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

Cancer

1 2 3 28
This article aimed to describe the applications of homeopathy in women with non-metastatic breast cancer in France. Patients, general practitioner-homeopaths, and oncologists were included based on defined criteria, utilizing a theoretical sampling strategy. Due to evidence and ethics, homeopathy was considered only as complementary in integrative oncology (IO). Data were collected until saturation was reached through individual semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The analysis employed inductive thematic techniques. Inclusion, interviewing, and coding occurred iteratively. Data are reported according to the COREQ guidelines.
Twenty-eight patients (all women, aged 32-76), 13 oncologists (8 men, aged 30-62), 6 homeopaths (5 women, aged 29-68), 2 gynecologists and 1 nurse (all were women, aged 29-65) participated. The core theme “Supportive Care as a Whole” echoed the concept of “healthcare bricolage” or “the processes by which individuals use multiple resources to address health concerns.” Homeopathy was intended to:
  1. complement conventional and supportive care,
  2. be complemented with other supportive therapies,
  3. substitute for supportive drugs,
  4. replace other supportive therapies,
  5. not be suitable to replace all supportive therapies,
  6. be the only supportive option available in some situations.
The authors concluded that there are several ways of using homeopathy that depend on other conventional and supportive therapies a patient uses. Clinicians should more frequently evaluate the diverse uses of homeopathy in supportive care.
This is really NONSENSE ON STILTS!
What the authors forgot to mention is this:
Which ever way cancer patients use it, homeopathy does not work!
Why does anyone conceive such offensive nonsense and pretends it is science? Perhaps this little note goes some way towards answering the question:
This study was sponsored by Les Laboratoires BOIRON SA. The researchers led the project from design to data analysis. The manuscript was written independently. The authors shared the final manuscript with the sponsor, who reviewed it before publication and suggested typographic corrections and scientific references. The sponsor did not propose changes with regard to the content of the paper.
And perhaps the ‘Declaration of Competing Interest’ of the authors is also enlightening?
GR has no conflicts of interest to declare.
CAV reports a relationship with Laboratoires Boiron SA that includes conference fees and travel reimbursement for the project.
LBC declares a relationship with Laboratoires Boiron SA that includes conference fees and travel reimbursement.
JM declares a relationship with Laboratoires Boiron SA that includes consultation fees, speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement for other projects.
JCK declares a relationship with Laboratoires Boiron SA
My conclusion:
Clinicians should more frequently discourage the diverse uses of homeopathy.

While the evidence base on web-based cancer misinformation continues to develop, relatively little is known about the extent of such information on the world’s largest e-commerce website, Amazon. Multiple media reports indicate that Amazon may host on its platform questionable cancer-related products for sale, such as books on purported cancer cures. This context suggests an urgent need to evaluate Amazon.com for cancer misinformation.

This study sought to

  • (1) examine to what extent are misleading cancer cure books for sale on Amazon.com’
  • (2) determine how cancer cure books on Amazon.com provide misleading cancer information.

The investigators searched “cancer cure” on Amazon.com and retrieved the top 1000 English-language book search results. They reviewed the books’ descriptions and titles to determine whether the books provided misleading cancer cure or treatment information. They considered a book to be misleading if it suggested scientifically unsupported cancer treatment approaches to cure or meaningfully treat cancer. Among books coded as misleading, they conducted an inductive latent thematic analysis to determine the informational value the books sought to offer.

Nearly half (494/1000, 49.4%) of the sampled “cancer cure” books for sale on Amazon.com appeared to contain misleading cancer treatment and cure information. Overall, 17 (51.5%) out of 33 Amazon.com results pages had 50% or more of the books coded as misleading. The first search result page had the highest percentage of misleading books (23/33, 69.7%). Misleading books (n=494) contained eight themes:

  • (1) claims of efficacious cancer cure strategies (n=451, 91.3%),
  • (2) oversimplifying cancer and cancer treatment (n=194, 39.3%),
  • (3) falsely justifying ineffective treatments as science based (n=189, 38.3%),
  • (4) discrediting conventional cancer treatments (n=169, 34.2%),
  • (5) finding the true cause of cancer (n=133, 26.9%),
  • (6) homogenizing cancer (n=132, 26.7%),
  • (7) discovery of new cancer treatments (n=119, 24.1%),
  • (8) cancer cure suppression (n=82, 16.6%).

The authors concluded that the results demonstrate that misleading cancer cure books are for sale, visible, and prevalent on Amazon.com, with prominence in initial search hits. These misleading books for sale on Amazon can be conceived of as forming part of a wider, cross-platform, web-based information environment in which misleading cancer cures are often given prominence. Our results suggest that greater enforcement is needed from Amazon and that cancer-focused organizations should engage in preemptive misinformation debunking.

This is an excellent paper that is long overdue. The plethora of dangerous books on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) targeted at lay people is nothing short of a scandal. It was high time that we expose it, because it kills vulnerable patients. It is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the damage done by such books but I am sure it runs in the thousands.

I have been aware of this scandal for a long time, in fact, it was the main motivation for publishing my own book on the subject. Obviously, it is not much more than a drop in the ocean.

Tragically, this scandal is not confined to just cancer. It relates to all potentially serious conditions. What could be more despicable and unethical than earning money through making desperately ill patients suffer? As the authors point out, Amazon urgently needs to address this problem. Failing this, Amazon should be legally held responsible, in my view.

This study analyzed the effect of a protocol based on the Mat Pilates method in an intervention group compared to a usual care control group, on quality of life, fatigue and body image of head and neck cancer survivors.

The study was designed as a randomized clinical trial with 30 survivors, allocated into an intervention group and a control group.

  • The intervention group underwent a 12-week Mat Pilates, twice a week, one hour long.
  • The control group attended two lectures and received weekly follow-up throughout the study period.

Data collection took place through individual face-to-face interviews, focusing on assessing the outcomes: quality of life (FACT-H&N); fatigue (FACT-F) and body image (BIS).

The Mat Pilates group showed significant improvements compared to the control group in both intra-group and inter-group analyses across the variables:

  • quality of life (in total score (p = 0.007)/(p = 0.003),
  • family well-being (p = 0.001)/(p = 0.008),
  • functional well-being (p = 0.001)/(p = 0.001)),
  • body image in the total score (p = 0.001)/(p = 0.001),
  • subscales: body image (p = 0.046)/(p = 0.010),
  • body care (p = 0.026)/(p = 0.010),
  • body touch (p = 0.013)/(p = 0.022),
  • fatigue (p = 0.006)/(p = 0.003).

The authors concluded that, based on these findings, future research could delve deeper into understanding the long-term effects of Mat Pilates interventions on quality of life, body image, and fatigue levels among survivors of head and neck cancer.

These conclusions are prudently cautious. The reason for this caution probably is the fact that the findings tell us far less than the results might imply.

The naive reader would think they show the effectiveness of pilates excercises. This, however, would be erroneous. The positive results are to be expected, if only  due to the extra attention given to the verum patients or the disappointment of the control group for not receiveing it.

If we truly want to evaluate the specific effects of a treatment like pilates, we need to design a different type of study. Nobody doubts that group excercise can improve plenty of subjective parameters. The question, I think, is whether pilates is better in achieving this aim than other forms of excercise. Thus we might need an equivalence study comparing two or more forms of excercise. Such studies are more difficult to plan and conduct. Yet, without them, I fear that we will not be able to determine the value of specific forms of excercise.

This study aimed to explore women with breast cancer (WBC) lived experiences on the use of So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM) for breast cancer management. In-depth interviews guided by semi-structured questions were conducted with 21 WBC recruited using convenience sampling. The thematic analysis generated four main themes:

  1. Access, affordability and support for medical treatment.
  2. Beliefs in SCAM treatment.
  3. Feeling the potential benefits of SCAM.
  4. Acknowledging the negative aspects of SCAM.

The outcomes from using SCAM based on the lived experiences of WBC indicated that some SCAM treatments could improve quality of life. However, some fraudulent SCAM obtained from unprofessional SCAM providers could cause harmful effects, delay medical cancer treatment, and increase breast cancer treatment costs.

The authors concluded that there is an urgent need to enhance the awareness of appropriate treatment, including evidence-based SCAM, for WBC. Improved understanding in the use of SCAM as a part of quality breast cancer care services could contribute to increasing the quality of life and survival rates of women with breast cancer.

This is a very strange paper, in my view. If we disregard the fact that a small interview study cannot possibly yield reliable outcomes, we essentially have two results:

  1. Some SCAM treatments could improve quality of life and survival.
  2. Some fraudulent SCAM obtained from unprofessional SCAM providers could cause harm.

So, which SCAM is good and which bad?

By definition, such an investigation cannot answer this crucial question.

If you do nevertheless want answers, I recommend you read my evidence-based assessments summarised in a recent book. For those who don’t want to wait, here is the answer in a nutshell:

  • A few SCAMs are indeed proven to inprove the quality of life of cancer patients.
  • No SCAM has been shown to improve survival.
  • Almost all SCAMs have the potential to harm cancer patients.

My conclusion:

“Lived experiences” may sound interesting, but scientific evidence is the only reliable guide.

 

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event in cancer patients and can negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). This randomized phase II cross-over trial aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an electric massage chair (EMC) for the treatment of CINV. It was conducted on solid cancer patients who received moderate (MEC) to high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The participants were randomly assigned to receive their first chemotherapy either on a standard bed (Group A) or in an EMC (Group B) during the infusion. The patients were then crossed over to the next cycle. CINV and QoL questionnaires were collected from the participants.

A total of 59 patients completed the trial protocol and were included in the analysis, with 29 and 30 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean INVR (Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching) score in the 2nd day of the first cycle was higher in Group B (3.63 ± 5.35) than Group A (2.76 ± 4.78), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5367). The complete response rate showed little difference between the groups. Among the high-emetic risk subgroups, patients who received HEC (p = 0.04595), younger patients (p = 0.0108), and non-colorectal cancer patients (p = 0.0495) presented significantly lower CINV scores when EMC was applied.

The authors concluded that there was no significant difference in INVR scores between standard care and EMC. Applying EMC at the first chemotherapy infusion may help preserve QoL and reduce CINV in high-risk patients.

Receiving chemotherapy for the first time is a very frightening event. In my view, everything should be done by the care team to make it less scary and as agreeable as possible. Patients might chose whether they prefere to lie down or sit, whether they have their own room or are treated in the company of others, with or without music, etc., etc. If an EMC is available, they should be able to try it and decide whether it suits them or not. If it does, I would not care a hoot whether EMC is a proven intervention or not, wether it is placebo or not, etc.

The main thing here is to make patients comfortable – and that, in my view, hardly needs a clinical trial.

I only just came across the announcements for two conferences that made me almost speachless:

No 1 Homeopathy in Cancer Care – Aug. 29, 2024

Hosted by the newly formed Special Interest Group (SIG) on Research in Homeopathy in Cancer Care, this webinar aims to shed light on the role of homeopathy in cancer care, focusing on both its research status and practical applications in supportive treatment.

Supportive and palliative care are pivotal components of cancer treatment, offering avenues to enhance quality of life and potentially extend survival rates. Homeopathy emerges as a prominent integrative modality embraced by patients worldwide, notably in Europe, India, and Latin America. Despite varying perspectives on its efficacy, homeopathy’s emphasis on empathic listening and its unique approach to symptom management garner significant attention.

In the United States, homeopathy’s popularity surged during the 1990s, with over 5 million people reported to have used it by 2015. While some attribute its effects to a placebo response, clinical studies suggest tangible benefits in cancer care, particularly in alleviating symptoms like fatigue, anxiety, and hot flashes. Homeopathy is one of the leading integrative oncology modalities in Europe. Observations from France reveal that homeopathy supplements conventional treatments in about 30% of cancer patients, yielding notable improvements in symptomatology. Homeopathy was the most commonly used integrative therapy in cancer care in Belgium and in the top five in six other countries Turkey, Czech Republic, Sweden, Italy, Spain, and Greece. (Molassiotis 2005)

The speakers are:

Dr. Moshe Frenkel is a clinical associate professor at the University of Texas and founder of the Integrative Medicine Clinic, at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston Texas where he served as a full faculty until he returned to Israel in 2010. Up to 2014 Dr Frenkel was chairing the clinical practice committee of The Society of Integrative Oncology and was acting as the chair of The Israeli Society of Complementary Medicine (A section of The Israel Medical Association) until 2016.  Currently, Dr Frenkel is the medical director of the Integrative Oncology Service in RAMBAM Medical Center Oncology Department, a comprehensive oncology center and the largest in Northern Israel, as well as leading a feasibility study in homeopathy in cancer care.

Elio Rossi, MD will provide a brief overview of his practice and discuss symptom management, particularly focusing on radio dermatitis and leading homeopathic remedies that he utilizes. Director of the homeopathy outpatient clinic at the Campo di Marte public hospital in Lucca Italy, was established in 1998 and to date more than 7,500 patients have been consecutively examined. Of these 1100 are cancer patients who required an ‘integrated’ homeopathic treatment to reduce the adverse effects of anti-cancer therapies and improve their quality of life.  Works as a homeopathic doctor and expert in integrative medicine, collaborating with a local oncologist. Collaborated as Co-Chair, in the organization of many national and international congresses on Integrative Oncology (2017, 2019), specific sessions within other congresses organized in Italy (ECIM 2012 Florence, WCIMH 2023 Rome) and regional workshops, which have been attended by hundreds of CIM experts and oncologists.

Jean Lionel Bagot, MD will share insights from his practice, focusing on homeopathic remedies for fatigue and potential remedies for skin afflictions. A specialist in integrative cancer supportive care treatments in private practice as well as coordinating doctor of the Outpatients Department for Integrative Care in Groupe Hospitalier Saint Vincent Strasbourg, France; President of the International Homeopathic Society of Supportive Care in Oncology (SHISSO); Scientific officer of the French Society for Integrative Oncology (SFOI); Associated Member of the University College of Integrative and Complementary Medicine (CUMIC); Lecturer in the Medicine and Pharmacy Faculty in Strasbourg University.

Elizabeth Thompson, MD will have the opportunity to briefly describe her previous NHS practice and discuss symptom management, specifically addressing hot flushes and leading homeopathic remedies. Homeopathic Physician in NHS, NCIM Founder, CEO & Integrative Medicine Doctor, National Centre for Integrative Medicine (NCIM) www.ncim.org.uk, Chair, Integrative and Personalized Medicine Congress, London, June 2022. Past President ECIM 2021 and Board Member European Society Integrative Medicine, Council Member British Society of Integrative Oncology, Council Member College of Medicine.

No 2: “Pushing the Boundaries” Yes to Life Annual Conference 2024, 28th September

Integrative Medicine is a living, rapidly expanding science, with new understandings and potential being unveiled on a daily basis. This year’s conferences – one online in the Summer, and one in-person in the Autumn – share the title ‘Pushing the Boundaries’, as we have decided to devote them both to looking at the latest developments in Integrative Medicine, across the board. So that includes new techniques, new scientific understandings, and new applications for existing therapies, and you’ll be hearing fresh insights from some of your most trusted clinicians and scientists, and led into unfamiliar territory by pioneering speakers who may be as yet unfamiliar. The conferences are being co-created by Patricia Peat from Cancer Options and the Peat Institute and Yes to Life, with the aim of sending our audiences home with a wealth of resources on which to be able to draw for their own needs. Both events will be priced for accessibility, and the in-person Autumn Conference will include an extensive Exhibition that will offer yet more knowledge and resources to delegates.

The speakers are:

  • Dr Penny Kechagioglou MBBS (Honours), MRCP, CCT (Clin Onc), MPH, MBA Clinical oncologist
  • Dr Britt Cordi PhD
  • Dr Robert Verkerk MSc DIC PhD FACN​
  • Robin Daly Yes to Life Founder and Chairman
  • Patricia Peat Founder of Cancer Options
  • Mark Sean Taylor  Patient Led Oncology Founder

_____________________________

Yes, you remembered correctly: some of the speakers have in the past featured on this blog, e.g.:

Crucially, we have encountered the YES TO LIFE charity:

But please do not let me spoil your enthusiasm of attending these meetings!

I do mean it: can someone please attend?

I offter a guest post to any critical thinker who wants to write up his/her experience.

GOOD LUCK

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society for Integrative Oncology have collaborated to develop guidelines for the application of integrative approaches in the management of:

  • anxiety,
  • depression,
  • fatigue,
  • use of cannabinoids and cannabis in patients with cancer.

These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to improve outcomes and quality of life by enhancing conventional cancer treatment with integrative modalities.

All studies that informed the guideline recommendations were reviewed by an Expert Panel which was made up of a patient advocate, an ASCO methodologist, oncology providers, and integrative medicine experts. Panel members reviewed each trial for quality of evidence, determined a grade quality assessment label, and concluded strength of recommendations.

The findings show:

  • Strong recommendations for management of cancer fatigue during treatment were given to both in-person or web-based mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, and tai chi or qigong.
  • Strong recommendations for management of cancer fatigue after cancer treatment were given to mindfulness-based programs.
  • Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial.
  • The recommended modalities for managing anxiety included Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs), yoga, hypnosis, relaxation therapies, music therapy, reflexology, acupuncture, tai chi, and lavender essential oils.
  • The strongest recommendation in the guideline is that MBIs should be offered to people with cancer, both during active treatment and post-treatment, to address depression.

The authors concluded that the evidence for integrative interventions in cancer care is growing, with research now supporting benefits of integrative interventions across the cancer care continuum.

I am sorry, but I find these guidelines of poor quality and totally inadequate for the purpose of providing responsible guidance to cancer patients and carers. Here are some of my reasons:

  • I know that this is a petty point, particularly for me as a non-native English speaker, but what on earth is an INTEGRATIVE THERAPY? I know integrative care or integrative medicine, but what could possibly be integrative with a therapy?
  • I can vouch for the fact that the assertion “all studies that informed the guideline recommendations were reviewed” is NOT  true. The authors seem to have selected the studies they wanted. Crucially, they do not reveal their selection criteria. I have the impression that they selected positive studies and omitted those that were negative.
  • The panel of experts conducting the research should be mentioned; one can put together a panel to show just about anything simply by choosing the right individuals.
  • The authors claim that they assessed the quality of the evidence, yet they fail to tell us what it was. I know that many of the trials are of low quality and their results therefore less than reliable. And guidance based on poor-quality studies is misguidance.
  • The guidelines say nothing about the risks of the various treatments. In my view, this would be essential for any decent guideline. I know that some of the mentioned therapies are not free of adverse effects.
  • They also say nothing about the absolute and relative effect sizes of the treatments they recommend. Such information would ne necessary for making informed decisions about the optimal therapeutic choices.
  • The entire guideline is bar any critical thinking.

Overall, these guidelines provide more an exercise in promotion of dubious therapies than a reliable guide for cancer patients and their carers. The ASCO and the Society for Integrative Oncology should be ashamed to have given their names to such a poor-quality document.

Cancer often causes reduced resilience, quality of life (QoL) and poorer overall well-being. To mitigate these problems, so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is often advocated for patients with cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effects of an interdisciplinary integrative oncology group-based program (IO-GP) on the resilience and use of SCAM in patients with cancer.

This was a prospective, observational, single-center study. Resilience (RS-13), SCAM usage (I-CAM-G), QoL (SF-12) and health-related lifestyle factor (nutrition, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical exercise) data were collected for 70 patients who participated in a 10-week IO-GP between January 2019 and June 2022 due to cancer. The IO-GP was offered at the setting of a university hospital and was open to adult patients with cancer. It contained elements from mind-body medicine and positive psychology, as well as recommendations on healthy diet, exercise and SCAM approaches. Patients who completed the IO-GP at least 12months prior (1-4.5years ago) were included in this study. Statistical analysis included descriptive analysis and parametric and nonparametric tests to identify significant differences (P<.05).

Resilience increased significantly ≥12months after participation in the IO-GP (n=44, P=.006, F=8.274) and had a medium effect size (r=.410). The time since the IO-GP was completed (“12-24months,” “24-36months,” and “>36months”) showed no statistically significant interaction with changes in resilience (P=.226, F=1.544). The most frequently used SCAM modalities within the past 12months were vitamins/minerals (85.7%), relaxation techniques (54.3%), herbs and plant medicine (41.1%), yoga (41.4%) and meditation (41.4%). The IO-GP was the most common source informing study participants about relaxation techniques (n=24, 64.9%), meditation (n=21, 72.4%) and taking vitamin D (n=16, 40.0%). Significantly greater levels of resilience were found in those practicing meditation (P=.010, d=−.642) or visualization (P=.003, d=−.805) compared to non-practitioners.

The authors concluded that IO-GPs have the potential to empower patients with cancer to continue using SCAM practices—especially from mind-body medicine—even 1 to 4.5 years after completing the program. Additionally, resilience levels increased. These findings provide notable insight into the long-term effects of integrative oncology interventions on resilience and the use of SCAM, especially in patients with breast cancer.

Really?

Long-term effects of integrative oncology interventions”?

I am sorry, but I see no effects here at all. All I do see are correlations.

For all we know, the outcomes might have even been better if no SCAMs had been offered.

For all we know, the main reason for the observed changes is simply the passage of time.

CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!

There is, of course, little wrong with conductiong studies of this nature – even though they are never really informative, in my view – but there is much wrong when the bias of the authors kicks in and they imply (in the title and throughout the text of their paper) that their interventions were the cause of the observed outcome. This does not provide “notable insight”, it merely misleads some people who are less able to think critically.

WISHFUL THINKING IS NOT SCIENCE!

Sadly, this simple lesson seems to be ever so hard to comprehend by SCAM researchers. One does not need to look far to find hundreds of SCAM studies that are plagued by the same or similar biases. As a result, SCAM research is gradually becoming the laughing stock of real scientists.

Alternative cancer clinics (I’d prefer to call them SCAM cancer clinics), that provide treatments associated with hastening death, actively seek to create favorable views of their services online. An unexplored means where such clinics can shape their public appeal is their Google search results.

For this study, a team of researchers retrieved the Google listing and Google reviews of 47 prominent SCAM cancer clinics. They then conducted a content analysis to assess the information cancer patients are faced with online.

The results show that Google listings of alternative treatment providers rarely declare that the clinic is a SCAM clinic versus a conventional primary cancer treatment provider (12.8% declared; 83.0% undeclared). The clinics were highly rated (median, 4.5 stars of 5). Reasons for positive reviews included:

  • treatment quality (n = 519),
  • care (n = 420),
  • outcomes (n = 316).

288 reviews claimed that the clinics cured or improved cancer. Negative reviews presented SCAM clinics to:

  • financially exploit patients with ineffective treatment (n = 98),
  • worsen patients’ condition (n = 72),
  • provide poor care (n = 41),
  • misrepresent outcomes (n = 23).

The authors concluded that the favorable Google listing and reviews of alternative clinics contribute to harmful online ecosystems. Reviews provide compelling narratives but are an ineffective indicator of treatment outcomes. Google lacks safeguards for truthful reviews and should not be used for medical decision-making.

These findings suggest that the Google listings and reviews of SCAM cancer clinic create a favorable online impression to prospective patients. Google listings and reviews are thus part of a most effective multi-level propaganda network promoting SCAM even for the most desperately ill of all patients. As discussed some time ago, in the UK, such misinformation can even be traced back to King Charles. In nearly all cases, these clinics were labeled as speciality primary cancer options. Only a few clinics were marked as an ‘alternative’ option. Positive reviews stated that alternative treatments can cure cancer or prolong life, even in terminal cases. Positive reviews also undermine evidence-based cancer treatments in favor of SCAM. They generate an impression that dangerously misleads patients. As we have seen repeatedly on this blog, the results can be devastating, e.g.:

An article in ‘METRO’  caught my eye – not least because it quotes me. Here are a few edited excerpts:

Peter Stott lost his first wife to cancer in 1998. Her death, he believes, was due to geopathic stress (GS) – harmful energies that originate from the Earth. ‘I found out that the house where we had lived had a serious GS problem,’ he says. The discovery prompted him to become a professional ‘dowser’, devoting his life to finding and managing geopathic stress.

But what exactly is this mysterious force erupting from the surface of the Earth – and can it really harm people?Geopathic stress is said to cause discomfort and health issues for certain individuals. These energies, also called ‘harmful Earth rays’ by believers, can be detrimental, beneficial or neutral according to those who think they are ‘in the know’.

Peter Stott
Peter Stott is a professional dowser

The word ‘geopathic’ is derived from the Greek words ‘Geo’ meaning the Earth and ‘pathos’, meaning disease or suffering – hence the term pathogens, the medical terms for bugs that make us ill.

Dowsing, practitioners say, is a method used to detect the presence of various subtle Earth energies and assess their nature and quality. They argue that some of these energies can be linked to geomagnetic anomalies caused by flowing underground water, dry faults and fissures, subterranean cavities, or mineral and crystal deposits.

Dowsing is carried out by a dowser, practitioners who try to find the source of these energies using special tools, such as pendulums, rods, and bobbers – essentially sexed-up tree branches. The person holds the tool, waiting for it to move or react, which they take as a sign that they’ve found what they’re looking for. The odd practice can allegedly also be used to identify leaks, stress fractures, environmental pollutants, electromagnetic fields, nutritional deficiencies, black spots, and, rather oddly, sexing pigeons.

Peter claims that a skilled dowser effectively advises on the optimal placement of buildings and structures to mitigate the impact of geopathic stress, and often possesses the ability to reduce or eliminate it through the use of various methods. He emphasises the fact that GS ‘does not affect everybody in the same way. Cancer has been described as “a disease of location”,’ he says. ‘And if there is a family history of cancer – as there was in my late wife’s case – a person can be more susceptible to GS being a contributing factor in succumbing to the disease.’ Peter believes that GS impacts our immune system, depleting its resources and hindering its ability to function optimally. By eliminating GS from our surroundings, we allow our immune system to operate more efficiently, he contends. Our susceptibility to GS varies, he says, with some experiencing mild symptoms like sleep disturbances and fatigue, while others may face more severe health issues such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis and cancer.

17th Century dowsing illustration
Dowsing has been around for millennia (Picture: Getty)

In 2017, rather incredibly, a report revealed that 10 out of 12 water companies in the UK were employing the practice of water dowsing to identify and locate leaks. Even more incredibly, last year, it emerged that Thames Water and Severn Trent Water were still using this form of ‘witchcraft’ for leak detection, despite scientific research indicating its lack of efficacy.

But water companies aren’t the only ones turning to dowsers for help. Peter believes that ‘it is also possible to carry a token or amulet on your person that has been imbued with the powers of protection by someone who is proficient in [dowsing]’. ‘This can protect you from GS and other detrimental energies wherever you go anywhere throughout the world,’ he claims. ‘Other protection techniques can also offer a degree of protection.’

However, Dr Edzard Ernst, a man who has dedicated years of his life to examining questionable, science-based claims, won’t be enlisting the services of a GS specialist or house healer anytime soon. ‘Geopathic stress cannot cause health problems for the simple reason that it does not exist,’ says the retired physician. ‘It is a sly invention of quacks who exploit gullible consumers. The methods to diagnose GS are as bogus as the ones that allegedly treat it. But the quacks don’t mind – as long as the consumer pays.’

Peter fully acknowledges ‘that dowsing and this work in general is not a catch-all solution for every ailment or every person’s situation’. ‘However, often we are approached by people who are “at the end of their tether” due to their exasperation of experiencing events or circumstances in their lives that are not well catered for in the mainstream wellbeing sector,’ he says. ‘I can only speak personally, I cannot speak for the possibly tens of thousands of dowsers around the world. If our work can help ease a person’s experience of life then that is a good enough reason to continue to help where I can’. He adds that ‘we are never going to change the minds of people like Dr Edzard Ernst’, someone ‘who seems to focus exclusively on debunking anything for which there is not a scientific explanation’. Moreover, science, he notes, ‘is moving on with research done into quantum physics and the theory that everything in the universe is connected and is also accessible to everyone’.

_________________________

Oh, dear Peter!

Perhaps you should learn the difference between critical evaluation and debunking (this ‘debunker’ has shown more forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to be worthy of integrating into the NHS than anyone else).

Perhaps you should read up about the difference between evidence and belief?

And perhaps the chapter on dowsing in my book could help you in this endeavour:

Dowsing is a common but unproven method for divining water and other materials. In alternative medicine, it is sometimes used as a technique for diagnosing diseases or the causes of health problems.

      1. Dowsers employ a motor automatism, amplified through a pendulum, divining rod or similar device. The effect is that the device seemingly provides an independent, visible reaction, while the dowser is, in fact, its true cause.
      2. Dowsing is used by some homeopaths as an aid to prescribe the optimal remedy and as a tool for identify a miasm or toxin load.
      3. The assumptions upon which dowsing is based lack plausibility.
      4. Dowsing has not often been submitted to clinical trials.
      5. All rigorous attempts to test water dowsing have failed, and it is no longer considered a viable method for this purpose.
      6. The only randomized double-blind trial that has tested whether homeopaths are able to distinguish between a homeopathic remedy and placebo by dowsing failed to show that it is a valid method. Its authors (well-known homeopaths) drew the following conclusion: “These results, wholly negative, add to doubts whether dowsing in this context can yield objective information.”[1]
      7. If dowsing is employed for differentiating between truly effective treatments (rather than homeopathic remedies), the risk of false choices would be intolerably high, and serious harm would inevitably be the result.

[1] McCarney et al. (2002).

 

1 2 3 28
Subscribe via email

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

Recent Comments

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

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

Archives
Categories