MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

bogus claims

Although the vaccine has many individual and social benefits, ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ has led to an increase in the number of vaccine-preventable diseases.

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of ideas that cause vaccine hesitancy to comply with traditional medicine practices and drugs and to determine the ratio of parents’ preference for so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).

This study was performed on the parents who refused vaccination in their children under the age of 8 between the years 2017-2022. Parents of the vaccinated children who were matched for age and gender were determined as the control group. Demographic characteristics of families, education levels, compliance ratios for well-child follow-up and pregnancy follow-up, preference ratios for traditional medicine and/or SCAM applications were compared.

A total of 123 families, 61 of whom were vaccine refusal and 62 of the control group, were included in the study. It was determined that the ratio of parents who refuse vaccination have increased in the last five years. The education level was found to be higher in the SCAM group (p=0.019). The most common reasons for vaccine refusal were distrust of the vaccine content (72.1%) and noncompliance with religious beliefs (49.1%). It was also found that the ratios of prophylactic vitamin use and tetanus vaccination of mothers during pregnancy were lower in the SCAM group. While the rate of compliance with vitamin D and iron prophylaxis for infants was lower in the vaccine refusal group, the ratio of preference for SCAM was higher.

The authors conclused that vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue that affects public health, in which many individual, religious, political and sociological factors play a role. As with recent studies, this research shows that the most important reason for vaccine rejection is “lack of trust”. The higher education level in the vaccine refusal group may also be a sign of this distrust. Not only the rejection of the vaccine, but also the lack of use of vitamin drugs seems to be related to lack of trust. This may also cause SCAM methods to be preferred more. These results show that providing trust in vaccination is the biggest step in the fight against vaccine hesitancy.

We have discussed the link between SCAM and vaccination hesitancy many times before, e.g.:

This new study seems to imply that the common denominator of both SCAM use and vaccination hesitancy is distrust, distrust in vaccinations and distrust in conventional medicine. That makes sense at first glance but not when you think about it for only a minute.

I can see why people distrust conventional medicine (to some extend, I do it myself). But why should distrust motivate some people to put their trust into SCAM which is even less trustworthy than conventional medicine. The rational thing for a distrusting person would be to critically assess the evidence and go where the evidence leads him/her. This path cannot possibly lead to SCAM but would lead to the best available evidence-based therapies.

If we consider this carefully, we arrive at the conclusion that not distrust but a degree of irrationality is more likely be the common denominator between SCAM use and vaccination hesitancy.

What do you think?

Yes, I have done it again: another book!

Bizarre Medical Ideas: … and the Strange Men Who Invented Them

In order to let you know what it is all about, allow me to post the intoduction here:

Medicine has always relied on extraordinary innovators. Without them, progress would hardly have been possible, and we might still believe in the four humours and be treated with blood letting, mercury potions, or purging. The history of medicine is therefore to a large extent the history of its pioneers. This book is about some of them. It focusses on the mavericks who separated themselves from the mainstream and invented alternative medicine, healthcare that remained outside conventional medicine.

Few people would deny that differences of opinion are necessary for progress. This is true for healthcare as it is for any other field. Divergent views and legitimate debate have always been important drivers of innovation. Yet, some opinions have been so thoroughly repudiated by evidence as to be considered demonstrably wrong and harmful.

The realm of alternative medicine is full of such opinions. They are personified by men who created therapies based on wishful thinking, fallacious assumptions, and pseudoscience. Many of the alternative modalities – therapies or diagnostic methods – that are today so surprisingly popular have been originated by one single person. This book is about these men. It is an investigation into their lives, ideas, pseudoscience, and achievements and an attempt to find out what motivated each of these individuals to create treatments that are out of line with the known facts.

The book is divided into two parts. The first section sets the scene by establishing what true discoveries in medicine might look like. It offers short biographical sketches of my personal choice of some of my ‘medical icons’. In addition, it provides the necessary background about the field of alternative medicine. The second section is dedicated to the often strange men who invented these bizarre alternative treatments and diagnostic methods. In this section, we discuss in some detail the life and work of these individuals. Moreover, we critically evaluate the evidence for and against each of these modalities. An finally, we attempt to draw some conclusions about the strange men who invented bizarre alternative methods.

Having studied alternative medicine for more than three decades and having published more scientific papers on this subject than anyone else, the individuals behind the extraordinary modalities have intrigued me for many years. By describing these eccentric men, their assumptions, motivations, delusions, and failures, I hope to offer both entertainment as well as information. Furthermore, I aim at promoting my readers’ ability to tell science from pseudoscience and at stimulating their capacity of critical thinking.

Phantom pain (pain felt in an amputated limb) affects the lives of individuals in many ways and can negatively affect the well-being of individuals. Distant Reiki is sometimes used in the management of these problems. But does it work?

This study was conducted to examine the effect of distant Reiki applied to individuals  suffering from phantom pain on:

1) pain level,

2) holistic well-being.

This study was designed as a single group pre-test/post-test comparison. The research was conducted between September 2022 and April 2023 and included 25 individuals with extremity amputations. Distant Reiki was performed for 20 minutes every day for 10 days. Data were collected at the beginning of the study and at the end of the 10th day. The measurements included an Introductory Information Form, the Visual Analog Scale for Pain, and Holistic Well-Being Scale (HWBS).

The results show that there was a significant difference between pre-test and post-test pain levels of the participants (p < .05) and HWBS subscale scores (p < .05). Accordingly, it was determined that after 20-minute distant Reiki sessions for 10 consecutive days, the pain levels of the individuals were significantly reduced and their holistic well-being improved.

The authors concluded that distant Reiki has been found to be easy to administer, inexpensive, non-pharmacological, and appropriate for independent nursing practice to be effective in reducing phantom pain levels and increasing holistic well-being in people with limb amputation.

Yes, I agree that Reiki might have been easy to administer.

I also agree that it is inexpensive and non-pharmacological.

I disagree, however that it is an appropriate therapy for an independent nursing practice.

And I disagree even more that this study shows or even suggests that Reiki is effective.

Why?

You probably kow the reason: this study had no control group. The observed outcomes can have several explanations that are unrelated to Reiki. For instance, the 200 minutes of attention, empathy and encouragement are likely to have generated an impact.

My conclusion: it is high time that researchers, peer-reviewers, editors, etc. stop trying to mislead the public with offensively poor-quality research and false conclusions. Reiki is an utterly implausible therapy for which no sound evidence exist.

In contemporary healthcare, evidence-based practices are fundamental for ensuring optimal patient outcomes and resource allocation. Essential steps for conducting pharmacoeconomic studies in homeopathy involve study design, intervention identification, comparator selection, outcome measures definition, data collection, cost analysis, effectiveness analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, sensitivity analysis, reporting, and peer review. While conventional medicine undergoes rigorous pharmacoeconomic evaluations, the field of homeopathy often lacks such scrutiny. However, the importance of pharmacoeconomic studies in homeopathy is increasingly recognized, given its growing integration into modern healthcare systems.

A systematic review was aimed at summarizing the existing economic evaluations of homeopathy. It was conducted by searching electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) to identify relevant literature using keywords such as “homeopathy,” “pharmacoeconomics,” and “efficacy.” Articles meeting inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using established frameworks like the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Data synthesis was conducted thematically, focusing on study objectives, methodologies, findings, and conclusions.

Ten pharmacoeconomic studies within homeopathy were identified, demonstrating varying degrees of compliance with reporting guidelines. While most studies reported costs comprehensively, some lacked methodological transparency, particularly in analytic methods. Heterogeneity was observed in study designs and outcome measures, reflecting the complexity of economic evaluation in homeopathy. Quality of evidence varied, with some studies exhibiting robust methodologies while others had limitations.

The authors concluded that, based on the review, recommendations include promoting homeopathic clinics, providing policy support, adopting collaborative healthcare models, and leveraging India’s homeopathic resources. Pharmacoeconomic studies in homeopathy are crucial for evaluating its economic implications compared to conventional medicine. While certain studies demonstrated methodological rigor, opportunities exist for enhancing consistency, transparency, and quality in economic evaluations. Addressing these challenges is essential for informing decision-making regarding the economic aspects of homeopathic interventions.

The truth is that there are not many economic studies of homeopathy that are worth the paper they were printed on. One of the most rigorous analysis was published by German pro-homeopathy researcher. This study aimed to provide a long-term cost comparison of patients using additional homeopathic treatment (homeopathy group) with patients using usual care (control group) over an observation period of 33 months.

Health claims data from a large statutory health insurance company were analysed from both the societal perspective (primary outcome) and from the statutory health insurance perspective (secondary outcome). To compare costs between patient groups, homeopathy and control patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Predictor variables for the propensity scores included health care costs and both medical and demographic variables. Health care costs were analysed using an analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline costs, between groups both across diagnoses and for specific diagnoses over a period of 33 months. Specific diagnoses included depression, migraine, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and headache.

Data from 21,939 patients in the homeopathy group (67.4% females) and 21,861 patients in the control group (67.2% females) were analysed. Health care costs over the 33 months were 12,414 EUR [95% CI 12,022-12,805] in the homeopathy group and 10,428 EUR [95% CI 10,036-10,820] in the control group (p<0.0001). The largest cost differences were attributed to productivity losses (homeopathy: EUR 6,289 [6,118-6,460]; control: EUR 5,498 [5,326-5,670], p<0.0001) and outpatient costs (homeopathy: EUR 1,794 [1,770-1,818]; control: EUR 1,438 [1,414-1,462], p<0.0001). Although the costs of the two groups converged over time, cost differences remained over the full 33 months. For all diagnoses, homeopathy patients generated higher costs than control patients.

The authors concluded that their analysis showed that even when following-up over 33 months, there were still cost differences between groups, with higher costs in the homeopathy group.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!

Homeopathy is not cost-effective.

How could it possibly be? To be cost-effective, a theraapy has to be first of all effective – and that homeopathy is certainly not.

So, why does the avove-cited new paper arrive at a more positive conclusion?

Here are some potential explanations:

The authors of this paper are affiliated to:

  1. PatilTech Hom Research Solution, Maharashtra, India.
  2. Samarth Homeopathic Clinic and Research Center, Maharashtra, India.

The paper was published in the largely unknown, 3rd class Journal of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Management.

Most importantly, the authors aknowledge that many of the primary studies had serious methodological problems. However, this did not stop them from taking their data seriously. As a result, we have here another example of the old and well-known rule of systematic reviews:

RUBBISH IN, RUBBISH OUT!

To answer the question posed in the title of this post:

Is homeopathy cost-effective?

NO

 

 

Dr Julian Kenyon is no stranger to this blog:

I met him once or twice in the mid 1990s. Then he was the GP partner of the late George Lewith. It took me not long to find that I thought of the former even less than the latter.

Now it has been reported that Julian Kenyon was struck off the UK medical register. Apparently, he put pressure on a patient with advanced cancer to pay £13,000 for so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), including sound and light therapy. He ran the former Dove Clinic, a private health centre at Twyford, Hampshire and wrongly told his patient: “You have had all the standard treatments and you are running out of treatment options”. Kenyon’s prescription in May 2022 included sonodynamic/photodynamic therapy as well as the supplements cannabidiol, claricell and similase. The patient was asked to pay a further £20,000 if the initial course of treatment was unsuccessful, the tribunal heard.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) ruled that the doctor’s conduct was “wholly unacceptable, morally culpable and disgraceful”. Kenyon told his patient that there was a 10% chance of his stage 4 prostate cancer being cured. This was a “total fabrication”, the MTPS found. The patient “was vulnerable and… made to feel under pressure to have expensive treatment that was not in his best interests”, it added.

Kenyon has form:

  • In 2003, an undercover investigation by the BBC Inside Out programme accused Dr Kenyon of using spurious tests for allergies.
  • In 2013, a tribunal found he failed to give good care.
  • The following year, it said he made a misleading cancer cure claim.

The latest MTPS ruling bars Dr Kenyon from practising medicine in the UK. His former clinic went into liquidation in March 2023 and has debts of more than £154,000, according to Companies House. Despite all this, it was deemed to be “safe” and “effective”, according to its latest Care Quality Commission report, external in 2019.

We have discussed the LIGHTNING PROCESS before:

Now, the BBC reports that it is promoted as a treatment of Long-COVID. Oonagh Cousins was offered a free place on a course run by the Lightning Process, which teaches people they can rewire their brains to stop or improve long Covid symptoms quickly. Ms Cousins, who contracted Covid in March 2020, said it “exploits” people.

Ms Cousins had reached a career goal many athletes can only dream of – being selected for the Olympics – when she developed long Covid. By the time the cancelled 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo were rescheduled for 2021, Ms Cousins was too ill to take part. When she went public with her struggles, she was approached by the Lightning Process. It offered her a free place on a three-day course, which usually costs around £1,000.

“They were trying to suggest that I could think my way out of the symptoms, basically. And I disputed that entirely,” the former rower said. “I had a very clearly physical illness. And I felt that they were blaming my negative thought processes for why I was ill.” She added: “They tried to point out that I had depression or anxiety. And I said ‘I’m not, I’m just very sick’.

In secret recordings by the BBC, coaches can be heard telling patients that almost anyone can recover from long Covid by changing their thoughts, language and actions. Over three days on Zoom, the course taught the ritual that forms the basis of the programme. Every time you experience a symptom or negative thought, you say the word “stop”, make a choice to avoid these symptoms and then do a positive visualisation of a time you felt well. You do this while walking around a piece of paper printed with symbols – a ritual the BBC was told to do as many as 50 times a day.

In some cases the Lightning Process has encouraged participants to increase their activity levels without medical supervision, against official advice – which could make some more unwell, according to NHS guidelines. Lightning Process founder, Dr Phil Parker, who’s not a medical doctor but has a PhD in psychology of health, told us his course was “not a mindset or positive thinking approach,” but one that uses “the brain to influence physiological changes”, backed by peer-reviewed evidence. The coach on the course the BBC attended said “thoughts about your symptoms, your worry about whether it’s ever going to go – that’s what keeps the neurology going. Being in those kind of thoughts is what’s maintaining your symptoms. They’re not caused by a physical thing any more.”

___________________

As I pointed out previously, The Lightning Process  (LP) is a therapy based on ideas from osteopathy, life coaching, and neuro-linguistic programming. LP is claimed to work by teaching people to use their brains to “stimulate health-promoting neural pathways”.

LP teaches individuals to recognize when they are stimulating or triggering unhelpful physiological responses and to avoid these, using a set of standardized questions, new language patterns, and physical movements with the aim of improving a more appropriate response to situations.

Proponents of the ‘LP’ in Norway claim that 90% of all ME patients get better after trying it. However, such claims seem to be more than questionable.

  • In the Norwegian ME association’s user survey from 2012 with 1,096 participants, 164 ME patients stated that they had tried LP. 21% of these patients experienced improvement or great improvement and 48% got worse or much worse.
  • In Norway’s National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, NAFKAM’s survey from 2015 amongst 76 patients 8 had a positive effect and 5 got worse or much worse.
  • A survey by the Norwegian research foundation, published in the journal Psykologisk, with 660 participants, showed that 62 patients had tried LP, and 5 were very or fairly satisfied with the results.

Such figures reflect the natural history of the condition and are no evidence that the LP works.

Is there any evidence supporting the LP specifically for long COVID?

My Medline search retrieved just one single paper. Here is the abstract:

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Long COVID (LC) is now prevalent in many countries. Little evidence exists regarding how this chronic condition should be treated, but guidelines suggest for most people it can be managed symptomatically in primary care. The Lightning Process is a trademarked positive psychology focused self-management programme which has shown to be effective in reducing fatigue and accompanying symptoms in other chronic conditions including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Here we outline its novel application to two patients with LC who both reported improvements in fatigue and a range of physical and emotional symptoms post-treatment and at 3 months follow-up.

Well, that surely convinced everyone! Except me and, of course, anyone else who can think critically.

So, I look further and find this on the company’s website:

Do you know how it feels to…

  • …be exhausted and tired no matter how much rest you get?
  • …be stuck with re-occurring pain, health symptoms and issues?
  • …get so stressed by almost everything?
  • …feel low and upset much of the time?
  • …want a better life and health but just can’t find anything that works?

If any, or all, of these sound familiar then the Lightning Process, designed by Phil Parker, PhD, could be the answer that you’re looking for.  There are lots of ways you can find out more about the suitability of the Lightning Process for you, have a look through below…

___________________________

Let me try to summarise:

  • The LP is promoted as a cure for long-Covid.
  • There is no evidence that LP is effective for it.
  • The claim is that it has been shown to work for ME.
  • There is no evidence that LP is effective for it.
  • A 3-day course costs £1 000.
  • Their website claims it is good for practically everyone.

Does anyone think that LP or its promoters are remotely serious?

Anyone who writes a lively blog like this one is bound to receive all sorts of attacks, accusations, insults, innuendo, etc. I certainly have been claimed or implied to be many things that I am simply and objectively not. Many of them are quite hilarious in their stupidity, in my view. Perhaps it might be fun to list (some of) them.

Here we go (in no particular order).

I am not:

  • woke
  • anti-woke
  • someone who thinks that woke is a useful concept
  • against restricting discussions on certain topics (but I may not be interested in some subjects)
  • an expert on any subject other than so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
  • like Trump (I think it was D Ullmann who stated that I was like Trump)
  • young (recently, I was repeatedly criticised for being an ‘old white man’)
  • a woman (recently, I was repeatedly criticised for being an ‘old white man’)
  • black (recently, I was repeatedly criticised for being an ‘old white man’)
  • an anti-semite
  • a racist
  • right-wing (I have not even once voted conservative in my life)
  • devoid of experience in SCAM as a patient
  • a researcher who has never practised SCAM
  • someone who has never done any original research
  • someone who does not know what he is talking about
  • unqualified
  • someone who was fired from an academic appointment
  • a pseudoscientist
  • a man who has falsified his research
  • on the payroll of BIG PHARMA
  • receiving any money for running this blog
  • relying on any finacial support other than my pensions
  • a liar
  • a fraud
  • someone who took the Exeter appointment in order to ditch homeopathy
  • out to defame SCAM (I am advocating solid evidence and criticising claims that are not evidence-based)
  • running an evil empire
  • devoid of self-confidence
  • someone who despises women
  • suffering from digestive problems
  • unable to process feelings
  • someone who manipulates data
  • the head of a lobby group
  • perfect (sadly, that’s the only claim nobody ever made).

Have I promised too much?

The list is long and the claims are as funny as they are unfounded. Evidence that (some of) these allegations have indeed been made can be found here, here, here, and here or, if you are really keen and gifted at doing searches, on X [formerly Twitter].

EuroConsum‘ is an organisation that aims “to focus on areas that otherwise receive too little attention. Together with our approximately 6,000 members, member and partner organisations, we find these areas and work on them in numerous projects. We have been entered in the list of qualified organisations for this purpose since 2012 and, as a public body, carry out market inspections with a focus on the retail sector and have maintained the market watchdog Psychomarkt since 2015. We are particularly committed to the principle of scientific rigour and evidence.” (my translation)

‘EuroConsum’ recently published a bizarre statement:

For more than a decade, EuroConsum has worked closely with the Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP e.V.). Under the leadership of Amardeo Sarma and Dr Holm Hümmler, we experienced a fruitful and always respectful cooperation that contributed significantly to the improvement of consumer advice and information. This cooperation was in line with shared values, which manifested themselves in a commitment to an informed public and against quackery and evidence-free advertising promises.

The murder of Halit Yozgat by right-wing terrorists of the so-called “National Socialist Underground” (NSU) and the assassination of the Kassel district president Dr Walter Lübcke, also by a right-wing terrorist, took place during the same period. The racist murders in Hanau, which could have been prevented and in which a right-wing terrorist took the lives of Gökhan Gültekin, Sedat Gürbüz, Said Nesar Hashemi, Mercedes Kierpacz, Hamza Kurtović, Vili Viorel Păun, Fatih Saraçoğlu, Ferhat Unvar, Kaloyan Velkov and Gabriele Rathjen, also took place during this time. Not only these murders, but also the involvement of state authorities in these events have increased pain and caused suffering. Many of our members know the victims or their surviving relatives personally. These events are fundamental and guiding for us and our work.They remind us every day.

For us, one of the lessons of this terror is that we must clearly distance ourselves from right-wing extremist and neo-right-wing movements. We must also fight to improve social conditions alongside those who share our values; in particular, these are groups in which people who are themselves affected by discrimination and marginalisation organise themselves. Work that does not take into account the perspectives of these people does not meet our own standards; work that is directed against the legitimate concerns of marginalised people and groups is inconceivable for us.

At the GWUP’s general meeting on 11 May 2024, a new election of the GWUP Board was held, which was previously presented as a “directional election”. The decision was close, as ultimately only around 20 votes made the difference. We perceive the result of the election as a decision on the future positioning of the GWUP in terms of content and as a commitment to a new direction for the GWUP and recognise it in this respect.

With this election, the GWUP has declared that it is taking a new course, which we do not want to follow against the background of our own association identity and cannot follow for personal reasons. EuroConsum will therefore terminate its cooperation with the GWUP immediately and finalise joint projects promptly. A statement to this effect was sent by post today.

This decision was not taken lightly, particularly in view of the long-standing good relationship and the considerable overlap within the groups and circles supporting our two associations. However, after an intensive discussion, there is no alternative for us.

EuroConsum would like to continue to engage in dialogue and cooperation with all sceptical people who share our values and want to work towards a fair and inclusive society.

(my translation)

_________________

WHAT?

ARE THEY SERIOUS?

‘EuroConsum’ seems to be disappointed with the result of the recent election of the GWUP-Board – I did previously mention the contest between ‘TEAM HUEMMLER’ and ‘TEAM SEBASTIANI’. The latter group won, and several Huemmler fans, including ‘EuroConsum’, have since left the GWUP. Nothing wrong about that! Everyone is free to do what they think is right, of course.

To associate the new GWUP leadership with a series of right-wing murders, is however an entirely different matter. In my view, this is not just extremely bad taste and utterly unjustifiable; it is slanderous and potentially actionable.

PS

What is perhaps also worth mentioning in this context an exchange that occurred on ‘X’ when ‘EuroConsum’ made the announcement. Here is the part of it that I could retrieve (my translation):

  • Holm Gero Hümmler: Surprised. Not.
  • Jörg Wipplinger: Wow, listing the right-wing extremist murders creates a context that, in my view, borders on character assassination. It doesn’t imply any affinity with right-wing ideas, but puts you in the neighbourhood of right-wing extremist murderers. Don’t you realise that or do you think it’s okay anyway?
  • Holm Gero Hümmler: If that is your only worry…
  • Jörg Wipplinger: What kind of answer is that? I find it extremely disturbing when a club, a board that has never worked a day, is portrayed in this way. I’m not with the club, but if that happened to me, I’d be pretty upset.
  • Jörg Wipplinger: It’s not about all the gwup stories at all, zero. It’s about Euroconsum’s explanation, which provides no real explanation, but a list of murderers as ‘context. Holm shared this and I want to know if he thinks it’s good. I find it shocking.
  • Holm Gero Hümmler: Euroconsum has always clearly positioned itself against anti-democratic tendencies.
    So I think it’s only natural that we don’t want to have anything to do with people who are in favour of the GWUP spreading the narratives of enemies of democracy and using their rhetoric.

 

 

This randomized controlled, pretest-post-test intervention study examined the effect of distance reiki on state test anxiety and test performance.
First-year nursing students (n = 71) were randomized into two groups. One week before the examination,

  • the intervention group participants received reiki remotely for 20 minutes for 4 consecutive days,
  • the control group participants received no intervention.
The intervention group had lower posttest cognitive and psychosocial subscale scores than pretest scores (p > .05). The control group had a significantly higher mean posttest physiological subscale score than pretest score (p < .05). Final grade point averages were not significantly different between the intervention and control groups (p > .05). One quarter of the intervention group participants noted reiki reduced their stress and helped them perform better on the examination.The authors concluded that Reiki is a safe and easy-to-practice method to help students cope with test anxiety.What a conclusion!What a study!

A controlled clinical trial has the purpose of comparing outcomes of two or more treatments. Therefore, intra-group changes are utterly irrelevant. The only thing of interest is the comparison between the intervention and control groups. In the present study, this did not show a significant difference. In other words, distant Reiki had no effect.

This means that the bit in the conclusion telling us that Reiki helps students cope with test anxiety is quite simply not true.

This leaves us with the first part of the conclusion: Reiki is a safe and easy-to-practice method. This may well be true – yet it is meaningless. Apart from the fact that the study was not aimed at assessing safety or ease of practice, the statement is true for far too many things to be meaningful, e.g.:

  • Not having Reiki (the control group) is a safe and easy-to-practice method.
  • Going for a walk is a safe and easy-to-practice method.
  • Cooking a plate of spagetti is a safe and easy-to-practice method.
  • Having a nap is a safe and easy-to-practice method.
  • Reading a book is a safe and easy-to-practice method.

(I think you get my gist)

To make the irony complete, let me tell you that this trial was published in Journal of Nursing Education. On the website, the journal states: The Journal of Nursing Education is a monthly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original articles and new ideas for nurse educators in various types and levels of nursing programs for over 60 years. The Journal enhances the teaching-learning process, promotes curriculum development, and stimulates creative innovation and research in nursing education.

I suggest that the journal urgently embarks on a program of educating its editors, reviewers, contributors and readers about science, pseudoscience, minimal standards, scientific rigor, and medical ethics.

 

 

It had been reported that five infants under three months of age have died from whooping cough this year, as cases continue to spread across the country.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has reported 1,319 cases of whooping cough in England in March, up from 900 in February and bringing the total for 2024 so far to 2,800.

But there is help!

The “Leading Holistic Health Portal” (LHHP) informs us as follows:

As far as therapeutic medication is concerned, several remedies are available to treat whooping cough that can be selected on the basis of cause, sensations and modalities of the complaints.  For individualized remedy selection and treatment, the patient should consult a qualified homeopathic doctor in person. There are following remedies which are helpful in the treatment of whooping cough:

  • Cuprum met – in whooping cough accompanied with convulsions, or when the paroxysms are long and interrupted…
  • Coccus cacti – this remedy has paroxysms of cough with vomiting of clear, ropy mucus, extending in thick, long strings even to the floor…
  • Belladonna – in sudden violent paroxysms of whooping cough, without any expectoration, and the symptoms of cerebral congestion…
  • Spongia Tosta – excellent remedy for whooping cough; dryness of all passages; cough dry, barking croupy like a saw driven through a pine board…
  • Corallium Rubrum – violent spasmodic cough, whooping cough; a very rapid cough, the attacks follows so closely as to almost run in to each other…
  • Aconite – clear ringing whistling whooping cough, excited by burning sticking in larynx and trachea…
  • Arnica Montana – paroxysms of whooping-cough excited by a creeping and soreness in trachea, bronchi or larynx, generally dry, often with expectoration of frothy blood mixed with coagula…
  • Hyoscyamus – shattering spasmodic cough, with frequent, rapidly succeeding cough, excited by ticking, as from adherent mucus…
  • Hepar Sulph – hoarse croupy night cough; deep, dull, whistling cough, in the evening without, in the morning with expectoration of masses of mucus…
  • Drosera – Drosera is one of the remedies praised by Hahnemann; indeed, he once said thatDrosera 30th sufficed to cure nearly every case of whooping cough, a statement which clinical experience has not verified. Drosera, however, will benefit a large number of the cases, if the following indications be present: a barking cough in such frequent paroxysms as to prevent the catching of the breath…
  • Mephitis – Mephitis is useful in a cough with a well marked laryngeal spasm, a whoop…
  • Ipecac – Convulsive cough, where the child stiffness out and becomes blue or pale and loses its breath…
  • Antimonium tartaricum – With this remedy the child is worse when excited or angry, or when eating; the cough culminates in vomiting of mucus and food…
  • Cina –This is not always a worm remedy. It is a most excellent remedy in whooping cough. It has the same rigidity as Ipecac, the child stiffness out and there is a clucking sound in the oesophagus when the little one comes out of the paroxysm…
  • Magnesia phosphorica – This is the prominent Schuesslerian remedy for whooping cough, which begins as does common cold. The attacks are convulsive and nervous, ending in a whoop…

So, why do we have so many cases of whooping cough?

The reason is, of course, the currently very low vaccination rates.

And why are they so low?

Could one reason be that some healthcare practitioners advise us wrongly?

What the LHHP does not tell us is the fact that homeopaths (and other SCAM practitioners) often advise against vaccinating children against whooping cough (and other infections). Take, for instance, this section from an article entitled: “The Homeopathic Option for Whooping Cough“:

In my medical opinion, this overemphasis upon a preventative vaccination strategy is largely due to conventional medicine’s inability to treat whooping cough once it is diagnosed. Physicians understand that antibiotics are likely to have minimal if any effect upon the course of the illness once the cough has set in, and the same applies to cough suppressants. Antibiotic treatment is believed to reduce transmission to others if prescribed at the onset of the illness, but the odds of diagnosing whooping cough at this very early stage are highly unlikely.

Clinical experience indicates that homeopathic medicine is a viable option for pertussis. However, mainstream medicine’s general unwillingness to consider any therapy that is not manufactured by PhRMA tends to blind it to potentially new and/or unexplored treatments. And in the case of homeopathy, there is a long-standing undeniable bias that assumes that it is just not possible that it can work because it defies conventional medical beliefs about the nature of illness and how it can be treated.

Really, a long-standing undeniable bias?

And I thought it was called evidence!

In conclusion, I urge everyone to follow the official recommendations:

The whooping cough vaccine protects babies and children from getting whooping cough. That’s why it’s important to have all the routine NHS vaccinations. The whooping cough vaccine is routinely given as part of the:

If you’re pregnant you should also have the whooping cough vaccine – ideally between 16 and 32 weeks.

To this I might add: beware of the advice by homeopaths and other SCAM-practitioners who recommend against vaccinations.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories