is one of many that makes concrete claims:
Chiropractic treatment can benefit cancer patients in many ways. It can reduce stress, increase mobility, and optimize function, and generally improve quality of life.
By easing headaches and nausea, and relieving muscle tightness and neuropathy pain, chiropractic can help patients follow through with their treatment plans, which may even help extend their lives.
Chiropractors treating cancer patients approach patient care in much the same way as other primary care providers by:
- Gathering a comprehensive health history
- Conducting a thorough physical exam
- Ordering necessary diagnostic tests
- Deciding on an appropriate treatment plan
The chiropractic course of treatment often includes spinal manipulation and adjustments that provide patients with pain relief as well as overall improvement in function.
Chiropractic care can also be a viable alternative to pain medication for cancer patients. Although the use of medication is common in the management of a patient’s pain, it’s estimated that at least half of all cancer patients do not receive tolerable relief from their pain. Chiropractic care can address this issue, potentially even decreasing a cancer patient’s dependence on pain medication.
Cancer treatment has historically been focused on treating the disease itself. While doctors of chiropractic don’t treat cancer directly, they function very effectively as part of an integrated care plan to help the patient obtain the best treatment results possible.
The CHIROPRACTIC CANCER FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN go even further:
Dr. Garvey has a strong belief in the human body’s innate ability to combat cancer cells and other diseases. He has first-hand experience with cancer since Dr. Garvey, himself, was diagnosed with Leukemia at the age of eleven. Stress and poor circulation can undermine the body’s natural healing powers and interfere with the central nervous systems’s ability to communicate effectively. At the foundation, we believe that chiropractic adjustments and other natural healing techniques can mitigate or reverse stresses that lead to poor health and even life threatening diseases such as cancer.
The claims can thus be summarised as follows:
- reduce the stress suffered by cancer patients,
- increase their mobility,
- optimize their function,
- improve their quality of life,
- alleviate cancer pain,
- serve as an alternative to pain medication,
- decrease cancer patients’ dependence on pain medication,
- the ‘innate’ (vital force which, according to DD Palmer is stimulated by chiropractic adjustments of spinal subluxations) can combat cancer.
Considering the above-mentioned dispute, it is only fair to ask: where is the evidence that chiropractic achieves the above (or indeed anything else)? I have to admit, I don’t find any sound evidence for any of these claims. But, of course, I might be biased or blind.
So, if anybody knows of compelling evidence to support the above claims, it would be helpful to let me have it. Meanwhile, it might be an excellent idea for the Irish government to go ahead with their plan of banning practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) from claiming they can treat cancer without any medical evidence, don’t you think?
It’s not (yet) a global emergency, the WHO have announced. But 26 fatalities have today been reported, and soon we will have thousands of people infected with the new coronavirus, experts predict. A vaccine will take at least a year to become available, and experts are alarmed.
But there is no need for panic!
Let’s just ask our homeopaths for help. They are excellent with curing viral infections!
You don’t believe me? But it must be true; take this website, for instance; its message could not be clearer :
… Homeopathic remedies can help you in fighting viral infections effectively… Homeopathy can be effective for viral infections including influenza-like symptoms, viral coughs and serious viral infections like herpes cold sores and genital herpes… The most common oral homeopathic remedy for herpes outbreaks is Rhus Toxicodendron (Rhus Tox in short), which is an extremely diluted form of poison ivy…
Another website offers more detail:
Conventional drugs do not offer comprehensive treatments for viral infections. Certain viruses like Influenza, HIV, etc. have tendencies to mutate (change) very rapidly, thereby lowering the effectiveness of such medicines. Additionally, viruses quickly develop resistance to these drugs, making the development of preventive medicine somewhat challenging. Conventional medications therefore only provide supportive management and suppression of the symptoms.
Homeopathic treatment for viral infections helps ease the symptoms and also enables the body to heal naturally.
Homeopathy treatment for viral infections is steadily gaining popularity as a natural way to deal with viral infections. These medicines help reduce the frequency and intensity of acute symptoms like weakness, fever, body pain, etc. These help with quick recovery. In some cases, they reduce the chances of further complications. Homeopathy treatment for viral infections treats the symptoms not by suppressing them, but by strengthening the immune system. It activates the body’s natural restorative properties by producing symptoms similar to the ones experienced by the patients. This method helps settle underlying internal disturbances in the body. Homeopathy treatment for viral infections also minimizes the weakness and fatigue commonly encountered as an aftermath of the infection.
Viral infections are highly communicable and spread rapidly from one person to another. Homeopathy treatment for viral infections is also preventative and helps reduce the chances of contracting the infection.
Yet another website is equally clear:
For viral ailments with symptoms that are fast and violent, use the following homeopathic remedies: Aconitum and Belladonna.
Aconitum – also known as Devil’s helmet or Queen of All Poisons – is a flowering plant that belongs to the family Ranunculacea. The flowers of this plant are harvested and then processed to treat various ailments, including viral infections.
Belladonna – also known as Deadly Nightshade – is a perennial herbaceous plant – prized for its medicinal benefits. It’s used as a muscle relaxant and pain reliever. The plant contains potent anti-inflammatory properties too. It’s an excellent remedy for viral infections.
What, you are still not convinced? In this case, have a look at what a Devon homeopaths stated only yesterday about the current epidemic:
Panic and anger in Wuhan as China orders city into lockdown.
A Coronavirus is a common virus that causes an infection in your nose, sinuses, or upper throat. Most corona viruses are not dangerous, they can in fact just cause symptoms which look like a mild cold. Earlier this month though, the World Health Organization identified a new type (2019-nCoV) in China and to date there have been over 500 confirmed cases of this Corona virus with 17 fatalities reported so far this month. The Media seems to be covering its progress with great relish, causing a lot of panic.
The virus starts with a fever, followed by a dry cough, and then after a week or so this leads to shortness of breath when some patients are hospitalised. Pneumonia is one complication that can be caused by the virus. Most of the information spread about the virus is gained from these severe cases in hospital.
To protect yourself from any virus, you should boost your own immune symptom with a healthy diet and supplements if necessary. I recommend the best vitamin C & D supplements you can get. I also love Fermented Cod Liver Oil and a good Magnesium supplement. Having homeopathic constitutional treatment is also proven to boost your immune system.
Homeopathic remedies can address every symptom caused by this virus so having an inexpensive homeopathy kit at home is an excellent resource. I love the First Aid Kit by Helios Pharmacy which also comes with a booklet to guide you on which remedy to choose. If you have remedies but feel you’re not equipped to use them, get in touch with me and I will send you a free PDF first aid booklet.
Here are a few homeopathic remedies which will be useful to treat viruses such as this one. If you are confident the remedy is well indicated you need to repeat often in a 30C or 200C until it no longer helps, then move onto another if necessary:
Ferrum-phos: give this at the very first sign of symptoms. Useful when you just don’t feel well, tired. Red inflamed eyes, chill with shivering and fever. Hot, burning eyes. Worse cold, better rest.
Gelsemium: This is for when your symptoms start to feel more severe, especially if they have come on gradually. You will feel dull, sluggish, heavy, often with a headache at the back of the neck. Shivering up and down the spine, aching muscles, burning throat. Worse cold, better after urination.
Pulsatilla: You will feel Chilly, even in a warm room. Nose blocked up, bland and thick mucous. Dry mouth with no thirst. Changing, shifting symptoms, weepy and sorry for oneself. You may often have a sore throat or ear ache with viruses. Worse in a warm room, better in the open air.
Camphora: You will feel very cold, and may have laborious, asthmatic breathing with an accumulation of phlegm in the air tubes, cold, dry skin. Total exhaustion, with coldness and shivering. Weak pulse, irritability. Worse cold.
Phosphorous: For any virus which affects your lungs. You may have bloody sputum and crave cold drinks. Burning, pressure and constriction in the chest; worse lying on the left side or painful side. Better in company, needing reassurance.
Bryonia: Excellent in pneumonia or pleurisy, especially when the right side is affected. There is dryness everywhere, dry tongue, with generally a white coating. There may be pain when breathing or coughing where the patient wants to hold steady as any movement hurts. Irritable and thirsty. Better rest, pressure. Worse excitement, bright lights, noise, touch, movement.
This is outrageous, you claim? You insist that homeopathy is bunk, that homeopaths behave irrationally and their remedies are pure placebos? Placebos are no good for life-threatening infections! Anyone who says otherwise is deluded and irresponsible, you suggest.
I see, you might have a point.
Think of the time when homeopaths travelled to Liberia to cure Ebola. That was a homeopathic disaster, if there ever was one. Have homeopaths learnt their lesson since then? Clearly not: there are still hundreds of websites and books promoting homeopathy even for the most serious viral diseases. Do homeopaths provide sound evidence for their claims? I can see none.
Maybe that’s why nobody asks homeopaths to help with medical emergencies.
Consumer Advocate is an organisation that say this about themselves:
We want to make sure that you understand how we make money and who pays us. So we have taken proactive measures to ensure that any advertiser whom we have a paid relationship with is labeled as a “Partner” across our website. If you choose to click on the links on our site, we may receive compensation. If you don’t click or use the phone numbers listed on our site we will not be compensated.
Also, ranking and the order of products on our site are subject to change and partners may influence their position on our website, including the order in which they appear on a Top 10 list. Regardless of partner or compensation, we take into account many additional factors, which are the result of the 200+ hours of research our editorial team spends on average to provide insights and recommendations around each category displayed on our website.
The analyses and opinions on our site are our own and our editors and staff writers follow guidelines to ensure editorial integrity. Our brand, ConsumersAdvocate.org, stands for accuracy and helpful information. We know that we can only be successful if we take your trust in us seriously.
They recently conducted independent lab tests on the purity of 33 samples of essential ois from well-known names in the essential oil industry to see what was really inside each bottle. Their report raises lots of concerns, in my view. The team that wrote the report kindly sent me a summary and asked me to publish it here which I now do without any alteration, abbreviation or further comment:
Everybody’s talking about essential oils. More importantly, everybody’s using them. The global demand for these fragrant chemical compounds reached an extraordinary 226.9 kilotons in 2018 and further growth is projected by the marketing people who measure such things. The proliferation of essential oil users is tied to growth in the food and beverage, personal care and aromatherapy industries.
It’s not surprising that the scientific study of essential oils has also increased with demand for the products. The best essential oil brands invest in quality testing but don’t necessarily follow scientific protocol or make detailed testing results available to consumers. So the literature is still limited— and the jury is still out on whether these compounds are effective in treating medical conditions.
Essential oils are extracted from plants. In their pure form, they are highly concentrated—and sometimes toxic. To make them practical to use, essential oils are typically mixed with diluting carrier oils. Methods of extraction include cold-pressing, steam and water distillation, and the use of chemical solvents. Evaluating individual products made with essential oils is challenging because there are thousands of brands on the market. Neither the extraction methods used or the potency of the products—let alone, testing methods—are standardized. Manufacturers’ ambitious marketing claims, which often rely on ambiguous language, further obscure consumers’ ability to judge for themselves which oils are best suited to their purposes. The list of problems some products purport to solve can run the gamut from an itchy scalp to menopause symptoms.
What’s more, few essential oil manufacturers educate consumers on proper dosage or contraindications, which can lead to accidental misuse and illness. Children are particularly sensitive to many oils and yet most manufacturers fail to warn against applying oils to children’s skin. Pregnant women are usually advised not to use essential oils during their first trimesters, though some studies have suggested they can help alleviate pain during childbirth. Some essential oils should never be used during pregnancy. Essential oils can interact or interfere with prescription medicines and nutritional supplements. But unlike prescription drugs, they don’t come with warning labels about these potential interactions.
Genuinely scientific, peer-reviewed studies of essential oils have primarily focused on using aromatherapy as an adjunct to conventional medical treatment. Science has confirmed that when inhaled, essential oil molecules travel quickly to the brain—specifically the limbic region, which controls pulse, respiration, sexual arousal, and other autonomic functions. Emotional responses like fear and motivation originate in the limbic system. The most promising applications of aromatherapy appear to be in diminishing stress and offering pain relief. But actual clinical trials into such topics as reducing nausea in by chemotherapy patients, relieving anxiety during childbirth, alleviating headaches, and improving sleep have been inconclusive.
Other studies have focused on the subject of inflammation, which is known to contribute to a wide range of medical problems. Essential oils derived from the thyme, clove, rose, eucalyptus, fennel, and bergamot have been demonstrated through one study to activate chemicals in the body which suppress inflammation and suppress chemicals that activate it.
Researchers are also exploring the potential of essential oils as antibacterial agents. Parts of the juniper, cumin, coriander and lavender plants may be effective in battling E coli, while cinnamon may prove useful in treating strep throat and pneumonia.
As ancient and traditional as their use may be in certain cultures, the scientific reality is it’s too early to tell how effective essential oils are in treating the wide range of conditions they are theorized (and now, commonly advertised) to treat.
But that’s not to say you shouldn’t use them, according to recommendations from your doctor. When considering the efficacy of essential oils, bear in mind that the act of self-care can be therapeutic in and of itself. We all know that treating ourselves to a hot bath—or an ice cream cone for that matter—can give us a temporary sense of well-being. For the time being, short-term selfsoothing may be all we can count on from essential oils. But there’s something to be said for even temporary relief. An entire industry of over-the-counter medicines has been founded upon it.
Ever since the government in Bavaria has been misguided enough to agree to a research programme testing whether homeopathy has a role in curtailing the over-use of anti-biotics, the subject of homeopathics as a replacement of antibiotics has been revived.
In this paper, homeopaths describe four female cases with recurrent urinary tract infections. The patients were treated successfully with the homeopathic strategy after several conventional approaches revealed no improvement. The follow-up period was a minimum of 3 years and the frequency of episodes with urinary tract infection as well as of antibiotic treatment was documented. Additionally, the patients were asked to assess the treatment outcome retrospectively in a validated questionnaire.
The treatment resulted in a reduction of urinary tract infections and the need for antibiotics from monthly to less than 3 times a year. Three of the four women had no cystitis and related intake of antibiotics for more than 1.5 years. A relapse of symptoms could be treated efficiently with a repetition of the homeopathic remedy. All subjective outcome assessments resulted positive.
The authors concluded that this case series suggests a possible benefit of individualized homeopathic treatment for female patients with recurrent urinary tract infections. Larger observational studies and controlled investigations are warranted.
Such articles make me quite angry! They have the potential to mislead many patients and, in extreme cases, might even cost lives.
The ‘possible benefit’ of any treatment cannot be demonstrated with such flimsy case series. It has to be shown in properly controlled clinical trials. The findings of case series are confounded by dozens of variables and tell us next to nothing about cause and effect.
Case series make sense when they explore possible new therapeutic avenues. Homeopathy does certainly not fall into this category. The notion that homeopathics might be an alternative to antibiotics has been tested many times before in different settings, in animals, in humans, it vivo and in vitro. This has never generated convincingly positive findings. To re-address it by reporting uncontrolled cases is not just a nonsense; in my view, it is an unethical attempt to mislead us.
About 85% of German children are treated with herbal remedies. Yet, little is known about the effects of such interventions. A new study might tell us more.
This analysis accessed 2063 datasets from the paediatric population in the PhytoVIS data base, screening for information on indication, gender, treatment, co-medication and tolerability. The results suggest that the majority of patients was treated with herbal medicine for the following conditions:
- common cold,
- digestive complaints,
- skin diseases,
- sleep disturbances
The perceived effect of the therapy was rated in 84% of the patients as very good or good without adverse events.
The authors concluded that the results confirm the good clinical effects and safety of herbal medicinal products in this patient population and show that they are widely used in Germany.
If you are a fan of herbal medicine, you will be jubilant. If, on the other hand, you are a critical thinker or a responsible healthcare professional, you might wonder what this database is, why it was set up and how exactly these findings were produced. Here are some details:
The data were collected by means of a retrospective, anonymous, one-off survey consisting of 20 questions on the user’s experience with herbal remedies. The questions included complaints/ disease, information on drug use, concomitant factors/diseases as well as basic patient data. Trained interviewers performed the interviews in pharmacies and doctor’s offices. Data were collected in the Western Part of Germany between April 2014 and December 2016. The only inclusion criterion was the intake of herbal drugs in the last 8 weeks before the individual interview. The primary endpoint was the effect and tolerability of the products according to the user.
And who participated in this survey? If I understand it correctly, the survey is based on a convenience sample of parents using herbal remedies. This means that those parents who had a positive experience tended to volunteer, while those with a negative experience were absent or tended to refuse. (Thus the survey is not far from the scenario I often use where people in a hamburger restaurant are questioned whether they like hamburgers.)
So, there are two very obvious factors other than the effectiveness of herbal remedies determining the results:
- selection bias,
- lack of objective outcome measure.
This means that conclusions about the clinical effects of herbal remedies in paediatric patients are quite simply not possible on the basis of this survey. So, why do the authors nevertheless draw such conclusions (without a critical discussion of the limitations of their survey)?
Could it have something to do with the sponsor of the research?
The PhytoVIS study was funded by the Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR Bonn, Germany.
Or could it have something to do with the affiliations of the paper’s authors:
1 Institute of Pharmacy, University of Leipzig, Brüderstr. 34, 04103, Leipzig, Germny. firstname.lastname@example.org.
2 Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR, Plittersdorfer Str. 218, 573, Bonn, Germany. email@example.com.
3 Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
4 ClinNovis GmbH, Genter Str. 7, 50672, Cologne, Germany.
5 Bayer Consumer Health, Research & Development, Phytomedicines Supply and Development Center, Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk GmbH, Havelstr. 5, 64295, Darmstadt, Germany.
6 Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR, Plittersdorfer Str. 218, 53173, Bonn, Germany.
7 Institute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Max-von-Laue-Str. 9, 60438, Frankfurt, Germany.
8 Chair of Naturopathy, University Medicine Rostock, Ernst-Heydemann Str. 6, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Even the NEW SCIENTIST seems alarmed about Gwyneth and her activities:
Psychic readings, energy healing and vampire facials are just a few of the adventures had by actor and alternative health guru Gwyneth Paltrow and her team in her forthcoming Netflix series The Goop Lab. Goop, Paltrow’s natural health company, has already become a byword for unrestrained woo, but the TV series takes things to the next level.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it isn’t happening. There is unlikely to be any escape from The Goop Lab after it is released on 24 January, judging by the current explosion of interest in Goop’s latest offering, a candle scented like Paltrow’s vagina, which has reportedly sold out…
Yet, I am sure we got her all wrong!
Good old Gwennie is really one of us – she is a true sceptic!
Think about it; it’s the only explanation.
When she first started dabbling in woo, she only wanted to test us. I’ll just display a few cupping marks and see how they react, she thought.
Then she saw that most people were so gullible that they bought it. Of course, she thought, if they buy it, I might as well take their money. In her attempt to see how far she can push her boat out, she decided to conduct a sceptical experiment and went further and further. This is when she started to focus on her vagina – jade eggs, steaming it, etc. Surely, she thought, eventually they must realise that I am a sceptic taking the Mikey!
But they never did realise it; at least not so far.
So, she decided to do something even more brazen and sell candles to dispense the smell of her vagina in the homes of her fans. That will do it, she felt, now they will realise what I want to achieve with all this.
But what happened? They sold out in no time (actually, both the candles and the gullible public)! That was a surprise even to our Gwennie. She thought she had seen it all, but she was wrong.
Now she is trying to think of something even more outrageous – but she admits, it’s not easy. What can be a more obvious and disgusting hoax than filling people’ homes with the smell of my genitals and let them pay through their noses for the pleasure? she asks herself.
Yes, poor old Gwennie is at loss! Stuck in her own vagina, so to speak.
Perhaps you can help her? Please suggest what vaginal gimmick she might sell next to make her position inescapably clear to even the dumbest of the gullible. Just mention your ideas in the comment section below; I have a feeling she is an avid reader of this blog. Gwennie might even show herself generous; if she likes your innovation, she will certainly make it worth your while.
Because, by Jove, she can afford to be generous. Apparently her business is now worth a quarter of a billion US$. But we must not be envious. Knowing that she did all this merely to stimulate sceptical thinking in the general public, you will not be surprised to learn what she intends to do with all this dosh: once she has succeeded in demonstrating to all the gullible pin heads and devotees that she really is on the side of the angles, she will donate all of it to sceptic organisations across the globe.
So, sceptics of the world: stop snarling at my friend Gwennie, rejoice and prepare for a major windfall.
An enthusiast of homeopathy recently posted an overview of systematic reviews of homeopathy concluding that the data we do have point towards homeopathy as having an effect greater than that of placebo:
In recent decades, homeopathy has been examined via a number of clinical trials, the number of which now allow meta-analysis. As we can see from the study findings, the type of homeopathy research (ie, individualized vs non-individualized, placebo-controlled vs non-placebo-controlled) can have a strong influence on the results, although trial quality also has a strong effect.
All meta-analyses performed in at least a somewhat open and rigorous manner have found statistically significant effects. This suggests that homeopathy has a greater-than-placebo effect, or at least a strong trend in that direction, when using data from the totality of homeopathy research, or from individualized, placebo-controlled trials. The meta-analyses with questionable methodology, one of which is undergoing government investigation for academic irregularities, have produced negative results, which have been demonstrated to be a direct result of their exclusion of vast swathes of the homeopathic clinical trial literature (based on arbitrary and unexplained criteria), as well as of their failure to differentiate – as Mathie has done – different types of homeopathic research.
The clinical data are flawed. Issues with methodology used in homeopathy RCTs, combined with a lack of research funding, have produced a lack of high-quality trials and data. However, the data we do have point towards homeopathy as having an effect greater than that of placebo.
There can be no argument with this conclusion, aside from possible new data emerging. Anyone who disputes this is going against the existing set of the highest-quality evidence on homeopathy.
His overview is based on the following publications:
|Kleijnen, 19911||All types of homeopathy (eg, single remedy vs combination). Methodological quality assessed; 105 trials. Results: Positive trend, regardless of type of homeopathy; 81 trials were positive, 24 showed no effect.|
|Linde, 19972||All types of homeopathy. Out of 185 trials, 119 met inclusion criteria; 89 of these had extractable data. Results: OR = 2.45 (95% CI 2.05-2.93).|
|Ernst, 19983||Individualized homeopathy; 5 trials determined to be high-quality. Results: OR = 0.|
|Linde, 19985||Individualized homeopathy; 32 trials, 19 of which had extractable data. Results: OR = 1.62 for all trials (95% CI 1.17-2.23). Only high-quality trials produced no significant trend.|
|Cucherat, 20009||All types of homeopathy; 118 trials, 16 of which met inclusion criteria. Used unusual method of combining p values. Results: All trials = p< 0.000036. Less than 10% dropouts: p<0.084; less than 5% dropouts (higher standards than most trials considered reliable): p<0.08 (non-significant).|
|Shang, 200511||All types of homeopathy; only 8 trials selected from 21 high-quality trials of 110 selected with unusual criteria. Results: OR = 0.88 (0.65-1.19). Result strongly disputed by statisticians.|
|Mathie, 201413||Individualized homeopathy; of the analysis pooled data from 22 higher-quality, individualized, double-blind RCTs. Results: OR = 1.53 (1.22-1.91) for all trials pooled; OR = 1.93 (1.16-3.38) for the 3 reliable trials.|
|NHMRC, 201516||Out of 176 studies, 171 were excluded, leaving only 5 for the study. Investigators used unprecedented methods, did not combine data, and are currently under investigation for outcome shopping. Results: Negative results.|
|Mathie, 201720||Non-individualized homeopathy; very few higher-quality trials. Results: For 54 trials with extractable data, SMD = -0.33 (-0.44, -0.21). When these were adjusted for publication bias, SMD = -0.16 (-0.46,-0.09). The 3 high-quality trials had non-significant results: SMD = -0.18 (-0.46, +0.09).|
|Mathie, 201821||Individualized, other-than-placebo-controlled trials; 11 trials found, 8 with extractable data. Results: 4 heterogeneous comparative trials showed a non-significant difference. One trial in this group was positive. Three heterogeneous trials with additive homeopathy showed a statistically significant SMD. No definitive conclusion possible due to trial heterogeneity, poor quality, and low number of trials.|
|Mathie, 201922||Non-individualized, other-than-placebo-controlled trials; 17 RCTs found, 14 with high risk of bias. Results: Significant heterogeneity prevented much comparison; 3 comparable trials showed a non-significant SMD.|
- Many older systematic reviews were omitted (including about 10 of my own papers). This is relevant because the author of the above review went beck until 1991 to find the reviews he included.
- Several new papers were missing as well. This is relevant because the author evidently included reviews up to 2019. Here are the key passages from the conclusions of some of them:
We tested whether p-curve accurately rejects the evidential value of significant results obtained in placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathic ultramolecular dilutions. Our results suggest that p-curve can accurately detect when sets of statistically significant results lack evidential value.
I am, of course, not saying that this overview amounts to anything like a systematic review. It merely gives you a flavour how trustworthy proponents of homeopathy are when they pretend to provide us with an objective evaluation of the best available evidence.
A 2020 review entitled ‘Prevention, Treatment and Management of Tuberculosis through Combinational Approaches of Different Indian Systems of Medicine’ stated that recent research suggests that Homeopathic treatment along with the antibiotics synergise the effect of antibiotics while reaching to its site of action. This is a surprising finding, if there ever was one. Therefore, I looked a bit closer with a view of determining what the original data were that led to this conclusion.
Here is the unaltered section on homeopathy from the review:
Homeopathy is a special, organic, holistic medicine process which activates the healing responses of the body without any known contraindications or common side effects. In his book Organon of Medicine, aka Organon of Healing Art, the founder of Homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, developed these principles. Homoeopathy does not have holistic treatment and hence is incapable of curing TB because of homeopathic portions of water, which is not enough to treat TB, but recent research suggests the use of homeopathic treatment along with the antibiotics, which results in synergising the effect of antibiotics while reaching to its site of action. As standard MDR-TB medicines are second-generation antibiotics taken for 24–27 months, thus, apart from conventional treatment, homeopathy in MDR-TB tends to improve outcome. Hence, it increases the bioavailability of the isoniazid and rifampicin, which resulted in the reduction of tuberculosis therapy. This study has been proving by analysing following parameters as below:
There was no significant difference in smear conversion from positive to negative at 95 % CI between homeopathy (H) and individualised standard treatment regimen (SR) + placebo (P). However, the conversion culture conversion from positive to negative in SR + H was seen in 29 (48.3 %) patients and 23 (38.3 %) patients in SR + P group (p = 0.269) (ITT) and 27 (55.1 %); 21 (42.8 %), p = 0.225 (PP) implying that as compared to SR + P group, culture conversion in SR + H group was more by 10 %. So the difference, although favourable to the SR + H group is not statistically significant as shown in table 4.
All patients had far advanced lung disease as evident from the extensive infiltration, cavitation ns and fibrosis/collapse. Chest X-ray (CXR) were further assessed using RAT (Radiological Assessment Tool), examples of one case rated as + 5 and one case as _4. Significant improvements were seen statistically in CXR in the SR + H 37 (61.7 %); as compared to SR + P 20 (33.3 %), p = 0.002 at 95 % CI (ITT). Homeopathy system having all possibility to enhance the treatment and management of the TB .
To be clear: there is no further mention or discussion of homeopathy in this paper. The above-quoted section (its multiple falsehoods are so obvious that I probably don’t need to mention them here) is thus the only evidence provided for backing up the claim that Homeopathic treatment along with the antibiotics synergise the effect of antibiotics while reaching to its site of action. I fail to see how the information provided supports the claim. Moreover, I am not aware of any sound evidence that would support the claim that homeopathy acts synergistically to antibiotics.
In the reference list, I found one of my own articles cited as reference 13 (see above). It refers to this article: Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Dr J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54: 577–582. Here is its abstract:
Homeopathy remains one of the most controversial subjects in therapeutics. This article is an attempt to clarify its effectiveness based on recent systematic reviews. Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analysis on the subject. Seventeen articles fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six of them related to re-analyses of one landmark meta-analysis. Collectively they implied that the overall positive result of this meta-analysis is not supported by a critical analysis of the data. Eleven independent systematic reviews were located. Collectively they failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo. It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice.
I fail to see how my paper backs up the very odd sentence: Homeopathy system having all possibility to enhance the treatment and management of the TB.
This is much more than sloppiness. In fact, it is one of the clearest cases of scientific misconduct I have ever come across. What is more, if its message would get adopted, it has the potential to do considerable harm. The authors of the paper in question, Priyanka Sharma , Ramesh K. Goyal, and Mukesh Nandave, declared no conflicts of interest; their affiliation is provided as ‘Departments of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University, New Delhi, India’. The journal that published their review is ‘Drug Research‘, a publication which I always had thought was reputable.
I am not sure what I should do next.
‘HOMEOPATHY360’ are fiercely decided to defend homeopathy, no matter what. They state that we promise to stand by your side always to fight against the critical attacks on Homeopathy… Therefore, I was not really surprised when, a couple of days ago, I received an email by them urging me to support US homeopaths against the threat by the FDA. Here is part of this correspondence:
… If you want to know more about the FDA’s proposed new rules for homeopathic medicines, here’s a summary of the most important points:
- The new rules, if adopted, will allow the FDA to withdraw even properly manufactured and labeled homeopathic medicines from the marketplace. This is puzzling because these have never posed any sort of safety concern according to an initial review of public FDA records by Americans for Homeopathy Choice.
- It is clear that the FDA intends to use this authority and has even mentioned specific medicines such as Belladonna, Nux vomica and Lachesis muta in its public statements regarding enforcement.
- The authority for this kind of assault on homeopathy will result from the declaration by the FDA that all homeopathic medicines are “new drugs.” We all know this is nonsense. Homeopathic medicines have been around for 200 years.
- But this nonsense declaration means that under U.S. law all homeopathic remedies will become technically “illegal” and subject to withdrawal from the marketplace. If the FDA just thinks there is a problem with a homeopathic medicine, it can withdraw it forever without conducting any sort of investigation.
- Since the agency has already said that it thinks that Belladonna, Nux vomica, Lachesis muta and several other remedies are dangerous, we can anticipate that it will try to remove them from the marketplace as soon as its new rules are adopted.
- But, it won’t be possible for Americans to get remedies that are banned sent to them from abroad. The FDA will simply stop these remedies at the border.
I could tell you more, but what I’ve told you so far should convince you that we ought to help the American homeopathy community defeat these unreasonable and misinformed rules. The rules simply do not reflect the realities of homeopathic medicines, namely, that they are nontoxic, mild, effective and have few, if any, side-effects. And, homeopaths use them in ways that individualize treatment. That this is the best way to treat patients was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann 200 years ago.
The enemies of homeopathy are everywhere and they appear to be stepping up their attacks. That’s why the world homeopathy community must work together to stand up to them…
I have reported about the FDA initiatives on homeopathy before. In 2015, they started it with a public hearing. Since then, the FDA also issued several warnings to manufacturers who were putting consumers at risk (see, for instance, here, here, and here).
What the FDA seem to be trying to do is nothing else but meeting their ethical, moral and legal responsibility vis a vis consumer safety. Homeopathy has had a free ride for far too long. It is high time that this sector joins the 21st century.
The above quote, with its bonanza of bogus claims and falsehoods, shows the urgency of this task. The defenders of homeopathy seem to live on a different planet where rationality, facts and evidence can easily be over-ruled by creed, dogma and wishful thinking. If homeopaths want their trade to join the realm of real medicine they need, at the very minimum, to show with sound evidence:
- that their remedies generate more good than harm,
- that they adhere to acceptable quality standards.
Failing this – and so far, homeopaths not only failed at this task but continue bombarding us with an incessant flow of bogus and dangerous claims – homeopathics cannot be considered to be medicines, and homeopaths cannot be called responsible healthcare professionals. It is high time to stop turning a blind eye to the double standards that have been applied for 200 years.
Yesterday morning, I was listening to the Today Programme on BBC 4 when a man called Matt Adams was given airtime to explain and promote his ‘bionutrient reader’. What he said sounded like pure quackery – but this is quackery outside my area of expertise. Therefore, I looked it up; here is what the website tells us (apart from the fact that, for ~ US$ 400, you can buy the device):
The bionutrient meter is actually, in many ways, a shockingly simple device. It has lights (LEDs – light emitting diodes) that emit light at very specific wavelengths (fancy sciency word for colors), which then bounce off objects (like carrots, or carrot pulp, or spinach, or soil), while some of it is absorbed (turned into other forms of energy like heat) by the object, and then a light sensor in the device reads how much light bounces back (for each wavelength, multiple times, very quickly).
Why this matters (light bouncing off) is because this is actually a characteristic of objects that is directly correlated to the chemical compounds that the object is made of. So in the case of food, there are known correlations between light reflectance, at specific wavelengths, and the amount of different nutrients found in that food (vitamins, antioxidants, and aromatic compounds [things that smell, and also usually contribute to taste and health-giving attributes of food], to name a few). What makes this extra complicated though, is that these light-bouncing characteristics and compounds “overlap” with each other – so we need to look at lots of data to try to parse out what is causing the response we’re seeing.
To me, this does look suspiciously close to quackery to me.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?