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

bogus claims

Traditional vaginal practices usually relate to personal hygiene, genital health or sexuality. Hygiene practices involve external washing and intravaginal cleansing or douching and ingestion of substances. Health practices include intravaginal cleansing, traditional cutting, insertion of herbal preparations, and application of substances to soothe irritated vaginal tissue.

One such traditional practice is ‘vaginal steaming’.

Recently vaginal steaming has become a fad promoted by SCAM-promoters (such as the vagina-obsessed Gwyneth Paltrow) with the claim that it leads to a range of health benefits. According to one website, for instance, vaginal steaming, Yoni Eggs, yoni or v-steam, as it is casually known, acts as an internal cleanser of the membranes of the vaginal tissues and uterus. This is considered especially important for stagnant fertility conditions and/or incomplete emptying of menses each cycle. This women’s treatment gently but effectively cleanses, tones and revitalizes a woman’s center, providing a myriad benefits from reduced menstrual cramps to increased fertility and more. Support your natural feminine cycle, help your body to heal, relax, and detoxify both physically and emotionally with a yoni steam.

The method is recommended for a wide range of conditions and is said to achieve all of the following and much, much more:

  • Significant reduction of pain, bloating and exhaustion associated with menstruation.
  • Significant reduction of PMS.
  • Decrease of menstrual flow as well as reduction of dark purple or brown blood at the onset or end of menses.
  • Regulation of irregular or absent menstrual cycles.
  • Increased fertility.
  • Faster healing and toning of the reproductive system following childbirth.
  • Assisting in healing uterine fibroids, ovarian cysts, uterine weakness, uterine prolapse & endometriosis.
  • Breaking down of reproductive adhesion/scar tissue. Assisting with the repair of a vaginal tear, episiotomy, or C-section scar.
  • Assisting with the healing of haemorrhoids.
  • Treating chronic vaginal/yeast infections and maintaining healthy vaginal odour.
  • Relief of menopausal symptoms such as vaginal dryness or pain during sex.
  • Detoxification of the womb/removal of toxins from the body. Release of stored emotions.
  • Reconnection with our female bodies and tapping into the sexual energy that is our creative potential.

Frequently, entrepreneurs recommend adding herbal or other ingredients. Herbs often used include:

  • mugwort
  • wormwood
  • chamomile
  • calendula
  • basil
  • oregano
None of these claims are supported by anything we would recognise as evidence, and it would be easy to make fun at the quacks who make them (and the women who fall for them) – unless, of course, there was real and significant harm involved. I fear, the potential for harm is undeniable:
  • vaginal steaming arms your bank account;
  • it disrupts the normal pH balance of the vagina;
  • in turn, this increases the risk of fungal and bacterial infections;
  • vaginal steaming can cause burns;
  • with added herbs, it can cause allergies.

New Zealand psychologists analysed online accounts of vaginal steaming to determine the sociocultural assumptions and logics within such discourse, including ideas about women, women’s bodies and women’s engagement with such ‘modificatory’ practices. Ninety items were carefully selected from the main types of website discussing vaginal steaming: news/magazines; health/lifestyle; spa/service providers; and personal blogs. Within an overarching theme of ‘the self-improving woman’ the researchers identified four themes: (1) the naturally deteriorating, dirty female body; (2) contemporary life as harmful; (3) physical optimisation and the enhancement of health; and (4) vaginal steaming for life optimisation. The authors concluded that online accounts of vaginal steaming appear both to fit within historico-contemporary constructions of women’s bodies as deficient and disgusting, and contemporary neoliberal and healthist discourse around the constantly improving subject.

For the sake of ‘journalistic balance’, let’s give Gwyneth the last word about the benefits of vaginal steaming. She knows best because she has done it and was quoted uttering these profound and scientific views: “The first time I tried v-steaming, I was like, ‘This is insane’. My friend Ben brought me and I was like, ‘You are out of your f**king mind. What is this? But then by the end of it I was like, ‘This is so great.’ Then I start to do research, and it’s been in Korean medicine for thousands of years and there are real healing properties. If I find benefit to it and it’s getting a lot of page views, it’s a win-win.”

And who would or could argue with that?

The only time we discussed gua sha, it led to one of the most prolonged discussions we ever had on this blog (536 comments so far). It seems to be a topic that excites many. But what precisely is it?

Gua sha, sometimes referred to as “scraping”, “spooning” or “coining”, is a traditional Chinese treatment that has spread to several other Asian countries. It has long been popular in Vietnam and is now also becoming well-known in the West. The treatment consists of scraping the skin with a smooth edge placed against the pre-oiled skin surface, pressed down firmly, and then moved downwards along muscles or meridians. According to its proponents, gua sha stimulates the flow of the vital energy ‘chi’ and releases unhealthy bodily matter from blood stasis within sore, tired, stiff or injured muscle areas.

The technique is practised by TCM practitioners, acupuncturists, massage therapists, physical therapists, physicians and nurses. Practitioners claim that it stimulates blood flow to the treated areas, thus promoting cell metabolism, regeneration and healing. They also assume that it has anti-inflammatory effects and stimulates the immune system.

These effects are said to last for days or weeks after a single treatment. The treatment causes microvascular injuries which are visible as subcutaneous bleeding and redness. Gua sha practitioners make far-reaching therapeutic claims, including that the therapy alleviates pain, prevents infections, treats asthma, detoxifies the body, cures liver problems, reduces stress, and contributes to overall health.

Gua sha is mildly painful, almost invariably leads to unsightly blemishes on the skin which occasionally can become infected and might even be mistaken for physical abuse.

There is little research of gua sha, and the few trials that exist tend to be published in Chinese. But recently, a new paper has emerged that is written in English. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of gua sha for the treatment of patients with perimenopausal syndrome.

A total of 6 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Most were of low methodological quality. When compared with Western medicine therapy alone, meta-analysis of 5 RCTs indicated favorable statistically significant effects of gua sha plus Western medicine. Moreover, study participants who received Gua Sha therapy plus Western medicine therapy showed significantly greater improvements in serum levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH) compared to participants in the Western medicine therapy group.

The authors concluded that preliminary evidence supported the hypothesis that Gua Sha therapy effectively improved the treatment efficacy in patients with perimenopausal syndrome. Additional studies will be required to elucidate optimal frequency and dosage of Gua Sha.

This sounds as though gua sha is a reasonable therapy.

Yet, I think this notion is worth being critically analysed. Here are some caveats that spring into my mind:

  • Gua sha lacks biological plausibility.
  • The reviewed trials are too flawed to allow any firm conclusions.
  • As most are published in Chinese, non-Chinese speakers have no possibility to evaluate them.
  • The studies originate from China where close to 100% of TCM trials report positive results.
  • In my view, this means they are less than trustworthy.
  • The authors of the above-cited review are all from China and might not be willing, able or allowed to publish a critical paper on this subject.
  • The review was published in , a journal not known for its high scientific standards or critical stance towards TCM.

So, is gua sha a reasonable therapy?

I let you make this judgement.

Is homeopathy effective for specific conditions? The FACULTY OF HOMEOPATHY (FoH, the professional organisation of UK doctor homeopaths) say YES. In support of this bold statement, they cite a total of 35 systematic reviews of homeopathy with a focus on specific clinical areas. “Nine of these 35 reviews presented conclusions that were positive for homeopathy”, they claim. Here they are:

Allergies and upper respiratory tract infections 8,9
Childhood diarrhoea 10
Post-operative ileus 11
Rheumatic diseases 12
Seasonal allergic rhinitis (hay fever) 13–15
Vertigo 16

And here are the references (I took the liberty of adding my comments in blod):

8. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, Ammon K, et al. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin, 2006; 13 Suppl 2: 19–29.

This is the infamous ‘Swiss report‘ which, nowadays, only homeopaths take seriously.

9. Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Pontarollo F, et al. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies – Part 1. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM, 2006; 3: 293–301.

This is not a systematic review as it lacks any critical assessment of the primary data and includes observational studies and even case series.

10. Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 2003; 22: 229–234.

This is a meta-analysis by Jennifer Jacobs (who recently featured on this blog) of 3 studies by Jennifer Jacobs; hardly convincing I’d say.

11. Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E. Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 1997; 25: 628–633.

This is my own paper! It concluded that “several caveats preclude a definitive judgment.”

12. Jonas WB, Linde K, Ramirez G. Homeopathy and rheumatic disease. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, 2000; 26: 117–123.

This is not a systematic review; here is the (unabridged) abstract:

Despite a growing interest in uncovering the basic mechanisms of arthritis, medical treatment remains symptomatic. Current medical treatments do not consistently halt the long-term progression of these diseases, and surgery may still be needed to restore mechanical function in large joints. Patients with rheumatic syndromes often seek alternative therapies, with homeopathy being one of the most frequent. Homeopathy is one of the most frequently used complementary therapies worldwide.

Proper systematic reviews fail to show that homeopathy is an effective treatment for rheumatic conditions (see for instance here and here).

13. Wiesenauer M, Lüdtke R. A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca. Forschende Komplementärmedizin und Klassische Naturheilkunde, 1996; 3: 230–236.

This is a meta-analysis by Wiesenauer of trials conducted by Wiesenauer.

My own, more recent analysis of these data arrived at a considerably less favourable conclusion: “… three of the four currently available placebo-controlled RCTs of homeopathic Galphimia glauca (GG) suggest this therapy is an effective symptomatic treatment for hay fever. There are, however, important caveats. Most essentially, independent replication would be required before GG can be considered for the routine treatment of hay fever. (Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies September 2011 16(3))

14. Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, et al. Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 2000; 321: 471–476.

This is a meta-analysis by David Reilly of 4 RCTs which were all conducted by David Reilly. This attracted heavy criticism; see here and here, for instance.

15. Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Pontarollo F, et al. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies – Part 2. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM, 2006; 3: 397–409.

This is not a systematic review as it lacks any critical assessment of the primary data and includes observational studies and even case series.

16. Schneider B, Klein P, Weiser M. Treatment of vertigo with a homeopathic complex remedy compared with usual treatments: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Arzneimittelforschung, 2005; 55: 23–29.

This is a meta-analysis of 2 (!) RCTs and 2 observational studies of ‘Vertigoheel’, a preparation which is not a homeopathic but a homotoxicologic remedy (it does not follow the ‘like cures like’ assumption of homeopathy) . Moreover, this product contains pharmacologically active substances (and nobody doubts that active substances can have effects).

________________________________________________________________________________

So, positive evidence from 9 systematic reviews in 6 specific clinical areas?

I let you answer this question.

I have been alerted to this website; it is truly remarkable! Here is but one example, the section with advice on ‘reducing the risk of vaccine damage’:

START OF QUOTE

1. Give vitamin A before the measles vaccine (MMR).Vitamin A has been shown to reduce death in measles sufferers by 50% so will support the body in its dealing with the measles vaccine. The WHO is now giving out Vitamin A pills along with the vaccine! Consider high doses (5,000 IU or more) the day before, on the day and the day after vaccination.

2. Give increased vitamin C before and after all vaccines. Vitamin C is known to help eliminate heavy metals. Consider high doses (3,000-5,000 mg per day) the day before, day of, and day after.

3. Consider detox programs after vaccination. These include homeopathy (before and after each vaccination), supplements, especially vitamin C, probiotics etc. It can take up to a year to detox the system but it is worth the investment (Autistic children are usually highly toxic – See Treating Autism).

4. Reconsider the routine use of Calpol or similar before or after vaccination. A rise in body temperature is the immune systems healthy response to any attack. Suppressing this reaction will impair its’ ability to deal with the load imposed upon it by the vaccine. Links have been made with the use of Calpol etc after the MMR and autism because the body needs to raise a high temperature to deal with measles. Complications can arise if temperature is bought down too early in cases of measles. See ‘Dealing with Fever Naturally’ under the Health section of this site.

5. Avoid antibiotic use where possible.

Delay vaccines, especially the MMR, within up to 6 months of antibiotics.

The strength of the gut is compromised and the gut is 70% of the immune system. Autistic children often have Gut and Bowel disorders. Antibiotics during pregnancy & breast feeding can also compromise the child’s immune system.

Try not to use antibiotics, as there are links with increased asthma in the vaccinated and also with the overuse of antibiotics in children. Asthma kills 1,300 people a year in the UK and rates have doubled in the last 40 years. This is far higher than the mortality rates as a result of contracting contagious diseases before the vaccines! In the years leading up to the vaccination program between 30-50 people died of measles, for example. Nearly 200 children under 14 years now die of Asthma. Asthma UK puts this this condition down to lack of childhood infections! For most children, as they recover from illness, their immune system is strengthened. The UK, US, New Zealand, Cuba and Australia lead the world with Asthma (Vaccinated populations). Asthma UK says that ‘the goal would be to find a suitable vaccine to provide the beneficial effects of early life infection’!!!

6. Use Probiotics to strengthen the gut, in capsule form rather than from a drinking yogurt product which usually contains sugar and other additives.

7. Consider giving long term Vit B6 as “One of the components of the MMR is Neomycin. This is an antibacterial drug that is used to suppress gastrointestinal bacteria before surgery to avoid infection. …This antibiotic interferes with the absorption of Vitamin B6. An error in the uptake of Vitamin B6 can cause a rare form of epilepsy and children become mentally retarded. Vitamin B6 is the major vitamin for processingamino acids, which are the building blocks of all proteins and a few hormones. There are studies around which support the theory of treating autistic children with Vitamin B6.”

END OF QUOTE

Let me briefly comment on these 7 points.

  1. I am not aware of good evidence supporting this claim.
  2. I am not aware of good evidence supporting this claim.
  3. I am not aware of good evidence supporting this claim.
  4. I am not aware of good evidence supporting this claim.
  5. I am not aware of good evidence supporting this claim.
  6. I am not aware of good evidence supporting this claim.
  7. I am not aware of good evidence supporting this claim.

Of course, I may have missed some important evidence; if that is the case, I would appreciate someone showing it to me in the comments section below, so that we can all benefit from it.

The above advice is from the ‘ARNICA’ group (as the name suggests, they are close to or even led by homeopaths). They believe that the non-vaccinated child is potentially healthier than the vaccinated child.  

They also claim they  want to reduce the fear often felt by parents with their young children on health issues, whether that is to learn how to look after children when they have a fever, or to suggest ways to reduce the adverse reactions from vaccines.

I respectfully suggest that they are dismally failing in their aims. In fact, they seem to promote fear and issue bogus advice.

Shiatsu is an alternative therapy that is popular, but has so far attracted almost no research. Therefore, I was excited when I saw a new paper on the subject. Sadly, my excitement waned quickly when I stared reading the abstract.

This single-blind randomized controlled study was aimed to evaluate shiatsu on mood, cognition, and functional independence in patients undergoing physical activity. Alzheimer disease (AD) patients with depression were randomly assigned to the “active group” (Shiatsu + physical activity) or the “control group” (physical activity alone).

Shiatsu was performed by the same therapist once a week for ten months. Global cognitive functioning (Mini Mental State Examination – MMSE), depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale – GDS), and functional status (Activity of Daily Living – ADL, Instrumental ADL – IADL) were assessed before and after the intervention.

The researchers found a within-group improvement of MMSE, ADL, and GDS in the Shiatsu group. However, the analysis of differences before and after the interventions showed a statistically significant decrease of GDS score only in the Shiatsu group.

The authors concluded that the combination of Shiatsu and physical activity improved depression in AD patients compared to physical activity alone. The pathomechanism might involve neuroendocrine-mediated effects of Shiatsu on neural circuits implicated in mood and affect regulation.

The Journal Complementary Therapies in Medicine also published three ‘Highlights’ of this study:

  • We first evaluated the effect of Shiatsu in depressed patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
  • Shiatsu significantly reduced depression in a sample of mild-to-moderate AD patients.
  • Neuroendocrine-mediated effect of Shiatsu may modulate mood and affect neural circuits.

Where to begin?

1 The study is called a ‘pilot’. As such it should not draw conclusions about the effectiveness of Shiatsu.

2 The design of the study was such that there was no accounting for the placebo effect (the often-discussed ‘A+B vs B’ design); therefore, it is impossible to attribute the observed outcome to Shiatsu. The ‘highlight’ – Shiatsu significantly reduced depression in a sample of mild-to-moderate AD patients – therefore turns out to be a low-light.

3 As this was a study with a control group, within-group changes are irrelevant and do not even deserve a mention.

4 The last point about the mode of action is pure speculation, and not borne out of the data presented.

5 Accumulating so much nonsense in one research paper is, in my view, unethical.

Research into alternative medicine does not have a good reputation – studies like this one are not inclined to improve it.

Grace Dasilva-Hill has just published an article entitled “Autism/ADHD and Vaccines – are we walking a tightrope whilst blindfolded?“. Who is Grace Dasilva-Hill, you will ask.

She is a professional registered homeopath, based in Charing – East Kent, UK. She has been in practice since 1997. During this time she has developed a busy practice, alongside teaching, running students’ clinics and tutorials. She was a team member of the Ghana Homeopathy Project soon after it started, and later became their treasurer as well. Grace has published in the Journal Homeopathy in Practice, and HPathy. She also is an ‘Energy EFT Master Practitioner Trainer’ and a ‘qualified CEASE therapist’.

And what is the Ghana Homeopathy Project ? It is an organization whose goal is the establishment of homeopathy as a recognised part of the health care system in Africa and Ghana in particular. Their objective is the relief and prevention of disease. They support the development of homeopathic education and wish to make homeopathy available to deprived communities as a valid and affordable form of treatment.

The lengthy article by Grace Dasilva-Hill re-hashes all the bogus arguments about immunisation that you could ever wish for. I will show you only what she calls her ‘conclusions’:

START OF QUOTE

…at the present time we have only just scratched the surface of the issue of autism and ADHD; my aim in this article is to challenge the reader to pause, reflect and ask: do vaccines do more good than harm, or it is actually the other way round? Just who is considered to be responsible for my health and that of my family – my doctor, my country’s government or myself? Do we need to stand up as a profession, and be more pro-active?

The big question seems to be, are we not only failing our patients but also the greater good of the world’s populations, unless we question and do not just ‘accept’ what science and medicine tells us, especially as ‘vested interests’ seem to have such a strong influence on what we are told?
The health journalist Phillip Day has done just that in his book ‘Health Wars’ – he argues how the multinationals have a vested interest in keeping all of us ill, for this is the only way that they can continue making money. His propositions are supported by Goldman Sacks Bank which recently stated that they would not invest in the alternative health industry because it tends to cure people, so there is little profit to be made from it.

I invite you to become an advocate for those who are unable or who are too young to ask questions, or to stand up for themselves, or whose parents don’t have the knowledge or tenacity to challenge.
Children and young adults suffering with autism, ADHD, ASD, deserve our loyalty, support and action.

In the UK, we recently shared the anguish and pain felt by baby Alfie Evans’ parents and family. It is impossible for anyone who is caring to witness such horror, and not to ask any questions. Hopefully we will learn much from this very sad event. There are questions not only about causative factors (ie. the role that vaccinations may have played), but also the issue of parental rights versus the State’s perceived protectionist rights.

What has been happening in the field of healthcare is fast becoming unsustainable. On the other hand Homeopathy has so much to offer, being a sustainable form of medicine not influenced by market forces.

One could argue that one of the reasons why the denialists want to see the demise of homeopathy and other natural modalities, is that more and more people are choosing these modes of healthcare in place of conventional medicine which is reductionist in approach and only has drugs to offer.

I find myself wondering whether there is a need for something radically different to happen. As a profession, do we need to do something collectively? Do we need to stand up more, do we need to speak up more? How do we go about doing this? I know that I am asking more questions than providing answers, and this is because at the moment I don’t have the answers either. But I have a deep and sincere desire to do my best to make a difference that will be both worthwhile and sustainable.
I would like to believe that others in our community would like to do the same for the bigger benefit of sustainable and effective healthcare for all.

Footnote: I have just carried out an impromptu, unrepresentative survey of homeopathic colleagues on a homeopathic professional group. I asked them if they knew of any health care professionals (doctors, nurses, midwives) who did not vaccinate their children. Most of those who replied, surprisingly said that they do know of at least one doctor, or nurse or midwife who did not vaccinate their children, and they added that these professionals keep this quiet. I certainly know of two medical doctors who do not vaccinate their children, and again they do not talk about it. It was shared with me in confidence.

END OF QUOTE

Of course, these words are not really ‘conclusions’, they are just a continuation of a barmy rant.

And yes, such articles exist in abundance. Many homeopaths are active campaigners against vaccination.

The Society of Homeopaths (SoH), the professional UK organisation for lay homeopaths, has recently stated that it is unethical for a homeopath to advise a patient against the use of conventional vaccines…  This could not be clearer! Yet, I suspect that the homeopaths put out such statements mainly to cover their backs and subsequently they do what they feel like – and they rarely feel like supporting vaccinations.

They obviously try to give the impression that lay homeopaths are not antivaxers. I fear, however, this impression is wrong: as we have discussed repeatedly on this blog, many homeopaths do advise their patients against immunisation. And many claim that homeopathic immunisations are an effective alternative. It takes not long to find even VIP-members of the SoH putting parents off from immunising their kids. And thanks to the Ghana Homeopathy and several similar projects, this is happening not just in the UK but also in Africa and elsewhere.

Is that not irresponsible?

In my view, it is!

Is that not illegal?

Apparently not, because such homeopaths usually add a clever disclaimer; Grace Dasilva-Hill for instance states that  Any information obtained here is not to be construed as medical OR legal advice. The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone. 

Forgive me, if this post is long and a bit tedious, but I think it is important.

The claims continue that I am a dishonest falsifier of scientific data, because the renowned Prof R Hahn said so; this, for instance, is from a Tweet that appeared a few days ago

False claims, Edzard Ernst is the worst. Says independent researcher prof Hahn in his blog. His study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200828 
His blog (German translation) http://www.homeopathy.at/betruegerische-studien-um-homoeopathie-als-wirkungslos-darzustellen…

The source of this permanent flow of defamations is Hahn’s strange article which I have tried to explain several times before. As the matter continues to excite homeopaths around the world, I have decided to give it another go. The following section (in bold) is directly copied from Hahn’s infamous paper where he evaluated several systematic reviews of homeopathy.

_________________________________________________________________________

In 1998, he [Ernst] selected 5 studies using highly diluted remedies from the original 89 and concluded that homeopathy has no effect [5].

In 2000, Ernst and Pittler [6] sought to invalidate the statistically significant superiority of homeopathy over placebo in the 10 studies with the highest Jadad score. The odds ratio, as presented by Linde et al. in 1999 [3], was 2.00 (1.37–2.91). The new argument was that the Jadad score and odds ratio in favor of homeopathy seemed to follow a straight line (in fact, it is asymptotic at both ends). Hence, Ernst and Pittler [6] claimed that the highest Jadad scores should theoretically show zero effect. This reasoning argued that the assumed data are more correct than the real data.

Two years later, Ernst [7] summarized the systematic reviews of homeopathy published in the wake of Linde’s first metaanalysis [2]. To support the view that homeopathy lacks effect, Ernst cited his own publications from 1998 and 2000 [5, 6]. He also presented Linde’s 2 follow-up reports [3, 4] as being further evidence that homeopathy equals placebo. 

_________________________________________________________________________

And that’s it! Except for some snide remarks (copied below) in the discussion section of the article, this is all Hahn has to say about my publications on homeopathy; in other words, he selects 3 of my papers (references are copied below) and (without understanding them, as we will see) vaguely discusses them. In my view, that is remarkable in 3 ways:

  • firstly, there I have published about 100 more papers on homeopathy which Hahn ignores (even though he knows about them as we shall see below);
  • secondly, he does not explain why he selected those 3 and not any others;
  • thirdly, he totally misrepresents all the 3 articles that he has selected.

In the following, I will elaborate on the last point in more detail (anyone capable of running a Medline search and reading Hahn’s article can verify the other points). I will do this by repeating what Hahn states about each of the 3 papers (in bold print), and then explain what each article truly was about.

HERE WE GO

_________________________________________________________________________

FIRST ARTICLE

In 1998, he [Ernst] selected 5 studies using highly diluted remedies from the original 89 and concluded that homeopathy has no effect [5].

This paper [ref 5] was a re-analysis of the Linde Lancet meta-analysis (unfortunately, this paper is not available electronically, but I can send copies to interested parties). For this purpose, I excluded all the studies that did not

  • use homeopathy following the ‘like cures like’ assumption (arguably those studies are not trials of homeopathy at all),
  • use remedies which were not highly diluted and thus contained active molecules (nobody doubts that remedies with pharmacologically active substances can have effects),
  • that did not get the highest rating for methodological quality by Linde et al (flawed trials are known to produce false-positive results).

My methodology was (I think) reasonable, pre-determined and explained in full detail in the article. It left me with 5 placebo-controlled RCTs. A meta-analysis across these 5 trials showed no difference to placebo.

Hahn misrepresents this paper by firstly not explaining what methodology I applied, and secondly by stating that I ‘selected’ the 5 studies from a pool of 89 trials. Yet, I defined my inclusion criteria which were met by just 5 studies.

___________________________________________________________________________

SECOND ARTICLE

In 2000, Ernst and Pittler [6] sought to invalidate the statistically significant superiority of homeopathy over placebo in the 10 studies with the highest Jadad score. The odds ratio, as presented by Linde et al. in 1999 [3], was 2.00 (1.37–2.91). The new argument was that the Jadad score and odds ratio in favor of homeopathy seemed to follow a straight line (in fact, it is asymptotic at both ends). Hence, Ernst and Pittler [6] claimed that the highest Jadad scores should theoretically show zero effect. This reasoning argued that the assumed data are more correct than the real data.

The 1st thing to notice here is that Hahn alleges we had ‘sought to invalidate’. How can he know that? The fact is that we were simply trying to discover something new in the pool of data. The paper he refers to here has been discussed before on this blog. Here is what I stated:

This was a short ‘letter to the editor’ by Ernst and Pittler published in the J Clin Epidemiol commenting on the above-mentioned re-analysis by Linde et al which was published in the same journal. As its text is not available on-line, I re-type parts of it here:

In an interesting re-analysis of their meta-analysis of clinical trials of homeopathy, Linde et al conclude that there is no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We have simply re-plotted their data and arrive at a different conclusion. There is an almost perfect correlation between the odds ratio and the Jadad score between the range of 1-4… [some technical explanations follow which I omit]…Linde et al can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathy is, in fact, a placebo.

Again Hahn’s interpretation of our paper is incorrect and implies that he has not understood what we actually intended to do here.

_____________________________________________________________________________

THIRD ARTICLE

Two years later, Ernst [7] summarized the systematic reviews of homeopathy published in the wake of Linde’s first metaanalysis [2]. To support the view that homeopathy lacks effect, Ernst cited his own publications from 1998 and 2000 [5, 6]. He also presented Linde’s 2 follow-up reports [3, 4] as being further evidence that homeopathy equals placebo. 

Again, Hahn assumes my aim in publishing this paper (the only one of the 3 papers that is available as full text on-line): ‘to support the view that homeopathy lacks effect’. He does so despite the fact that the paper very clearly states my aim: ‘This article is an attempt to critically evaluate all such papers published since 1997 with a view to defining the clinical effectiveness of homeopathic medicines.‘ This discloses perhaps better than anything else that Hahn’s article is not evidence, but opinion-based and not objective but polemic.

Hahn then seems to resent that I included my own articles. Does he not know that, in a systematic review, one has to include ALL relevant papers? Hahn also seems to imply that I merely included a few papers in my systematic review. In fact, I included all the 17 that were available at the time. It might also be worth mentioning that numerous subsequent and independent analyses that employed similar methodologies as mine arrived at the same conclusions as my review.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Despite Hahn’s overtly misleading statements, he offers little real critique of my work. Certainly Hahn does not state that I made any major mistakes in the 3 papers he cites. For his more vitriolic comments, we need to look at the discussion section of his article where he states:

Ideology Plays a Part

Ernst [7] makes conclusions based on assumed data [6] when the true data are at hand [3]. Ernst [7] invalidates a study by Jonas et al. [18] that shows an odds ratio of 2.19 (1.55–3.11) in favor of homeopathy for rheumatic conditions, using the notion that there are not sufficient data for the treatment of any specific condition [6]. However, his review deals with the overall efficacy of homeopathy and not with specific conditions. Ernst [7] still adds this statistically significant result in favor of homeopathy over placebo to his list of arguments of why homeopathy does not work. Such argumentation must be reviewed carefully before being accepted by the reader.

After re-studying all this in detail, I get the impression that Hahn does not understand (or does not want to understand?) the research questions posed, nor the methodologies employed in my 3 articles. He is remarkably selective in choosing just 3 of my papers (his reference No 7 cites many more of my systematic reviews of homeopathy), and he seems to be determined to get the wrong end of the stick in order to defame me. How he can, based on his ‘analysis’ arrive at the conclusion that ” I have never encountered any scientific writer who is so clearly biased (biased) as this Edzard Ernst“, is totally beyond reason.

In one point, however, Hahn seems to be correct: IDEOLOGY PLAYS A PART (NOT IN MY BUT IN HIS EVALUATION).

_____________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES AS CITED IN HAHN’S ARTICLE

5 Ernst E: Are highly dilute homeopathic remedies placebos? Perfusion 1998;11:291.

6 Ernst E, Pittler MH: Re-analysis of previous metaanalysis of clinical trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1188.

7 Ernst E: A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002;54:577–582.

______________________________________________________________________________

For more information about Hahn, please see two comments on my previous post (by Björn Geir who understands Hahn’s native language).

This is also where you can find the only comment by Hahn that I am aware of:
Robert Hahn on Saturday 17 September 2016 at 09:50

Somebody alerted me on this website. Dr. Ernst spends most of his effort to reply to my article in Forsch Komplemetmed 2013; 20: 376-381 by discussing who I might be as a person. I hoped to see more effort being put on scientific reasoning.

1. For the scientific part: my experience in scientific reasoning of quite long and extensive. I am the most widely published Swede in the area of anesthesia and intensive care ever. Those who doubt this can look “Hahn RG” on PubMed.

2. For the religious part that, in my mind, has nothing to do with this topic, is that my wife developed a spiritualistic ability in the mid 1990:s which I have explored in four books published in Swedish between 1997 and 2007. I became convinced that much of this is true, but not all. The books reflect interviews with my wife and what happened in our family during that time. Almost half of all Swedes believe in afterlife and in the existence of a spiritual world. Dr. Ernsts reasoning is typical of skeptics, namely that a person with a known religious belief in not to trust – i.e. a person cannot have two sides, a religious and a scientific. I do not agree with that, but the view has led to that almost no scientist dares to tell his religious beliefs to anyone (which Ernst enforces by his reasoning). Besides, I am not very religious person at all, although the years spent writing these books was quite an interesting period of my life. In particular the last book which involved past-life memories that I had been revived during self-hypnotims. I am interested in exploring many sorts of secrets, not only scientific. But all types of evidence must be judged according to its own rules and laws.

3. Why did I write about homeopathy? The reason is a campaign led by skeptics in some summers ago. Teenagers sat in Swedish television and expressed firmly that “there is not a single publication showing that homeopathy works – nothing!”. I wonder how these young boys could know that, and suspected that had simply been instructed to say so by older skeptics . I looked up the topic on PubMed and soon found some positive papers. Not difficult to find. Had they looked? Surely not. I was a frequent blogger at the time, and wrote three blogs summarizing meta-analyses asking the question whether homeopathy was superior to placebo (disregarding the underlying disease). The response for my readers was impressive and I was eventually urged to write it up in English, which I did. That is the background to my article. I have no other involvement in homeopathy.

4. Me and Dr Ernst. I came across his name when scanning articles about homeopathy, and decided to look a bit deeper into what he had written. The typical scenario was to publish meta-analyses but excluding almost all material, leaving very little (of just a scant part of the literature) to summarize. No wonder there were no significant differences. If there were still significant differences the material was typically considered by him to be still too small or too imprecise or whatever to make any conclusion. This was quite systematic, and I lost trust in Ernst´s writings. This was pure scientific reasoning and has nothing to do with religion or anything else.

// Robert Hahn

_________________________________________________________________________

Lastly, if you need more info about Hahn, you might also want to read this.

The HRI is an innovative international charity created to address the need for high quality scientific research in homeopathy… HRI is dedicated to promoting cutting research in homeopathy, using the most rigorous methods available, and communicating the results of such work beyond the usual academic circles… HRI aims to bring academically reliable information to a wide international audience, in an easy to understand form. This audience includes the general public, scientists, healthcare providers, healthcare policy makers, government and the media.

This sounds absolutely brilliant!

I should be a member of the HRI!

For years, I have pursued similar aims!

Hold on, perhaps not?

This article makes me wonder:

START OF QUOTE

… By the end of 2014, 189 randomised controlled trials of homeopathy on 100 different medical conditions had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of these, 104 papers were placebo-controlled and were eligible for detailed review:
41% were positive (43 trials) – finding that homeopathy was effective
5% were negative (5 trials) – finding that homeopathy was ineffective
54% were inconclusive (56 trials)

How does this compare with evidence for conventional medicine?

An analysis of 1016 systematic reviews of RCTs of conventional medicine had strikingly similar findings2:
44% were positive – the treatments were likely to be beneficial
7% were negative – the treatments were likely to be harmful
49% were inconclusive – the evidence did not support either benefit or harm.

END OF QUOTE

The implication here is that the evidence base for homeopathy is strikingly similar to that of real medicine.

Nice try! But sadly it has nothing to do with ‘reliable information’!!!

In fact, it is grossly (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.

Regular readers of this blog will have spotted the reason, because we discussed (part of) it before. Let me remind you:

_______________________________________________________________________________

A clinical trial is a research tool for testing hypotheses; strictly speaking, it tests the ‘null-hypothesis’: “the experimental treatment generates the same outcomes as the treatment of the control group”. If the trial shows no difference between the outcomes of the two groups, the null-hypothesis is confirmed. In this case, we commonly speak of a negative result. If the experimental treatment was better than the control treatment, the null-hypothesis is rejected, and we commonly speak of a positive result. In other words, clinical trials can only generate positive or negative results, because the null-hypothesis must either be confirmed or rejected – there are no grey tones between the black of a negative and the white of a positive study.

For enthusiasts of alternative medicine, this can create a dilemma, particularly if there are lots of published studies with negative results. In this case, the totality of the available trial evidence is negative which means the treatment in question cannot be characterised as effective. It goes without saying that such an overall conclusion rubs the proponents of that therapy the wrong way. Consequently, they might look for ways to avoid this scenario.

One fairly obvious way of achieving this aim is to simply re-categorise the results. What, if we invented a new category? What, if we called some of the negative studies by a different name? What about INCONCLUSIVE?

That would be brilliant, wouldn’t it. We might end up with a simple statistic where the majority of the evidence is, after all, positive. And this, of course, would give the impression that the ineffective treatment in question is effective!

How exactly do we do this? We continue to call positive studies POSITIVE; we then call studies where the experimental treatment generated worst results than the control treatment (usually a placebo) NEGATIVE; and finally we call those studies where the experimental treatment created outcomes which were not different from placebo INCONCLUSIVE.

In the realm of alternative medicine, this ‘non-conclusive result’ method has recently become incredibly popular . Take homeopathy, for instance. The Faculty of Homeopathy proudly claim the following about clinical trials of homeopathy: Up to the end of 2011, there have been 164 peer-reviewed papers reporting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy. This represents research in 89 different medical conditions. Of those 164 RCT papers, 71 (43%) were positive, 9 (6%) negative and 80 (49%) non-conclusive.

This misleading nonsense was, of course, warmly received by homeopaths. The British Homeopathic Association, like many other organisations and individuals with an axe to grind lapped up the message and promptly repeated it: The body of evidence that exists shows that much more investigation is required – 43% of all the randomised controlled trials carried out have been positive, 6% negative and 49% inconclusive.

Let’s be clear what has happened here: the true percentage figures seem to show that 43% of studies (mostly of poor quality) suggest a positive result for homeopathy, while 57% of them (on average the ones of better quality) were negative. In other words, the majority of this evidence is negative. If we conducted a proper systematic review of this body of evidence, we would, of course, have to account for the quality of each study, and in this case we would have to conclude that homeopathy is not supported by sound evidence of effectiveness.

The little trick of applying the ‘INCONCLUSIVE’ method has thus turned this overall result upside down: black has become white! No wonder that it is so popular with proponents of all sorts of bogus treatments.

__________________________________________________________________________________

But one trick is not enough for the HRI! For thoroughly misinforming the public they have a second one up their sleeve.

And that is ‘comparing apples with pears’  – RCTs with systematic reviews, in their case.

In contrast to RCTs, systematic reviews can be (and often are) INCONCLUSIVE. As they evaluate the totality of all RCTs on a given subject, it is possible that some RCTs are positive, while others are negative. When, for example, the number of high-quality, positive studies included in a systematic review is similar to the number of high-quality, negative trials, the overall result of that review would be INCONCLUSIVE. And this is one of the reasons why the findings of systematic reviews cannot be compared in this way to those of RCTs.

I suspect that the people at the HRI know all this. They are not daft! In fact, they are quite clever. But unfortunately, they seem to employ their cleverness not for informing but for misleading their ‘wide international audience’.

Personally, I find our good friend Dana Ullman truly priceless. There are several reasons for that; one is that he is often so exemplarily wrong that it helps me to explain fundamental things more clearly. With a bit of luck, this might enable me to better inform people who might be thinking a bit like Dana. In this sense, our good friend Dana has significant educational value.

Recently, he made this comment:

According to present and former editors of THE LANCET and the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, “evidence based medicine” can no longer be trusted. There is obviously no irony in Ernst and his ilk “banking” on “evidence” that has no firm footing except their personal belief systems: https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/the-corruption-of-evidence-based-medicine-killing-for-profit-41f2812b8704

Ernst is a fundamentalist whose God is reductionistic science, a 20th century model that has little real meaning today…but this won’t stop the new attacks on me personally…

END OF COMMENT

Where to begin?

Let’s start with some definitions.

  • Evidence is the body of facts that leads to a given conclusion. Because the outcomes of treatments such as homeopathy depend on a multitude of factors, the evidence for or against their effectiveness is best based not on experience but on clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials (this is copied from my book).
  • EBM is the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. It thus rests on three pillars: external evidence, ideally from systematic reviews, the clinician’s experience, and the patient’s preferences (and this is from another book).

Few people would argue that EBM, as it is applied currently, is without fault. Certainly I would not suggest that; I even used to give lectures about the limitations of EBM, and many experts (who are much wiser than I) have written about the many problems with EBM. It is important to note that such criticism demonstrates the strength of modern medicine and not its weakness, as Dana seems to think: it is a sign of a healthy debate aimed at generating progress. And it is noteworthy that internal criticism of this nature is largely absent in alternative medicine.

The criticism of EBM is often focussed on the unreliability of the what I called above the ‘best research evidence’. Let me therefore repeat what I wrote about it on this blog in 2012:

… The multifactorial nature of any clinical response requires controlling for all the factors that might determine the outcome other than the treatment per se. Ideally, we would need to create a situation or an experiment where two groups of patients are exposed to the full range of factors, and the only difference is that one group does receive the treatment, while the other one does not. And this is precisely the model of a controlled clinical trial.

Such studies are designed to minimise all possible sources of bias and confounding. By definition, they have a control group which means that we can, at the end of the treatment period, compare the effects of the treatment in question with those of another intervention, a placebo or no treatment at all.

Many different variations of the controlled trial exist so that the exact design can be adapted to the requirements of the particular treatment and the specific research question at hand. The over-riding principle is, however, always the same: we want to make sure that we can reliably determine whether or not the treatment was the cause of the clinical outcome.

Causality is the key in all of this; and here lies the crucial difference between clinical experience and scientific evidence. What clinician witness in their routine practice can have a myriad of causes; what scientists observe in a well-designed efficacy trial is, in all likelihood, caused by the treatment. The latter is evidence, while the former is not.

Don’t get me wrong; clinical trials are not perfect. They can have many flaws and have rightly been criticised for a myriad of inherent limitations. But it is important to realise that, despite all their short-comings, they are far superior than any other method for determining the efficacy of medical interventions.

There are lots of reasons why a trial can generate an incorrect, i.e. a false positive or a false negative result. We therefore should avoid relying on the findings of a single study. Independent replications are usually required before we can be reasonably sure.

Unfortunately, the findings of these replications do not always confirm the results of the previous study. Whenever we are faced with conflicting results, it is tempting to cherry-pick those studies which seem to confirm our prior belief – tempting but very wrong. In order to arrive at the most reliable conclusion about the efficacy of any treatment, we need to consider the totality of the reliable evidence. This goal is best achieved by conducting a systematic review.

In a systematic review, we assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, try to synthesise the findings and arrive at an overall verdict about the efficacy of the treatment in question. Technically speaking, this process minimises selection and random biases. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses [these are systematic reviews that pool the data of individual studies] therefore constitute, according to a consensus of most experts, the best available evidence for or against the efficacy of any treatment.

END OF QUOTE

Other criticism is aimed at the way EBM is currently used (and abused). This criticism is often justified and necessary, and it is again the expression of our efforts to generate progress. EBM is practised by humans; and humans are far from perfect. They can be corrupt, misguided, dishonest, sloppy, negligent, stupid, etc., etc. Sadly, that means that the practice of EBM can have all of these qualities as well. All we can do is to keep on criticising malpractice, educate people, and hope that this might prevent the worst abuses in future.

Dana and many of his fellow SCAMers have a different strategy; they claim that EBM “can no longer be trusted” (interestingly they never tell us what system might be better; eminence-based medicine? experience-based medicine? random-based medicine? Dana-based medicine?).

The claim that EBM can no longer be trusted is clearly not true, counter-productive and unethical; and I suspect they know it.

Why then do they make it?

Because they feel that it entitles them to argue that homeopathy (or any other form of SCAM) cannot be held to EBM-standards. If EBM is unreliable, surely, nobody can ask the ‘Danas of this world’ to provide anything like sound data!!! And that, of course, would be just dandy for business, wouldn’t it?

So, let’s not be deterred  or misled by these deliberately destructive people. Their motives are transparent and their arguments are nonsensical. EBM is not flawless, but with our continued efforts it will improve. Or, to repeat something that I have said many times before: EBM is the worst form of healthcare, except for all other known options.

Nipah virus (NiV) infection is a zoonosis that causes severe disease in both animals and humans. The natural host of the virus are fruit bats of the Pteropodidae Family, Pteropus genus. Human-to-human transmission has also been documented, including in a hospital setting in India. Clinical presentations range from asymptomatic infection to acute respiratory syndrome and fatal encephalitis. There is no vaccine for either humans or animals. The primary treatment for human cases is intensive supportive care. In Kerala, India, several people have died of the deadly NiV.  The infection has a mortality rate of around 70%.

It was predictable that such events would bring homeopaths to the fore. This article explains:

The Indian Homeopathic Medical Association’s Kerala unit has claimed to have the medicines to treat Nipah virus. B Unnikrishnan, an association official, said homeopathy has the appropriate medicines for all types of fever and hence they should be allowed to treat the infected patients. The association has requested the state Health Minister KK Shailaja to allow their professionals to examine the records of all those patients who have been tested positive for Nipah… So far, 16 people have died and two are recovering. Some 2,000 people who came in contact with the infected patients are also being monitored.

Knowing that an international delegation of homeopaths travelled to Liberia to treat Ebola (with the official support of their respective professional organisations), this news cannot surprise anyone.

Homeopaths dilute their remedies and delude themselves.

Sadly, the victims of their dilutions/delusions are: 

  • their patients,
  • public health,
  • progress,
  • and rationality.
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories