bogus claims
The IGeL-Monitor is a German information portal that reviews self-pay medical services offered in doctors’ offices. It summarizes the likely benefit and harm of these services in plain language so patients can make more informed decisions. It is run by the “Medizinischer Dienst Bund” and uses evidence-based assessments rather than advertising or provider opinion.
The IGeL‑Monitor has recently focussed on osteopathy for non‑specific low back pain and judged the evidence as “unclear” stating that the current evidence does not reliably show a benefit, nor does it demonstrate meaningful harm. The reassessment pooled evidence from ten randomised clinical trials including about 1,160 participants. While some trials suggested small improvements in pain or function, the overall certainty of these findings was low due to methodological weaknesses in the primary studies. The reviewers therefore concluded that there is no convincing, high‑quality proof that osteopathic manual therapy provides a clinically relevant advantage over sham or usual care.
A further concern highlighted in the assessment is publication bias: positive trials may be preferentially published. This phenomenon that exaggerates apparent benefits.
No clear pattern of harm from osteopathic treatment was identified. Adverse events were inconsistently and inadequately recorded in the trials. This fact not only limits the confidence about safety, but is also a clear breach of medical ethics.
The IGeL‑Monitor reiterates its previous (2018) position: with current data one cannot reliably endorse osteopathy as an effective out‑of‑pocket intervention for non‑specific low back pain, nor can one identify significant risk. Hence the label “unclear.” For patients considering osteopathy as a self‑paid service, the IGeL‑Monitor recommends being informed about the uncertain benefit and the weak evidence base when weighing potential costs against likely outcomes.
The new assessment is in agreement with much that I have been saying on this blog. I nevertheless would like to add one important point: back pain is the one condition for which the evidence is relatively sound. There are many other conditions for which osteopathy is being relentlessly promoted as an effective therapy with even less or no reliable evidence at all.
The Church of Scientology has spent decades insisting that psychiatry is a terrorist conspiracy, antidepressants are a gateway to mass murder, and only its own “tech” can save humanity from the menace of Prozac and similar “poisons”. One might imagine this worldview would remain safely quarantined within L. Ron Hubbard’s realm of loons.
But then Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became Secretary of Health and Human Services!
By pure coincidence Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” crusade, unveiled with the MAHA Action Plan to Curb Psychiatric Overprescribing, just happens to target the very same SSRIs that Scientology and its front group CCHR have been demonising for years. Antidepressants are singled out, deprescribing is framed as a patriotic duty, and psychotherapy and lifestyle tweaks are held up as the noble alternative to “overmedicalization.” The American Psychiatric Association calls SSRIs evidence‑based treatment; Kennedy, channelling his inner CCHR lawyer, suggests they’re harder to quit than heroin and may be helping to fuel mass violence.
Enter Wisner Baum, the mass‑tort firm whose senior partners have long, colourful histories with Scientology and its covert operations. This firm has spent years suing antidepressant manufacturers and other psychiatric technologies. And Kennedy has quietly pocketed over $850,000 in fees from them, while keeping a continuing financial interest as HHS Secretary. It is hard to imagine a neater arrangement: a Scientology‑linked law firm sues drug companies; a Scientology‑approved health secretary casts doubt on those same drugs from the cabinet; and fee income flows merrily along.
So, is Kennedy formally a Scientologist?
No, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for that. But perhaps the label becomes somewhat unimportant, when the nation’s top health official is advancing policy that mirrors Scientology’s doctrine and staying financially intertwined with its legal defender. Whether or not he has taken the oath or not (and I am not saying he has), he seems to be doing the work of Xenu, the mysterious extraterrestrial ruler of a galactic confederacy.
An article entitled “Beyond the Appearance of Rigor: Trustworthiness, Integration, and Standardization in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” caught my eye. The name “Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” is, I think, impressive as it demonstrates the seemingly infinite ability of SCAM-promoters to come up endlessly with new and ridiculous terms! Please allow me nonetheless to continue calling it so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
The paper itself might be summarised as follows:
SCAMs struggles to fit into mainstream science. Trustworthiness isn’t just about flashy, individual study results; it requires a reliable system of transparent data and independent replication. However, forcing SCAM into mainstream healthcare via scientific scrutiny, standardisation and integration is a double-edged sword. It strips away the personalized, holistic essence of these therapies. Instead of abandoning science or changing the therapies, researchers need to use creative, flexible scientific methods that document the real-world complexity of SCAM without trying to force it into an artificial mold.
I have heard this argument often, particularly early on when I started applying science to SCAM. SCAM proponents were initially taken by the idea; later, when the results were often not what they expected, they were less impressed and argued that, because science failed to produce positive results, something must be wrong with it and in need of improvement. Specifically, the arguments were:
- SCAM is individualised,
- SCAM is holistic,
- SCAM is complex,
- SCAM is subtle,
- SCAM depends on the skill of the practitioner.
And therefore, SCAM cannot be fitted into the straitjacket of science, particularly not in the one imposed by the randomised clinical trial.
It took many years to convince some SCAM proponents that these notions were erroneous, that science is not always perfect but that no better method for testing exists, that many mainstream interventions (e.g. physiotherapy, psychotherapy) are just as complex, holistic, etc. as is SCAM. Eventually the argument that SCAM defies scientific evaluation disappeared – not totally, but almost.
Now, 30 years later, it is back!
One cannot even blame the SCAM enthusiasts for reviving it. Thirty years of research and very little of SCAM has been proven to work – unless one gives SCAM a huge ‘benefit of the doubt’ and pretends poor science constitutes proof. Even the treatments that SCAM proponents celebrate as evidence-based fall apart once we scratch the surface and discover how poor and irreproducible the evidence mostly is.
Yes, I do sympathise with the frustration of SCAM proponents as they gradually realise all this. Many of them know only too well that their most solid evidence can be taken apart by any first-year medical student with rudimentary skills of critical evaluation. Many of them therefore have long moved away from hypothesis testing research and prefer the type of investigation that never generates a negative finding (e.g. surveys, qualitative studies, sociological approaches). Others, including the two authors of the above-mentioned paper, prefer to go full circle and revive the notions we dealt with decades ago claiming we need different standards for SCAM than for the rest of medicine.
Perhaps someone should tell them that double standards are never a good idea?
Homeopaths tend to voice a standard set of arguments when confronted with irrefutable evidence against homeopathy. In the discussion sections of this blog, we heard them all:
- “The negative trials are flawed designed.” They claim these trials were done by ungifted therapists or used the wrong remedies, wrong potencies, wrong dosing schedules, etc. Therefore, they do not reflect true homeopathic practice.
- “Homeopathy is individualised, RCTs can’t capture it.” They argue that randomised clinical trials are inherently unsuitable because homeopathic treatment must be tailored to each patient, rendering RCTs “unfair” or even “unscientific.”
- “Only a fraction of the evidence has been considered.” They assert that critics cherry-pick negative evidence and ignore positive small trials, case series, or observational data that they regard as equally valid.
- “There is much positive evidence.” They point to older or methodologically weak positive studies and claim these outweigh or at least balance the otherwise negative body of evidence.
- “Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are biased and/or politically motivated.” They allege that negative evaluations are driven by ideological hostility to homeopathy, Big Pharma influence, or institutional bias.
- “Statistical significance is not the same as clinical reality.” They argue that statistics miss “real-world” benefits observed in practice and that evidence-based medicine is too narrow.
- “Evidence-based medicine overvalues RCTs and undervalues experience.” They insist that long clinical experience, case reports, patient testimonies, etc. should count as strong evidence and that their accumulated practice is itself proof of efficacy.
- “Patient demand and satisfaction are evidence.” They use high patient satisfaction, repeat consultations, and word-of-mouth popularity as a proxy for effectiveness.
- “Millions use it worldwide.” They argue that longstanding, global usage implies that it must work; otherwise it would have disappeared.
- “Conventional medicine is not perfect either.” They respond to criticism by highlighting harms, errors, and historical reversals in conventional medicine, implying that science-based critics lack moral authority.
- “If it were only placebo, it wouldn’t work on XY.” They claim efficacy in infants, animals, or unconscious patients as evidence that placebo cannot fully explain the effects.
- “Mechanisms aren’t fully known, but that doesn’t matter.” They liken homeopathy to earlier medical advances whose mechanisms were unknown at the time (e.g. aspirin), arguing that lack of a plausible mechanism is not a valid reason to reject positive clinical observations.
- “Physics and chemistry are incomplete; future science will explain it.” They invoke concepts like quantum physics, nanostructures, or complex systems to argue that current science is still too limited to explain homeopathy.
- “Regulatory / institutional conspiracies.” They suggest that powerful pharmaceutical or medical lobbies seek to suppress homeopathy to protect their financial interests.
- “Homeopathy is cheap and safe; risk–benefit favours it.” They argue that even if evidence is thin, the very low risk and low cost justify its use.
- “The therapeutic encounter itself is part of the effect.” They turn criticisms about placebo and context effects into a strength: the long consultation, empathy, and attention are claimed to be legitimate and central components of homeopathy.
- “Freedom of choice / patient autonomy.” They shift from scientific to ethical/political ground, insisting that patients should be free to choose homeopathy regardless of scientific consensus.
- “Skeptics misunderstand what homeopathy really is.” They claim that people conflate homeopathy with herbalism, confuse potencies, or misunderstand Hahnemann’s principles, so their critiques do not address true homeopathy.
- “Critics don’t see the individual ‘miracle’ cases.” They counter population-level data with vivid anecdotes of dramatic improvements which they regard as decisive.
- “Negative evidence is ‘absence of evidence’, not ‘evidence of absence’.” They argue that failed trials or negative reviews merely show that efficacy hasn’t been proved yet, not that homeopathy does not work.
- “Science evolves; today’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ may be overturned.” They claim that scientific consensus has been wrong before and that homeopathy will eventually be vindicated when paradigms shift.
In discussions with homeopaths, these points are repeated endlessly. One could easily get the impression of a broken record. All of the above arguments have in common that – even as some of then contain a kernel of truth – they are erroneous. In theory it could be easy to point this out to the stereotypical homeopathy promoter; in practice, however, it often is impossible, since the broken record continues turning senselessly.
Tolerance is widely regarded as a moral virtue, a cornerstone of pluralistic societies and a safeguard against dogmatism. Yet, tolerance can sometimes be misplaced. Thomas Mann suggested that “tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil”. In a similar vein, I propose that tolerance can become unethical when applied to homeopathy.
Homeopathy presents itself as a benign and natural alternative to or complement of conventional medicine. Its appeal lies partly in its historical pedigree and partly in its promise of gentle healing without side effects. However, beneath this veneer lies a system of belief that is fundamentally incompatible with science and ethics. Its core principles – the notions that like cures like and that substances become more potent through extreme dilution – contradict basic laws of physics, chemistry and pharmacology. After more than two centuries of use and more that 500 clinical studies, there is no credible evidence that homeopathic remedies perform better than placebos.
In many areas of life, tolerance for differing beliefs is both appropriate and necessary. However, medicine is different. It is not merely a matter of opinion; it is a field grounded in empirical evidence, where opinions can have direct and drastic consequences for health and survival. To tolerate ineffective and therefore potentially harmful treatments within this domain risks legitimizing misinformation and undermining public trust in evidence-based care.
The ethical problem intensifies when homeopathy is integrated into healthcare systems or endorsed by public institutions. Such endorsement conveys an implicit message of efficacy and legitimacy, misleading patients who may lack the expertise to critically evaluate medical claims. This is particularly concerning in cases where patients choose homeopathic remedies as an alternative therapy, i.e.in place of effective treatments, potentially resulting in preventable harm. Here, tolerance can easily degenerate into complicity.
Defenders of homeopathy often invoke patient choice and patient autonomy. While these are important principles, they do not justify the abdication of professional responsibility. True respect for patients involves providing accurate information and protecting them from ineffective or deceptive practices. Allowing patients to choose homeopathy without clear, despite all the evidence that speaks against it is not an expression of respect but a failure of duty.
Moreover, the commercial dimension of homeopathy raises additional ethical concerns. The marketing of homeopathic products often exploits the language of science and medicine while evading the standards that govern them. Consumers are led to believe they are purchasing effective treatments. In reality, they are buying fake medicines that contain no active ingredients. This practice tolerance has degenerated into exploitation.
A society that prides itself on scientific progress and rational inquiry cannot afford to suspend its critical faculties in the name of tolerance. While civility and openness are essential virtues, they must not be confused with randomness or indiscriminate acceptance. Tolerance has limits, particularly when it intersects with matters of public health and scientific integrity.
Thus, the tolerance extended to homeopathy is not merely misplaced; it is ethically problematic. By granting homeopathy a status it does not merit, we risk eroding the very standards that protect patients and uphold the credibility of medicine. In this context, I feel that intolerance is not a vice but a necessary stance, one that affirms the primacy of evidence, reason, and the ethical obligation to do no harm.
A position paper of the Associazione Pazienti Malattie Oculari (APMO) evaluated IRIDOLOGY. Here is its abstract:
Iridology is an alternative diagnostic practice that claims to identify systemic diseases and organ dysfunction through visual inspection of iris features, including pigmentation patterns, crypts, furrows, and discolorations. Despite its continued presence within complementary and alternative medicine, iridology has not been incorporated into mainstream medical practice. This review critically examines iridology from an ophthalmologic perspective, addressing its historical origins and epistemological foundations, proposed mechanisms, biological plausibility, and clinical evidence. A systematic appraisal of the available literature, including the most recent government-commissioned evidence evaluation, demonstrates a consistent lack of diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility, and pathophysiological rationale. The ethical and clinical implications of iridology use are discussed, with particular attention to the risk of delayed diagnosis and patient misinformation. Based on the totality of evidence, iridology cannot be supported as a diagnostic or screening tool in ophthalmology or general medicine.
In the article itself, the authors drew the following, detailed conclusion: Iridology is a diagnostic practice whose foundational maps were constructed through uncontrolled post hoc observation, without anatomical, physiological, or embryological basis. Decades of controlled investigation – including the most recent government-commissioned systematic review applying GRADE methodology [16] – have failed to demonstrate diagnostic accuracy beyond chance, and no credible mechanism links iris features to systemic organ pathology.
A scientifically rigorous appraisal must acknowledge several nuances: the evidence base itself is limited in volume and methodological quality; a single study using automated photodensitometry produced one marginally significant finding; and one recent unblinded study reported high sensitivity at the cost of unacceptably low specificity. These exceptions do not alter the overall conclusion but illustrate that further high-quality prospective blinded trials would strengthen the evidentiary record.
Based on the available evidence, the Associazione Pazienti Malattie Oculari endorses the following key messages:
- Iridology should not be used or endorsed as a diagnostic or screening tool in ophthalmology or general medicine.
- The epistemological foundations of iridology (chart construction through uncontrolled post hoc correlation) are incompatible with scientific validation regardless of clinical trial results.
- Computer-aided iridology represents a technological advance that has not yet addressed the underlying validity problem and should not be regarded as validated.
- Patient inquiries should be addressed with empathy, scientific clarity, and a clear distinction between genuine ocular signs of systemic disease and unsupported claims.
- Ophthalmologists have a professional responsibility to safeguard the scientific integrity of ocular diagnostics and to protect patients from practices with potential for harm.
All of this confirms what I have been saying and writing for several decades. My recent book BIZARRE MEDICAL IDEAS has a chapter on iridology and his inventor. Here is its abstract:
Ignaz von Peczely (1826-1911) was born into a noble Hungarian family. He became a lay homeopath but later decided to study medicine in Vienna where he graduated aged 36. He then had a thriving medical practice in Vienna. Peczely’s discovery of iridology allegedly goes back to his childhood when he noted discolourings in the eye of an injured owl. Throughout his professional life, Peczely promoted iridology with some success. Other practitioners took over the mantle and made sure iridology is popular to the present day.
What needs stressing, I feel, is the fact that iridology is not just a mere folly, it is dangerous! False negative and false positive diagnoses – iridology is unable to deliver anything else – carry serious, sometimes life-threatening risks.
Critics of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) often point out that much of it lacks plausibility. Proponents of SCAM tend to think that this is an irrelevance. So, what is plausibility, and why does it matter?
Think of scientific plausibility as a reality check. Before scientists spend time and money testing a new idea, they ask a basic question: Does it actually line up with what we already know about how the universe works? While an idea being plausible doesn’t automatically make it true, it acts as a crucial filter. It helps us separate ideas that are worth investigating from those that break the fundamental laws of logic, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
This is exactly where many SCAMs fall apart. Their claims often contradict basic science before a study even begins. Take homeopathy, for example. It relies on the idea that a substance can cure an illness, even if it is diluted over and over again, often to the point where not a single molecule of the original ingredient is left. This directly defies molecular theory and the well-established “dose-response relationship,” which simply states that the amount of a substance matters. Similarly, practices like “energy healing” postulate mysterious vital energies that cannot be seen, felt, or measured by any instrument known to modern science.
This matters because it changes how we look at “proof.” In science, if an idea is highly unlikely from the start, a single positive study usually isn’t a breakthrough. Instead, it’s much more likely to be a fluke, a statistical error, the result of a flawed experiment or even fraud.
Instead of trying to fix these scientific contradictions, proponents of SCAM often change the subject or move the goalpost. They might, for instance, that claim the scientific method is closed-minded or simply ignore negative results. But you cannot bypass the rules of reality. If a treatment claims to do something that contradicts everything we know about nature, it requires extraordinary proof to be taken seriously.
I do understand why SCAM enthusiasts try to ignore the issue of plausibility. But ignoring it runs several risks. For instance, it risks doing research that is entirely wasteful. More importantly perhaps, it risks paying undue attention to false positive results which, in turn, can seriously harm vulnerable patients – just think of a cancer patient who has fallen victim to the claims of homeopaths – backed by multiple, implausible and fase-positive results – suggesting that homeopathy can cure cancer.
“Science and pseudoscience diverge particularly sharply in their ethical and moral foundations. While science is built upon principles of honesty, openness, and responsibility, pseudoscience undermines these values often by placing ideology and belief over evidence and truth. Science is not least an ethical enterprise, and the divide between science and pseudoscience is a matter of profound moral importance. The ethical stakes become especially acute when pseudoscience causes harm…”
These lines come from my recent book, THE LEOPARD LILY PROJECT, which is only marginally about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Yet they do apply well to SCAM which does not merely fail the test of scientific rigor but also fails the test of medical ethics. When a practice trades empirical validation for dogmatic ideology, it ceases to be an innocent alternative and becomes a profound moral transgression. SCAM regularly promises holistic salvation while actively undermining the principles of honesty, openness, and responsibility, effectively replacing rigorous scrutiny with profitable mystique.
The ethical stakes transition from academic to tragic whenever a vulnerable patient is guided away from effective treatments. SCAM cloaks itself in the gentle language of empathy and natural, holistic, individualised healing, yet its business model relies on exploiting the desperation of the sick. Informed consent is rendered impossible when patients are fed misleading or even fabricated data and disproven promises. By substituting anecdotes for evidence, SCAM weaponizes false hope, monetizing the fear of illness under the guise of medical autonomy. SCAM fosters a broader culture of conspiratorial thinking that systematically erodes public trust in collective public health infrastructure.
When conventional physicians prescribe a treatment, they are bound by evidence, medical ethics, regulatory oversight, and a legal duty of care. When SCAM practitioners prescribe an unproven therapy, they operate in an ethical void, often shielded from accountability by vague disclaimers.
Science remains an ethical enterprise acknowledging its own limitations and subjecting its claims to rigorous correction. Pseudoscience demands faith instead of evidence and leaves its patients to bear the physical consequences of its intellectual dishonesty. To pick up and rephrase the theme from my recent book: evidence-based medicine and SCAM diverge particularly sharply in their ethical and moral foundations.
Having narcissistic tendencies, e.g. bragging or making yourself the center of attention, are normal, if they occur only occasionally. However, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is different. With NPD, symptoms are more severe, occur regularly and in different situations and environments, and make relationships with others challenging.
The 9 most common symptoms of NPD are the following:
- Grandiose sense of self-importance.
- Preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
- Belief that they are “special” and should associate only with high-status people or institutions.
- Need for excessive admiration.
- Strong sense of entitlement.
- Interpersonally exploitative behaviour, using others to achieve their own ends.
- Lack of empathy, with little recognition of others’ feelings or needs.
- Envy of others, or belief that others are envious of them.
- Arrogant or haughty attitudes and behaviours.
Now, let’s consider a person who is almost constantly in our minds, mainly because he makes the headline news practically every day:
DONALD J TRUMP.
Does he perhaps display any of the above-listed symptoms? Let’s find out by going through them one by one and citing concrete examples**:
- Trump displays grandiose sense of self-importance regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: in August 2019, he told reporters, “I am the chosen one”.
- Trump displays preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: he said he was “always the best athlete” before his first presidential physical in January 2018.
- Trump displays his belief that he is “special” and should associate only with high-status people or institutions regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: in his 2018 rally line about the “elite,” he said, “We’re the elite… We’re the super-elite”.
- Trump displays a need for excessive admiration regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: according to a 2026 analysis, he has a “relentless demand for exaltation,” wants “praise, admiration, and accolades,” and even accepts honors that critics said were meant for others.
- Trump displays a strong sense of entitlement regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: he defended accepting a luxury Boeing 747 from Qatar by saying it would be “stupid” to turn down a “free plane,” and the aircraft was reported to be intended for his use as Air Force One.
- Trump displays interpersonally exploitative behaviour, using others to achieve their own ends regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: in the border detention context, he “exploits his power” and “leverages cruelty strategically,” especially in policies that harmed vulnerable migrants and children.
- Trump displays lack of empathy, with little recognition of others’ feelings or needs regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: the family-separation policy at the US border, which causes severe suffering, while Trump continues to treat it as a political instrument rather than a human tragedy.
- Trump displays envy of others, or belief that others are envious of them regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: he has repeatedly made unverified claims about his inauguration crowd size, television ratings, and rally attendance, frequently comparing them directly to Obama’s numbers in an attempt to prove he is more widely loved
- Trump displays arrogant or haughty attitudes and behaviours regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: While accepting the party’s nomination in Cleveland, Ohio, Trump delivered a dark assessment of the US, describing a nation plagued by rising crime, economic decay, and international humiliation. After spending a large portion of the speech detailing these systemic crises, he uttered (in grammatically wrong English): “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”
So is Trump suffering from NPD?
Judge for yourself.
I guess he is not suffering from but enjoying it!
___________________
And what is the solution? Treatment of NPD can be difficult because people with NPD may not feel therapy is necessary, so progress often depends on motivation and a good therapeutic fit. There is no effective drug treatment and talking therapies are usually recommended. In Trump’s case, removal from office would obviously be an acutely necessary measure.
__________________
**I am sure you know of much better examples (the coice is truly vast); feel free to cite them in the comments.
Breast cancer and its treatments affect patients’ physical, psychological, and emotional well-being. Practices such as Reiki are used to support symptom management, particularly during chemotherapy. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of Reiki practice on improving symptoms in breast cancer patients within the framework of Martha E. Rogers’ “Science of Unitary Human Beings.”
The research was conducted as a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, and DergiPark databases, with the search updated through May 2026 prior to the final analysis. Randomized controlled trials, experimental studies, and quasi-experimental studies investigating Reiki interventions in breast cancer patients were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were independently assessed by two researchers using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Four studies meeting the inclusion criteria included a total of 339 participants. The included studies suggested that Reiki practice may reduce fatigue and improve overall comfort and well-being. Some studies also reported improvements in quality of life, comfort, mental well-being, and mood.
The authors concluded that Reiki appeared to be a safe and well-tolerated complementary intervention in the included studies. Reiki practice may contribute to symptom management, improve quality of life, and support psychological well-being in breast cancer patients. However, due to the limited number of studies, small sample sizes, and methodological differences, larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed.
This is a weird review, if there ever was one!
- It certainly did not follow the PRISMA guidelines.
- It evaluated the effects of Reiki practice on improving symptoms in breast cancer patients; much clearer can one not display a pro-Reiki bias!
- It included non-randomised trials.
- None of the included studies were of sufficiently good quality.
But the weirdest aspect must be the conclusion of the abstract: it aknowledges the fact that the primary studies were rubbish and nevertheless praises the multiple alleged benefits of Reiki. If the evidence is unconvincing due to many flaws of the primary data, the only adequate conclusion should read something like this:
Because of serious flaws of the included studies, the evidence that Reiki affects the symptoms of breast cancer patients fails to be positive.
