1 2 3 15

In the comments section, someone recently alerted us to a most remarkable article. I had a look at it and thought it would be a pity to let it pass without further comment. Here is the abstract:

There are many types of energy around us, including natural and artificial ones, the first of the ground energies due to the imbalance happened from the treatment of man with the ground (mines-the bases of huge buildings); the result of the Earth rotation, the result of geological faults, the flow of groundwater or energies resulting from other factors that result in radiations that harm organisms in general. Also we are continuously increasing the amount of carrier waves needed for the wireless technology of modern communication in the earth’s atmosphere every day. These electromagnetic waves are thousands of times stronger than the level used in the communication in our body cells. The problem is not the saturation of the earth’s atmosphere through quantity, but also a detrimental quality. Even people who avoid using high technology are not immune. No one is immune because these are carrier waves with penetrating properties. our immune systems are continuously trying to correct the distortion in the transfer of inner information in our body; very soon the threshold will be reached when a total collapse of our body defenses will take place. Balancing the activities of daily life, achieving harmony with our inner and outer environments, humanizing modern technology, integrating science and spirits, and discovering the unified scientific reality behind all religions is the work of some science such as Bio Geometry, Bio Design, Radiesthesia, …ext.

When one runs a blog on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), it is almost inevitable to run into plenty of bullshit. Thus, over the years, I have gotten used to even the most compact versions of it. Yet, this paper – I do recommend you have a glance also at the full text – is truly outstanding.

In case there is someone amongst my readers who understands what the author wants to express, I would be most obliged to learn.

Semen retention is a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that involves intentionally avoiding ejaculating. A person can do this by abstaining from any sexual activity, stopping before the point of ejaculation, or teaching themselves to orgasm without ejaculating.

Although this practice may seem new, this is likely only due to recent internet popularity. In fact, semen retention is an ancient practice, believed to boost male physical and spiritual energy.

Some other names for semen retention include:

  • coitus reservatus
  • seminal conservation
  • sexual continence

It is also known as or included in practices called:

  • karezza (Italian)
  • maithuna (Hindu Tantra)
  • sahaja (Hindu Yoga)
  • tantra (Hinduism and Buddhism)
  • cai Yin pu Yang and cai Yang pu Yin (Taoist)

Semen retention is said to be good for a range of things:

Mental health

  • increased motivation
  • improved energy and focus
  • more self-confidence
  • reduced anxiety
  • better memory
  • improved concentration

Physical health

  • clearer skin
  • increased testosterone
  • more weight loss
  • increased muscle mass
  • physical rejuvenation
  • a deeper voice

Spiritual health

  • a greater sense of purpose
  • stronger or deeper emotional bonds in relationships
  • a stronger sense of overall harmony


Yes, I agree, this sounds weird!

But is there any evidence?

Yes, e.g.:

Study No 1

Males of some species use mate retention behavior and investment in ejaculate quality as anti-cuckoldry tactics concurrently while others do so in a compensatory fashion. Leivers, Rhodes, and Simmons (2014) reported that men who performed mate retention less frequently produced higher-quality ejaculates, suggesting that humans use these tactics compensatorily. We conducted a conceptual replication of this research in a sample of 41 men (18-33 years; M = 23.33; SD = 3.60). By self-report, participants had not had a vasectomy and had never sought infertility treatment. We controlled for several covariates known to affect ejaculate quality (e.g., abstinence duration before providing an ejaculate) and found no statistically significant relationships between mate retention behavior and four components of ejaculate quality: sperm velocity, sperm concentration, slow motility, and ejaculate volume. The present results provide little support for the hypothesis that human males deploy mate retention behavior and ejaculate quality investment compensatorily. We discuss the limitations of this study and highlight the need for research to address questions about the nature of anti-cuckoldry tactic deployment in humans, especially concerning investment in ejaculate quality.

Study No 2

In species where females mate with multiple males, the sperm from these males must compete to fertilise available ova. Sexual selection from sperm competition is expected to favor opposing adaptations in males that function either in the avoidance of sperm competition (by guarding females from rival males) or in the engagement in sperm competition (by increased expenditure on the ejaculate). The extent to which males may adjust the relative use of these opposing tactics has been relatively neglected. Where males can successfully avoid sperm competition from rivals, one might expect a decrease in their expenditure on tactics for the engagement in sperm competition and vice versa. In this study, we examine the relationship between mate guarding and ejaculate quality using humans as an empirical model. We found that men who performed fewer mate guarding behaviors produced higher quality ejaculates, having a greater concentration of sperm, a higher percentage of motile sperm and sperm that swam faster and less erratically. These effects were found independent of lifestyle factors or factors related to male quality. Our findings suggest that male expenditure on mate guarding and on the ejaculate may represent alternative routes to paternity assurance in humans.

Study No 3

The uncritical application of western psychiatric concepts in non-western societies resulting in culturally invalid psychiatric syndromes, have been extensively documented. Such instances are considered ‘category errors’. In contrast, ‘reverse category errors’ although theoretically postulated, have never been empirically demonstrated. Diagnostic criteria of an established South Asian culture specific neurosis, Dhāt syndrome, were deployed by a psychiatrist of South Asian origin, amongst 47 white Britons in London, UK, presenting for the first time with a clinic diagnosis of ICD-9 Depressive Neurosis (Dysthymic Disroder, ICD-11). The proceedure yielded a new disorder, Semen Retention Syndrome. Based on narrative accounts and quantitative scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the evidence suggests that a significant subset of white British subjects diagnosed with Dysthymic Disorder, may in fact be expressing a psychological variation of a previously unknown local White British somatisation phenomena labelled Semen Retention Syndrome. Anxiety and depressive symptoms presented by this subset of subjects were primarily attributed to a core irrational belief and a cognitive error centered around misunderstood concepts of semen physiology. Consequently, the undue focus on mood idioms by both white British patients and their health professionals, leads to a mistaken diagnosis of Mood Disorder, and results in incorrect treatment. The implications of this ethnocentric mode of reasoning raises concerns about existing concepts in psychiatric phenomenology and for official international diagnostic classificatory systems. The paper concludes by arguing that category errors in both directions are instances of cultural iatrogenesis, and underscore the importance of a culturally valid psychiatry.


I was unable to find support for any of the above-listed effects of semen retention. So, claims like “Semen Retention is life-changing, especially for men. Not only, it help you turn into a real alpha male but also offers great health benefits” need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Yet, it did occur to me that semen retention might have one positive outcome:

It reduces the chances of stupid people multiplying!


On this blog, we have some people who continue to promote conspiracy theories about Covid and Covid vaccinations. It is, therefore, time, I feel, to present them with some solid evidence on the subject (even though it means departing from our usual focus on SCAM).

This Cochrane review assessed the efficacy and safety of COVID‐19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS‐CoV‐2. An impressive team of investigators searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). They also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. They included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID‐19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.

A total of 41 RCTs could be included and analyzed assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty‐two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty‐nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromised patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two‐month follow-ups or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. The overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available were identified.The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO‐approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all‐cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high‐certainty evidence).High‐certainty evidence was found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA‐1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP‐CorV (Sinopharm‐Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID‐19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA‐1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP‐CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants).Moderate‐certainty evidence was found that NVX‐CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID‐19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants).There is low‐certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants).High‐certainty evidence was found that BNT162b2, mRNA‐1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in the incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID‐19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA‐1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants).

Moderate‐certainty evidence was found that NVX‐CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID‐19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants).

Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled.

mRNA‐1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford‐AstraZeneca)/SII‐ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to placebo (RR: mRNA‐1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII‐ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants.

Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP‐CorV, and NVX‐CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP‐CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX‐CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants).

The authors’ conclusions were as follows: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID‐19, and for some, there is high‐certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID‐NMA platform (


As some conspiratorial loons will undoubtedly claim that this review is deeply biased; it might be relevant to add the conflicts of interest of its authors:

  • Carolina Graña: none known.
  • Lina Ghosn: none known.
  • Theodoros Evrenoglou: none known.
  • Alexander Jarde: none known.
  • Silvia Minozzi: no relevant interests; Joint Co‐ordinating Editor and Method editor of the Drugs and Alcohol Group.
  • Hanna Bergman: Cochrane Response – consultant; WHO – grant/contract (Cochrane Response was commissioned by the WHO to perform review tasks that contribute to this publication).
  • Brian Buckley: none known.
  • Katrin Probyn: Cochrane Response – consultant; WHO – consultant (Cochrane Response was commissioned to perform review tasks that contribute to this publication).
  • Gemma Villanueva: Cochrane Response – employment (Cochrane Response has been commissioned by WHO to perform parts of this systematic review).
  • Nicholas Henschke: Cochrane Response – consultant; WHO – consultant (Cochrane Response was commissioned by the WHO to perform review tasks that contributed to this publication).
  • Hillary Bonnet: none known.
  • Rouba Assi: none known.
  • Sonia Menon: P95 – consultant.
  • Melanie Marti: no relevant interests; Medical Officer at WHO.
  • Declan Devane: Health Research Board (HRB) – grant/contract; registered nurse and registered midwife but no longer in clinical practice; Editor, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group.
  • Patrick Mallon: AstraZeneca – Advisory Board; spoken of vaccine effectiveness to media (print, online, and live); works as a consultant in a hospital that provides vaccinations; employed by St Vincent’s University Hospital.
  • Jean‐Daniel Lelievre: no relevant interests; published numerous interviews in the national press on the subject of COVID vaccination; Head of the Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Immunology CHU Henri Mondor APHP, Créteil; WHO (IVRI‐AC): expert Vaccelarate (European project on COVID19 Vaccine): head of WP; involved with COVICOMPARE P et M Studies (APHP, INSERM) (public fundings).
  • Lisa Askie: no relevant interests; Co‐convenor, Cochrane Prospective Meta‐analysis Methods Group.
  • Tamara Kredo: no relevant interests; Medical Officer in an Infectious Diseases Clinic at Tygerberg Hospital, Stellenbosch University.
  • Gabriel Ferrand: none known.
  • Mauricia Davidson: none known.
  • Carolina Riveros: no relevant interests; works as an epidemiologist.
  • David Tovey: no relevant interests; Emeritus Editor in Chief, Feedback Editors for 2 Cochrane review groups.
  • Joerg J Meerpohl: no relevant interests; member of the German Standing Vaccination Committee (STIKO).
  • Giacomo Grasselli: Pfizer – speaking engagement.
  • Gabriel Rada: none known.
  • Asbjørn Hróbjartsson: no relevant interests; Cochrane Methodology Review Group Editor.
  • Philippe Ravaud: no relevant interests; involved with Mariette CORIMUNO‐19 Collaborative 2021, the Ministry of Health, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, Foundation for Medical Research, and AP‐HP Foundation.
  • Anna Chaimani: none known.
  • Isabelle Boutron: no relevant interests; member of Cochrane Editorial Board.


And as some might say this analysis is not new, here are two further papers just out:

Objectives To determine the association between covid-19 vaccination types and doses with adverse outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the periods of delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variant predominance.

Design Retrospective cohort.

Setting US Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

Participants Adults (≥18 years) who are affiliated to Veterans Affairs with a first documented SARS-CoV-2 infection during the periods of delta (1 July-30 November 2021) or omicron (1 January-30 June 2022) variant predominance. The combined cohorts had a mean age of 59.4 (standard deviation 16.3) and 87% were male.

Interventions Covid-19 vaccination with mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna)) and adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson)).

Main outcome measures Stay in hospital, intensive care unit admission, use of ventilation, and mortality measured 30 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2.

Results In the delta period, 95 336 patients had infections with 47.6% having at least one vaccine dose, compared with 184 653 patients in the omicron period, with 72.6% vaccinated. After adjustment for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, in the delta period, two doses of the mRNA vaccines were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.43)), intensive care unit admission (0.33 (0.31 to 0.36)), ventilation (0.27 (0.24 to 0.30)), and death (0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)), compared with no vaccination. In the omicron period, receipt of two mRNA doses were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (0.60 (0.57 to 0.63)), intensive care unit admission (0.57 (0.53 to 0.62)), ventilation (0.59 (0.51 to 0.67)), and death (0.43 (0.39 to 0.48)). Additionally, a third mRNA dose was associated with lower odds of all outcomes compared with two doses: hospital admission (0.65 (0.63 to 0.69)), intensive care unit admission (0.65 (0.59 to 0.70)), ventilation (0.70 (0.61 to 0.80)), and death (0.51 (0.46 to 0.57)). The Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with better outcomes relative to no vaccination, but higher odds of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission than with two mRNA doses. BNT162b2 was generally associated with worse outcomes than mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratios between 0.97 and 1.42).

Conclusions In veterans with recent healthcare use and high occurrence of multimorbidity, vaccination was robustly associated with lower odds of 30 day morbidity and mortality compared with no vaccination among patients infected with covid-19. The vaccination type and number of doses had a significant association with outcomes.

SECOND EXAMPLE Long COVID, or complications arising from COVID-19 weeks after infection, has become a central concern for public health experts. The United States National Institutes of Health founded the RECOVER initiative to better understand long COVID. We used electronic health records available through the National COVID Cohort Collaborative to characterize the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and long COVID diagnosis. Among patients with a COVID-19 infection between August 1, 2021 and January 31, 2022, we defined two cohorts using distinct definitions of long COVID—a clinical diagnosis (n = 47,404) or a previously described computational phenotype (n = 198,514)—to compare unvaccinated individuals to those with a complete vaccine series prior to infection. Evidence of long COVID was monitored through June or July of 2022, depending on patients’ data availability. We found that vaccination was consistently associated with lower odds and rates of long COVID clinical diagnosis and high-confidence computationally derived diagnosis after adjusting for sex, demographics, and medical history.


There are, of course, many more articles on the subject for anyone keen to see the evidence. Sadly, I have little hope that the COVID loons will be convinced by any of them. Yet, I thought I should give it nevertheless a try.

In response to yesterday’s post, I received a lengthy comment from ‘Stan’. Several readers have already commented on it. Therefore, I can make my arguments short. In this post, will repeat Stan’s points each followed by my comments (in bold). Here we go:

Seven Reasons Homœopathy is Not Placebo Effect

Sorry, Stan, but your heading is not proper English; I have therefore changed it for the title of this post.

1. Homeopathic remedies work on babies, animals, plants and people in a coma. Biodynamic farmers use homeopathic remedies to repel pests and treat plant diseases. Some organic ranchers rely on homeopathic remedies to treat their herds. Some “placebo by proxy” effect has been shown for children but its doubtful that it could be shown for a herd of cattle or crops in a field. Farmers can’t rely on wishful thinking to stay in business.

As discussed ad nauseam on this blog, homeopathic remedies do not work on babies or animals better than placebos. I don’t know of any studies with “people in a coma” (if you do, Stan, please let me know). The fact that ranchers rely on homeopathy is hilarious but does not prove anything.

2. The correct curative remedy will initially cause a worsening of the condition being cured if it is given in too strong (i.e. too dilute) a dose. A placebo might only cause a temporary improvement of the condition being treated; certainly not an aggravation.

The ‘homeopathic aggravation’ is a myth created by homeopaths. It disappears if we try to systematically research it; see here, for instance.

3. One can do a “proving” of an unknown homeopathic remedy by taking it repeatedly over several days and it will temporarily cause symptoms that one has never experienced previously – symptoms it will cure in a sick person. This is a repeatable scientific experiment used to determine the scope of a new remedy, or confirm the effects of an already proven remedy. A placebo might possibly have an effect if the individual taking it has been “prepared” by being told what they are taking but it likely wouldnt match previously recorded symptoms in the literature.

Homeopathic provings are rubbish and not reproducible when done rigorously; see here.

4. One can treat simple acute (self-limiting) conditions (e.g. minor burns, minor injuries, insect bites, etc.) and see unusually rapid cures with homeopathic remedies. A placebo might only cause a temporary improvement of the condition being treated while taken. Placebos have been found mostly effective in conditions with a strong psychological component like pain.

You mean like using Arnica for cuts and bruises? Sadly, it does not work.

5. One can get homeopathic treatment for long term chronic (non self-limiting) conditions and see a deep lasting cure, as has been documented clinically for a couple centuries. A placebo might only cause a temporary partial improvement of the condition being treated while the placebo is being taken.

You mean like asthma, eczema, or insomnia?

6. There is over 200 years worth of extensive documentation from around the world, of the clinical successes of homeopathy for both acute and chronic conditions of all types. As Dr Hahn has said you have throw out 90% of the evidence to conclude that homeopathy doesnt work. The Sheng et al meta-analysis in 2005 Lancet that was supposedly the death knell of homeopathy used only 8 studies, excluding hundreds of others. Unsurprisingly homeopathy was found wanting. So-called Skeptics see what they want to see in the science. There is relatively little documentation of placebo usage. A few recent studies have been done showing the limited temporary benefits of placebos.

What Hahn wrote is understandably liked by homeopaths but it nevertheless is BS. If you don’t trust me, please rely on independent bodies from across the world.

7. Homeopathic remedies have been shown to have a very weak electromagnetic signature and contain some nano-particles. Some believe this explains their mechanism. An exciting new potential field of research is the subtle cell signalling that has been found to direct the development of stem cells. Scientists have created double-headed planeria worms and this trait has been found to be inherited by their offspring without any change in the genes or epigenetics. Until now we had no idea how a single fertilized ovum could evolve into a complex creature that is bilateral and has multiple cell types. It is possible that the very subtle electromagnetic signature or some other unknown effect of homeopathic remedies is effecting this subtle cell signalling.

The homeopathic nano-myth is nonsense. And so is the rest of your assumptions.

Every conventional drug has “side effects” that match the symptoms for which it is indicated! Aspirin can cause headaches and fever, ritalin can cause hyperactive effects, radiation can cause cancer. Conventional doctors are just practicing bad homeopathy. They are prescribing Partially similar medicines. If their drugs were homeopathic (i.e. similar) to the patients symptoms on all levels they would be curative. Radiation sometimes does cure cancer instead of just suppressing it per usual.

Even if this were true, what would it prove? Certainly not that homeopathy works!

Dr Hahneman did forbid mixing homeopathy and conventional medicine. In his day doctors commonly used extensive blood letting and extreme doses of mercury. Its not Quite as bad now.

You evidently did not read Hahnemann’s writings.

Just because we dont know how extremely dilute homeopathic remedies work, doesn’t discount that they Do work. Homeopathy seems to fly in the face of Known science. In no way is it irrational or unscientific. There are lots of phenomena in the universe that cant be explained yet, like dark energy and dark matter effects and even consciousness!

Not knowing how a treatment works has not stopped science to test whether it works (e.g. Aspirin). In the case of homeopathy, the results of these endeavors were not positive.

The assumption that the moon is made of cheese also flies in the face of science; do you perhaps think that this makes it true?

The actions of homeopathy can and have been well-explained: they are due to placebo effects.


Stan, thank you for this entertaining exercise. But, next time, please remember to supply evidence for your statements.

After all these years, I am still fascinated by what proponents of homeopathy try to tell others about their trade. Recently I found a long article in this vein. It is aimed at an audience of HEILPRAKTIKER and their patients. It should therefore be responsible, thorough, and evidence-based (yes, I am an optimist).

“With this article”, the authors state, “we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of homeopathy and help people make informed decisions about their health. Whether you already have experience with homeopathy or simply want to inform yourself, we hope that this article will provide you with valuable insights and information” (my translation).

Here I present to you just the relatively short section dedicated to the ‘pros and cons’ of homeopathy. Here we go:

Advantages of homeopathy:

  1. Holistic approach: homeopathy considers the human being as a whole and takes into account both physical and emotional aspects. It aims to support individual balance and the body’s self-healing powers.
  2. Gentle and non-invasive treatment: Homeopathic remedies are usually taken as globules, drops, or tablets and are therefore easy and convenient to use. They rarely cause side effects and are generally well tolerated.
  3. Individualized treatment: In homeopathy, each patient is considered unique and treatment is based on individual symptoms and characteristics. There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution, but a personalized approach.
  4. Support for chronic diseases: Homeopathy can be an alternative or complementary treatment for chronic conditions where conventional medicines offer limited relief. It can help improve quality of life and promote overall well-being.

Limitations of homeopathy:

  1. Placebo effect: Much of the effect of homeopathy is attributed to the placebo effect. It is argued that the improvements patients experience occur because of belief in the efficacy of the remedies and positive expectations, rather than due to a specific effect of the diluted substances.
  2. Lack of scientific evidence: The scientific evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy is limited and controversial. Many studies have failed to demonstrate benefits beyond the placebo effect. There is a lack of well-conducted randomized controlled trials that clearly show the effectiveness of homeopathy.
  3. Delay or rejection of conventional treatments: In some cases, the choice of homeopathy as the sole method of treatment may lead to delays in the diagnosis and timely treatment of serious or acute illnesses. It is important that serious illnesses are examined by a doctor and treated appropriately.
  4. Difficulties in standardization: Homeopathy involves a variety of remedies used in different potencies and dilutions. This makes standardization and the conduct of reproducible studies difficult. There are also controversial debates about whether the dilutions go beyond the extent to which molecules of the original substance are still present.


I am sure that you have heard the BS about the alleged advantages of homeopathy often enough. Therefore, I will here not bother to comment on them again. More interesting, in my view, are the limitations of homeopathy, as seen by its proponents. Please allow me, therefore, to discuss them briefly.

  1. The authors state that “it is argued that the improvements patients experience occur because of belief in the efficacy of the remedies and positive expectations”. This sounds as though this is a mere aberrant opinion or at least an ongoing debate amongst scientists. In fact, it is the scientific consensus supported by tons of evidence.
  2. This is the same point expressed differently.
  3. The admission that “the choice of homeopathy as the sole method of treatment may lead to delays in the diagnosis and timely treatment” is yet another way of stating that homeopathy is not effective. What is, however, not expressed clearly enough, in my view, is the fact that homeopathic treatment usually amounts to medical neglect which is unethical and can cause serious harm, in extreme cases even death.
  4. It is not true that the range of potencies renders “the conduct of reproducible studies difficult”. There are plenty of examples to demonstrate this, for instance, this study. “There are also controversial debates about whether the dilutions go beyond the extent to which molecules of the original substance are still present.” Yes, I did translate this correctly. I am sorry to say that this sentence does make no sense in German or in English.

What I find particularly interesting is that the authors do not mention disadvantages that non-homeopaths would rate as quite important, e.g.:

  • The assumptions of homeopathy fly in the face of science.
  • Hahnemann strictly forbade homeopathy to be combined with ‘allopathy’ (yet proponents now claim this option to be an advantage).
  • Treating a patient with homeopathy violates even the most basic rules of medical ethics.
  • Homeopaths have no choice but to lie to their patients on a daily basis.
  • Many homeopaths have the nasty habit of advising their patients against using effective treatments, e.g. vaccinations.
  • Homeopathy undermines rational thinking in a general way.

In summary, the authors’ “aim to provide a comprehensive overview of homeopathy and help people make informed decisions about their health” has not been reached.

The well-known Dr. Chris van Tulleken recently joined forces with Professor Michael Heinrich and Dr. Anthony Booker from the University College London School of Pharmacy to test a range of herbal products on sale in the UK. They bought over 70 herbal products from various high street stores and internet retailers. Some of the products were ‘THR’ (traditional herbal registration) herbal medicines, and some were marketed as food supplements. They then analyzed their chemistry to see whether each one really contained what the label says. The three popular herbal remedies we tested were:-

  • Milk thistle (Silybum marianum),
  • Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba),
  • Evening primrose (Oenothera).

The team at UCL used two different methods of analysis to verify the identity of these herbal products and extracts. High-performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC) is a sophisticated technique for the analysis of herbal products and is one of the most commonly used methods in the industry. HPTLC analysis creates a chemical fingerprint of the product which the researchers can then compare to an accepted reference standard for the herb. They look for a broad spectrum of ‘marker compounds’ these are the pharmacologically active and/or chemical constituents within a plant that can be used to verify its potency or identity. For complex samples or where additional confirmation is required, researchers often turn to ¹H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (¹H-NMR) which allows individual samples to be compared in detail against other samples or to the whole group.

In every THR product tested, the product contained what was claimed on the label. However, the food supplements showed a wide range of quality.

  • Of the food supplement products labeled as Ginkgo, 8 out of 30 (27%) contained little or no ginkgo extract.
  • 36% of the food supplement milk thistle products contained no detectable milk thistle. Although this is quite a small sample size it is still a startling result. Furthermore, in one case of milk thistle, unidentified adulterants suspected to be synthetic compounds were present in place of milk thistle.
  • All of the evening primrose food products we tested did contain what the packet claimed.

The researchers concluded that their investigation shows that a regulatory system for herbal products, like the THR scheme, ensures that people have access to safe herbal medicine products. So, if you are considering buying herbal products then do look out for the THR mark– otherwise, you might not just be wasting your money, you might be consuming other, potentially dangerous, ingredients.


This is an interesting investigation. The researchers should be commended for it! However, I disagree with some of their conclusions. Here is why:

  • The investigation merely tested the quality of the products and NOT THEIR SAFETY! To claim that the THR ensures access to safe herbal medicines is incorrect. A product might be of adequate quality but can still be unsafe. The THR only implies safety because the herbal has been used for years without problems being noted. This is not the same as ensuring that it is safe. A direct test of safety is usually not available.
  • The recommendation to buy a product with a THR mark is also somewhat misleading. It implies that these products are effective. I fail to see convincing evidence that either MILK THISTLE, GINKGO, or EVENING PRIMROSE  are effective for any disease or condition. Thus the responsible recommendation should, in my view, be to NOT buy them regardless of whether they are of good quality or not.



It has recently been reported that a 39-year-old woman (a mother-of-three died) died after immersing herself in a river as part of a cold water therapy session. The woman died after paramedics were called to attend a riverside in Derbyshire. The session was run by Kevin O’Neill of ‘Breatheolution’, whose previous clients include Coleen Rooney and actor Stephen Graham. The woman, who was visiting with two friends after paying up to £200 for a two-hour cold water therapy session, was rushed to hospital where she died.

Mr. O’Neill commented: “I am heartbroken. I’ve not slept and I’m finding it hard to process. I cannot stop thinking about her family. It’s tragic.” An inquest is expected to be opened into the woman’s death. East Midlands Ambulance Service said they were called to Bankside, in Bridgemont. “The caller reported a medical emergency,” a spokesperson said. “We sent a paramedic in a fast response car and a double-crewed ambulance. The air ambulance was also in attendance.”

Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service, which was called to assist the paramedics, has warned people about the dangers of entering open water. “While we cannot and will not comment or speculate on the circumstances and cause of this tragic death, we would like to remind people of the dangers of entering open water and cold water shock,” said group manager Lee Williams.


Breatheolution’ has a website where a whole page is dedicated to its leader Kevin O’Neill. I wondered what qualifications Kevin has, but all it tells us about him is this: “I struggled for so long with alcohol and other substance abuse that something had to give, I lost my sister Yvonne in 2019 and I think it was enough trauma to make me think a lot more about my own life”

The website also explains what the cold water sessions are about:

1-2-1 Breath Coaching, practice & Cold water session (river or tank)

2 hours @ £110.00

These sessions are proving popular with those who are not keen on group sessions or just prefer to have a more personal experience. The 2-3 hour sessions will be tailored to you and your breathing and will include potentially life-changing tools and methods to allow you to witness your breathing and physiology differently in the future, its all about feeling and awareness.

Another section of the site is dedicated to celebrities who Kevin seems to have treated. And then there is a video of the treatment. What I did not find anywhere, however, are the conditions that Kevin claims to treat with his cold water therapy.

In any case, it would have been wise for Kevin to read up about the risks of cold water immersion (CWI) before going into business. Perhaps this review would have helped:

In 2012, an estimated 372,000 people (42 per hour) died from immersion, assumed to be drowning. Immersion is the third leading cause of unintentional injury-related death, accounting for 7% of all such deaths (World Health Organization, 2014). These figures are underestimations owing to poor reporting in many Third World countries that have a high number of deaths. The data also do not include life-long morbidity caused by immersion-related injuries, estimated to be a much bigger numerical problem.

There is no strict definition of ‘cold water’. Given that some of the hazardous responses to cold water appear to peak on immersion somewhere between 15 and 10°C, it is reasonable to say that cold water is water <15°C (Tipton et al1991). However, the thermoneutral water temperature for a resting naked individual is ∼35°C, so it is possible for individuals to become very cold, with time, on immersion in water below this temperature. The corresponding temperature for those exercising (including shivering) is ∼25°C (Tipton & Golden, 1998).

Historically, the threat associated with CWI was regarded in terms of hypothermia or a reduction in deep body temperature below 35°C. This belief was established as a result of the Titanic disaster and supported by data obtained during maritime conflicts of World War II. However, more recently, a significant body of statistical, anecdotal and experimental evidence has pointed towards other causes of death on immersion. For example, in 1977 a Home Office Report revealed that ∼55% of the annual open water deaths in the UK occurred within 3 m of a safe refuge (42% within 2 m), and two-thirds of those who died were regarded as ‘good swimmers’. This evidence suggests more rapid incapacitation than can occur with whole-body cooling and consequent hypothermia.

The following four stages of immersion have been associated with particular risks (Golden & Hervey, 1981; Golden et al1991); the duration of these stages and the magnitude of the responses evoked within them vary significantly, depending on several factors, not least of which is water temperature:

  • Initial immersion (first 3 min), skin cooling;
  • Short-term immersion (3 min plus), superficial neuromuscular cooling;
  • Long-term immersion (30 min plus), deep tissue cooling (hypothermia); and
  • Circum-rescue collapse: immediately before, during or soon after rescue.

As a result of laboratory-based research, the initial responses to immersion, or ‘cold shock’, were identified as particularly hazardous (Tipton, 1989), accounting for the majority of immersion deaths (Tipton et al2014). These deaths have most often been ascribed to drowning, with the physiological responses of a gasp and uncontrollable hyperventilation, initiated by the dynamic response of the cutaneous cold receptors, resulting in the aspiration of the small volume of water necessary to initiate the drowning process (Bierens et al2016). Relatively little is known about the minimal rates of change of cold receptor temperature necessary to cause cold shock. The response has been reported to begin in water as warm as 25°C but is easy to suppress consciously at that temperature. In laboratory conditions, the respiratory frequency response (an indication of respiratory drive) peaks on naked immersion in a water temperature between 15 and 10°C, and is no greater on immersion in water at 5°C (Tipton et al1991). The corresponding average rates of change of chest skin temperature over the first 20 s of these immersions was 0.42 (water temperature 15°C), 0.56 (water temperature 10°C) and 0.68°C s−1 (water temperature 5°C). This suggests that an average rate of change in chest skin temperature between 0.42 and 0.56°C s−1 on the first 20 s of immersion is sufficient to evoke a maximal respiratory cold shock response.

More recently, it has been suggested (Shattock & Tipton, 2012) that a larger number of deaths than once thought may be attributable to arrhythmias initiated on immersion by the coincidental activation of the sympathetic and parasympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system by stimulation of cutaneous cold receptors around the body [sympathetic activation (cold shock)] and in the oronasal region on submersion or with wave splash [vagal stimulation (diving response)]. This ‘autonomic conflict’ is a very effective way of producing dysrhythmias and arrhythmias even in otherwise young and healthy individuals, particularly, but not necessarily, if a prolonged breath hold is involved in the immersion (Tipton et al1994). It seems that predisposing factors, such as long QT syndrome, ischaemic heart disease or myocardial hypertrophy, are necessary for fatal arrhythmias to evolve (Shattock & Tipton, 2012); many of these factors, including drug-induced long QT syndrome, are acquired. Non-fatal arrhythmias could still indirectly lead to death if they cause incapacitation and thereby drowning (Tipton, 2013). The hazardous responses associated with the cold shock response are presented in Fig. 2.

Figure 2. A contemporary view of the initial responses to immersion and submersion in cold water (‘cold shock’)

Based on: Tipton (1989); Datta & Tipton (2006); Tipton et al. (2010); Shattock & Tipton (2012). *Predisposing factors include channelopathies, atherosclerosis, long QT syndrome, myocardial hypertrophy and ischaemic heart disease. Reproduced with permission, from Tipton (2016a).

The problems encountered in short-term immersions are primarily related to physical incapacitation caused by neuromuscular cooling (Castellani & Tipton, 2015). The arms are particularly susceptible because of their high surface area to mass ratio. Low muscle temperatures affect chemical and physical processes at the cellular level. This includes metabolic rate, enzymatic activity, calcium and acetylcholine release and diffusion rate, as well as the series elastic components of connective tissues (Vincent & Tipton, 1988). Maximal dynamic strength, power output, jumping and sprinting performance are related to muscle temperature, with reductions ranging from 4 to 6% per degree Celsius reduction in muscle temperature down to 30°C (Bergh & Ekblom, 1979). At nerve temperatures below ∼20°C, nerve conduction is slowed and action potential amplitude is decreased (Douglas & Malcolm, 1955). Nerve block may occur after exposure to a local temperature of between 5 and 15°C for 1–15 min. This can lead to dysfunction that is equivalent to peripheral paralysis and can, again, result in drowning owing to the inability to keep the airway clear of the water (Clarke et al1958; Basbaum, 1973; Golden & Tipton, 2002; Fig. 3).

Figure 3. The ‘physiological pathways to drowning’ after immersion or submersion in cold water, with possible interventions for partial mitigation (dashed)

Abbreviations: EBA, emergency breathing aid; IS, immersion suit; and LJ, lifejacket. Reproduced with permission, from Tipton (2016b).

Even in ice-cold water, the possibility of hypothermia does not arise for at least 30 min in adults. Hypothermia affects cellular metabolism, blood flow and neural function. In severe hypothermia, the patient will be deeply unconscious. The progressive signs and symptoms (approximate deep body temperature) are shivering (36°C), confusion, disorientation, introversion (35°C), amnesia (34°C), cardiac arrhythmias (33°C), clouding of consciousness (33–30°C), loss of consciousness (30°C), ventricular fibrillation (28°C) and death (25°C) (Bierens et al2016). There is great variability between deep body temperature and the signs and symptoms of hypothermia. For example, although the deep body temperature associated with death is often quoted as 25°C, the lowest temperature recorded to date after accidental exposure to cold (air) and with full recovery was 12.7°C in a 28-month-old child (Associated Press, 2014). The coldest adult survivor of CWI followed by submersion had a body temperature of 13.7°C (Gilbert et al2000). There is also a large amount of variation in the rate at which people cool on immersion in cold water, owing to a combination of thermal factors (including water temperature and water movement, internal and external insulation) and non-thermal factors (including body size and composition, blood glucose, motion illness, racial and sex differences; Haight & Keatinge, 1973; Gale et al1981; White et al1992; Mekjavic et al2001; Golden & Tipton, 2002).

The most significant practical consequence of hypothermia in water is loss of consciousness; this prevents individuals from undertaking physical activity to maintain a clear airway and avoid drowning. Thus, once again, drowning is often the end-point (Fig. 3).

About 17% of those who die as a result of immersion die immediately before, during or after rescue (Golden et al1991). The deaths immediately before rescue are intriguing and probably related to behavioural changes at this time or the relief and psychophysiological alterations associated with imminent rescue, including a reduction in circulating stress hormone concentration and an increase in vagal tone. Death during rescue is most commonly associated with a collapse in arterial pressure when lifted vertical from the water and kept in that position for some time (Golden et al1991).


The tragic death of the woman should perhaps remind us that

  • there is no SCAM or wellness treatment that is entirely harmless,
  • and there are only few ‘would-be gurus’ who know what they are doing.

A ‘manifesto’ is not something that I come across often in my area of research, i.e. so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). This one is in German, I, therefore, translated it for you:

Manifesto for healthy medicine
With the Manifesto for healthy medicine, we, the citizens and patients alliance weil’s hilft! (‘BECAUSE IT HELPS’) demand a fundamental change in our healthcare system, towards a diverse medicine that focuses on people and health. Be part of it! Sign the manifesto and become part of the movement.

It’s of paramount importance, the Manifesto for healthy medicine. About the way we live. It’s about our health. It’s about you and it’s about me.

We want our healthcare system to actually focus on health.

We want a medicine that doesn’t ask what’s missing, but what is possible.

We want a medicine that cares about people, that takes care, gets to the bottom of things, and uses innovative technologies to do so.

We want more bio, so that the chemistry is right, and we want naturopathic procedures and naturally effective medicines to be recognized, promoted, and researched further.

We want research that creates knowledge because, in addition to studies, it also takes into account the experience of physicians and the needs of patients.

We want carers and doctors to be able to work in a way that is good for their patients and for themselves.

We want people from all healthcare professions to work together as equals.

We want a medicine that creates awareness for a good and healthy life because climate protection also begins in one’s own body.

We want an integrative medicine that puts people at the center and self-evidently combines conventional and natural healing methods.

And we want this medicine to be accessible and affordable for everyone.

We fight for a healthy medicine of the future.
Be part of it!

(sorry, if some of it might sound badly translated but the German original is in parts pure gibberish)


Who writes such tosh composed of every thinkable platitude and then pompously calls it a MANIFESTO?

BECAUSE IT HELPS! (weil’s hilft!) is a citizens’ movement that demands a change in the health care system – towards the needs and preferences of patients, towards a holistic view of people, and a focus on health instead of disease. The sensible combination of natural medicine and conventional medicine, an integrative medicine, makes an indispensable contribution to this. This is because it relies fully on the patients and involves them as active partners in the treatment. Modern medicine of the future, therefore, needs the equal cooperation of natural medicine and conventional medicine – in the everyday life of physicians and patients, in the reimbursement by the health insurance companies as well as in research and teaching.

On the information platform weil’s hilft! informs about current developments in integrative medicine, provides background information, and publishes a podcast once a month. The movement is also active on social media at and

weil’s hilft! is supported by the health and patient organizations GESUNDHEIT AKTIV, KNEIPP-BUND, and NATUR UND MEDIZIN. Together, the alliance represents the interests of more than 220,000 people.


One could easily disclose the funny side of this, the utter stupidity of the arguments, the platitudes, fallacies, misunderstandings, ignorance, etc. Yes, that would hardly be difficult. But it would ignore how worrying this and similar movements are. They systematically misinform consumers with the sole aim of persuading them that the integration of unproven or disproven treatments into medical routine is in their interest. Yet, if we only scratch the surface of their arguments, we realize that it is exclusively in the interest of those who profit from this type of misinformation.

Exceptionally, this post is unrelated to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It addresses a new and worrisome development in UK healthcare. The UK has fewer doctors per population than most other developed countries. This shortage has now reached a level where it puts patients in danger. Recently, the government has unveiled a new NHS plan aimed to fix the problem.

The apprenticeship scheme could allow one in 10 doctors to start work without a traditional medical degree, straight after their A-levels. A third of nurses are also expected to be trained under the “radical new approach”. It is the centerpiece of a long-delayed NHS workforce strategy, following warnings that staff shortages in England could reach half a million without action to find new ways to train and recruit health workers. Amanda Pritchard, the head of NHS England, said: “This radical new approach could see tens of thousands of school-leavers becoming doctors and nurses or other key healthcare roles, after being trained on the job over the next 25 years.” She added that the plan offered a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to put the NHS on a sustainable footing”.

The “medical doctor degree apprenticeship” involves the same training and standards as traditional education routes, including a medical degree and all the requirements of the General Medical Council. Candidates will be expected to have similar A-levels as those for medical school, with qualifications in sciences, as well as options for graduates with non-medical degrees. The key difference behind such models is that apprentice medics would be available on the wards almost immediately, working under supervision, while being paid.

The medical degree apprenticeship is due to launch this autumn.


I am impressed!

Sadly, not in a positive way.

In fact, I cannot remember having ever heard of a more stupid idea for dealing with doctor shortages.

As incompetent amateurs, do the Tories really think that a similar level of incompetence might work also in healthcare?

Such shortages have happened before.

They are regrettable and need swift and firm action.

The only countermeasure that works is to train more doctors.




Assigning shelf life for homeopathic medicine is – according to the authors of this new, ground-breaking study – an important yet debatable issue. Therefore, the present article is aimed at investigating the problem from a Quantum Electrodynamics point of view and suggests ten years to be a moderate estimate of shelf life.

Data were obtained by the following methods:

  • dynamic light scattering,
  • atomic force microscopy,
  • anomalous dielectric dispersion,
  • UV,
  • electron spin resonance spectrometry.

The results show the formation of nanosized molecular assemblies.  These water clusters containing millions to billions of water molecules, which are created by repeated dilution of aqueous solutions, have been photographed.

The authors draw the following conclusions:

  • Ultra-high dilutions (UHD) contain dissipative structures.
  • These structures are solute specific
  • These structures are tremendously persistent
  • Therapeutic values of UHDs are found to continue for a very long time (20-25 years)

Summarizing, we can say that the solute, which in this case is the starting material of homeopathic medicine, leaves its highly stable foot prints in the dissipative structure formed in the UHD solution of polar solvent. Unfortunately, no targeted experiments are done yet to find the exact shelf life. Hence, we wish to suggest that as the shelf life (with proper precautionary measures) of the homeopathic medicine are theoretically expected to be very prolonged and supported by clinical experience, let it be accepted as ten years till future targeted experiments give the exact value, which is expected to be higher than this suggested value.

Were these sensational findings published in a journal like NATURE or SCIENCE? No, they emerged in ‘HPATHY‘ (“the World’s No. 1 Homeopathy Website: Since 2001”). That is a great shame, I think, because they might thus not be awarded the Noble Prize that they clearly deserve.


Joking apart, the self life issue is evidently of some concern to homeopaths. Take this ‘study‘, for instance:

Background: Assignment of expiry date to homeopathic medicines is a subject of important concern to its pharmacists and practitioners. This study compares the regulatory framework for the expiry of homeopathic medicines in four countries: Brazil, Germany, India and the United States.

Findings: Different or no expiry periods are variously followed. Whereas Germany, with some exceptions, employs a maximum expiry of 5 years for both potencies and finished products, Brazil adopts a 5-year expiry for finished products only, potencies used in manufacture being exempted from an assigned expiry date. In India, all homeopathic medicines except dilutions and back potencies have a maximum of 5 years’ shelf-life, including those supplied to consumers. In the United States, homeopathic medicines are exempted from expiry dates.

Comments: There is neither a rational basis nor scientific evidence for assigning a short (3-5 years) expiry period for homeopathic medicines as followed in some of the countries, particularly in light of the fact that some studies have shown homeopathic medications to be effective even after 25 years. Homeopathic ultra-dilutions seem to contain non-material activity that is maintained over time and, since these exhibit different chemical properties compared to the original starting material, it is quite possible they possess properties of longer activity than conventional medicines. Regulators should acknowledge this feature and differentiate expiry of homeopathic medicinal products from that of conventional drugs.


For once, I almost agree with my homeopathic colleagues:

The activity of homeopathic ultra-dilutions is maintained over time.

However, we need to add just a little explanation to this statement:

This activity is zero.

1 2 3 15
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.