charlatan
This pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was conducted between September 2018 and February 2021 and compared the difference between primary homoeopathic and conventional paediatric care in treating acute illnesses in children in their first 24 months of life. It was conducted at the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) Collaborative Outpatient Department of the Jeeyar Integrated Medical Services (JIMS) Hospital in Telangana, India, a tertiary-care hospital that provides integrated patient-centric care, using homoeopathy and Ayurveda alongside conventional medicine.
One hundred eight Indian singleton newborns delivered at 37 to 42 weeks gestation were randomised at birth (1:1) to receive either homoeopathic or conventional primary care for any acute illness over the study period. In the homoeopathic group, conventional medical treatment was added when medically indicated. Clinicians and parents were unblinded.
The study’s primary outcome was a comparison of the number of sick days due to an acute illness experienced during the first 24 months of life by children receiving homoeopathic vs. conventional treatment. Sick days were defined as days with any acute illness (febrile or afebrile) reported by the parent and confirmed by the physician. Febrile illness was recorded when body temperature, measured via the ear canal, exceeded 37.5 °C.
The secondary outcomes compared were as follows:
- The number of sickness episodes, defined as illness events (febrile or afebrile), reported by the parent and confirmed by the physician.
- Number of respiratory illness episodes and days during the 24 months. Respiratory illnesses included infections in any part of the respiratory tract (nose, middle ear, pharynx, larynx, trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, and lungs) .
- Number of diarrhoeal episodes and days during the 24 months. Diarrhoea was defined as three or more episodes of watery stool/day, with or without vomiting, with indications of dehydration, weight loss, or defective weight gain.
- Anthropometric data included weight (measured by electronic scales to the nearest 5 g), height (measured in triplicate to the nearest 0.2 cm using a rigid-length board), head circumference (HC), and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) (measured with a standard measuring tape to the nearest 0.2 cm every 3 months until the 24th month).
- Developmental status was evaluated according to the Developmental Assessment Scales for Indian Infants (DASII) every 6 months from the age of 6 to 24 months.
- Direct cost of treatment for illnesses during the 24 months, including cost of medications, inpatient admissions, investigations, supplements, and treatment outside the hospital facility or study site (consultation and/or medicines).
- Use of antibiotics during the 24 months, defined as the number of antibiotic episodes during the study.
- Mortality: death due to any acute illness episode.
The results show that children in the homoeopathic group experienced significantly fewer sick days than those in the conventional group (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58; p < 0.001), with correspondingly fewer sickness episodes (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.87; p = .013), as well as fewer respiratory illnesses over the 24-month period. They were taller (F (1, 97) = 8.92, p = .004, partial eta squared = 0.84) but not heavier than their conventionally treated counterparts. They required fewer antibiotics, and their treatment cost was lower.
The authors concluded that homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, was more effective than conventional treatment in preventing sick days, sickness episodes, and respiratory illnesses in the first 24 months of life. It necessitated fewer antibiotics and its overall cost was lower. This study supports homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, as a safe and cost-effective primary care modality during the first 2 years of life.
Here we have another study designed in such a way that a positive result was inevitable. Both groups of children received the necessary conventional care and treatment. The verum group received homeopathy in addition. There were no placebo controls and everyone knew which child belonged to which group. Thus the verum group benefitted from a poweful placebo effect, while the control group experience disappointment over not receiving the extra attention and medication. One might argue that newborn babies cannot experience a placebo response nor disappointment. Yet, one would be wrong and in need of reading up about placebo effects by proxy.
A+B is always more than B alone
To boldy entitle the paper ‘Homoeopathy vs. conventional primary care in children during the first 24 months of life’ and state that the trial aimed to “compared the difference between primary homoeopathic and conventional paediatric care in treating acute illnesses in children in their first 24 months of life”, is as close to scientific misconduct as one can get, in my view!
Yet again, I might ask: what do we call a study that is designed in such a way that a positive result was inevitable?
- misleading?
- waste of resources?
- unethical?
- fraud?
And again, I let you decide.
PS
I feel disappointed that a decent journal published this paper without even a critical comment!
Chiropractic is a complementary medicine that has been growing increasingly in different countries over recent decades. It addresses the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the neuromusculoskeletal system disorders and their effects on the whole body health.
This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of chiropractic in the treatment of different diseases. To gather data, scientific electronic databases, such as Cochrane, Medline, Google Scholar, and Scirus were searched and all systematic reviews in the field of chiropractic were obtained. Reviews were included if they were specifically concerned with the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment, included evidence from at least one clinical trial, included randomized studies and focused on a specific disease. The articles were excluded if:
- – they were concerned with a combination of chiropractic and other treatments (not specifically chiropractic treatment);
- – they lacked at least one clinical trial;
- – they lacked at least one randomized study;
- – and they studied chiropractic in the treatment of multiple diseases.
The research data including the article’s first author’s name, type of disease, intervention type, number and types of research used, meta-analysis, number of participants, and overall results of the study, were extracted, studied and analyzed.
Totally, 23 chiropractic systematic reviews were found, and 11 articles met the defined criteria. The results showed the influence of chiropractic on improvement of neck pain, shoulder and neck trigger points, and sport injuries. In the cases of asthma, infant colic, autism spectrum disorder, gastrointestinal problems, fibromyalgia, back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome, there was no conclusive scientific evidence. There is heterogeneity in some of the studies and also limited number of clinical trials in the assessed systematic reviews. Thus, conducting comprehensive studies based on more reliable study designs are highly recommended.
The authors stressed that three points should be emphasized. Firstly, there is a discrepancy between the development of chiropractic in different countries of the world and the quality and quantity of studies regarding the effectiveness and safety of chiropractic in treatment of diseases. Secondly, some of the systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic in treatment of diseases had a minimum quality of research methodology and were not useful for evaluation. Some of the excluded articles are examples of this problem. Finally, a limited number of studies (11 systematic review articles and 10 diseases) had the required criteria and were assessed in the study.
Assessment and analysis of the studies showed the impact of chiropractic on improvement of some upper extremity conditions including shoulder and neck trigger points, neck pain and sport injuries. In the case of asthma, infant colic and other studied diseases, further clinical trials with larger sample sizes and high quality research methodology are recommended.
So, is chiroprctic of proven effectiveness for any disease?
The conditions for which there is tentatively positive evidence (btw: most rely on my research!!!) are arguably not diseases but symptoms of undelying conditions. Therefore, the answer to my question above is:
NO.
The objective of the present double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, feasibility trial was to identify the effects of individualized homeopathic medicinal products (IHMPs) against placebos in post-COVID-19 conditions. Sixty participants with post-COVID-19 conditions were randomised into either:
- group verum (n = 30; IHMPs plus concomitant care),
- group control (n = 30; placebos plus concomitant care).
Feasibility issues; primary—post-COVID-19 symptoms checklist; secondary—Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile version 2 (MYMOP-2); all of them were measured at baseline, and monthly intervals, up to 3 months. The intention-to-treat sample was analyzed; group differences were reported using descriptive statistics: means, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and between group effect sizes (Cohen’s d).
Feasibility concerns showed promise; recruitment, retention, and attrition rates were 34.2%, 95%, and 5%, respectively. Group differences in both primary and secondary outcomes favored IHMPs against placebos: symptoms checklist score mean difference after 3 months: −4.2, 95% CI −4.9 to −3.4, d = 2.854 and MYMOP-2 mean difference after 3 months: −2.2, 95% CI −2.8 to −1.7, d = 2.082, respectively. Natrum muriaticum (11.7%), Pulsatilla nigricans (10%), Rhus toxicodendron (8.3%), and Calcarea carbonica (8.3%) were the most frequently prescribed remedies.
The authors concluded that IHMPs produced better results than placebos in reducing symptoms checklist scores and MYMOP-2 scores in the treatment of post-COVID-19 conditions. Definitive trials are warranted to confirm the findings.
A feasibility study (the authors employ this term repeatedly) has – as I have often pointed out – the purpose of testing whether a trial disign, set-up, etc. is FEASIBLE. It is not meant to report other outcome data.
Why?
Mainly because such studies are far too underpowered for generating reliable results!
This means that the present findings can be ignored. They are most likely caused by chance.
Why are they published anyway, and why could the authors find a journal that goes along with such nonsense?
Are they too stupid or are they biased or both?
The nature of the journal might provide a hint for answering these questions (J Integr Complement Med), and so does the list of authors and their affiliations:
- 1Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 2Department of Pathology and Microbiology, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 3Department of Practice of Medicine, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 4Department of Homeopathy, East Bishnupur State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Chandi Daulatabad Block Primary Health Centre, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of West, Kolkata, India.
- 5Department of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 6Department of Community Medicine, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
I rest my case.
An article entitled “The use of ayurvedic medicine in the management of hypertension” was recently published in the ‘Journal of Ayurveda and Naturopathy’ (no, I did not know either that this journal existed). Here I show you merely its conclusion, but encourage you to read the entire paper.
Hypertension, a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, necessitates effective and sustainable management strategies. Ayurveda, with its holistic approach, offers a comprehensive framework for managing hypertension by addressing the underlying dosha imbalances through dietary and lifestyle modifications, herbal formulations, and therapeutic procedures. This review has highlighted the
efficacy of various Ayurvedic interventions, including the use of specific herbs like Ashwagandha, Arjuna, Brahmi, Gokshura, and Sarpagandha, which have demonstrated significant benefits in reducing blood pressure and improving overall health. Panchakarma therapies such as Virechana, Basti, Nasya, and Shirodhara have also been shown to detoxify the body, restore balance, and promote
long-term well-being.
Integrating Ayurvedic practices with modern medical approaches can enhance treatment outcomes, offering a more personalized and holistic approach to hypertension management. This synergy can potentially reduce the reliance on pharmaceuticals, minimize side effects, and improve patient compliance and quality of life. Future research should focus on rigorous clinical trials and the standardization of Ayurvedic formulations to further validate their efficacy and facilitate their integration into mainstream healthcare.
By embracing the principles of Ayurveda, individuals can achieve better control over hypertension, reduce the risk of associated complications, and enhance their overall health and well-being. This comprehensive approach not only addresses the symptoms but also tackles the root causes, promoting a sustainable and balanced lifestyle.
END OF QUOTE
Not only does the author, Dr. Zafar Siddiqa (from the Faculty of Natural Medicine and Holistic Sciences, Rajshahi Holistic Health College, Rajshahi, Bangladesh) re-write the current knowledge of hypertonology, he also provides no evidence for any of the far-reaching statements he makes in this paper. In particular, he cites no rigorous studies that “highlighted the efficacy of various Ayurvedic interventions” (most likely because such studies do not exist).
The autor is correct in the 1st sentence of his conclusion: “Hypertension, a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, necessitates effective and sustainable management strategies”. But he is wrong in almost everything else! Because hypertension is such an important risk factor for stroke and ischaemic heart disease, we MUST treat it effectively.
Today, we fortunately have many conventional treatments that control hypertension well and with no or just minimal adverse effects. Advocating quackary or unproven therapies for managing hypertension is thus deeply unethical. It could contribute to the premature deaths of millions. I thus fear that the ‘Faculty of Natural Medicine and Holistic Sciences, Rajshahi Holistic Health College’ is in urgent need of taking a few courses in proper science and medical ethics.
If I remember correctly, I was – some 20 years ago – a founding member of the editorial board of the journal Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (EBCAM). I also published several papers there, but eventually I became concerned about what seemed to be going on at the journal (it seemed a money-making scam to me) and withdrew my cooperation. Since then, I have repeatedly posted on this blog about this strange journal, e.g.:
- EBCAM: an alt med journal that puzzles me a great deal
- Some alternative medicine journals should be de-listed
- Fraud and greed can cause enormous harm
Yesterday,I came across this announcement by John Wiley & Sons, now the publisher of EBCAM:
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ceased publishing as of September 2024.
Trying to find out more about this surprising action, I found this little note:
John Wiley & Sons, a global publication house with revenues north of $2 billion, announced on May 19, 2024, that it was closing 19 journals it acquired as part of its 2021 purchase of Egypt-based Hindawi publishing company, citing large-scale research fraud.
Next, I went on to Medline and saw that EBCAM had to retract 1 497 (!) of its papers.
That amount of retractions must be a world record!
I thus understand that the journal was no longer tenable. But what exactly did happen? What brought about the decision to cease publication?
I have no idea (various searches for answers were unsuccessful) and would be most grateful, if someone in the know could fill me in.
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.
Nearly every time that I talk to proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) I hear a lot about diet. Diet is a central theme to almost all of them, it seems. In such conversations, several issues often emerge and frequently take the form of accusations, e.g.:
- Conventional medicine neglects the importance of diet for our health.
- Medical students learn next to nothing about the subject.
- In conventional medicine, hardly any research is focussed on diet.
- By contrast, practitioners of SCAM know a lot about diet.
- Many are experts in the subject.
- Patients are well-advised to consult SCAM practitioners if they want to learn how to eat healthily.
- SCAM practitioners have developed a wide range of diets that keep their patients fit and healthy.
I usually try to object to some of these points. The truth is that medical students do learn about diet, that doctors are aware of its importance, and that research into diets is highly active.
Particularly about the last point, I can get rather irritated. Sadly, this impresses the SCAM fans very little. They have their opinion and rarely budge.
After one such conversation, I decided to go on Medline and produce some figures. Here they are:
- As of 6 October, there are 1 453 clinical trials listed on Medline as published in 2024.*
- Between 1957 and today, around 57 000 such trials have been published.
- Their number shows an almost exponential growth during this period.
- The diets tested range widely and include, for instance, the Mediteranean diet, the ketogenic diet, intermittent fasting, vegetarian diet, energy restricted diet, gluten-free diet.
- There are as good as no trials on any of the SCAM diets.
- The researchers doing the diet trials are almost exclusively conventional medics or nutritionist.
- I did not find any SCAM practitioners in the list of authors.
So, the next time a SCAM proponent bullshits you about diet, you can tell him or her to get lost!
*Not all are, in fact, clinical trials
RAND claims to be “a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.” Recently, RAND has published an extensive report entitled ‘THE STATE OF HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH“. Here I show you a few interesting passages from this document [the number in square brackets refer to short comments of mine that I appended at the end]:
In this report on the state of homeopathic research, we encapsulate the outcomes of our comprehensive review and the deliberations of our expert panel. These findings and recommendations can guide the homeopathic research community, governmental agencies, and philanthropic organizations in how to best allocate research effort and fund quality and pertinent clinical research endeavors in the field of homeopathy [1].
This research was funded by the Samueli Foundation [2] and carried out by the RAND Research Across Complementary and Integrative Health Institutions (REACH) Center within the Quality Measurement and Improvement Program in RAND Health Care. The RAND REACH Center is a collaboration of researchers across institutions that educate complementary and integrative health practitioners in the United States (www.rand.org/reachcenter); several of these researchers and their students participated in this project…
We examined the state of homeopathic research by critically [3] assessing the overall quality of homeopathic clinical research literature and convening an expert panel to identify gaps in research quality [4] and in areas studied. Our assessment of research quality used a sample of studies from the most comprehensive database of published research on homeopathic research…
There were many areas in which the quality of the studies could be improved. About two-thirds of the 85 controlled trials had either high (42 percent) or unclear (24 percent) risk of bias according to internationally recognized standards for internal validity. Trials with a placebo arm were less likely than those with other comparators to have high risk of bias (29 percent versus 73 percent), primarily because of the ease of blinding patients and outcome assessors. Of the 14 observational (cohort) studies included in our sample, more than one-third did not control for important confounders in the outcome analyses. Regarding external validity, adherence was reported in less than one-third of the studies. Homeopathic consultations took place in 44 studies (the others were studies of routine homeopathy in which all patients received the same remedy [5]); almost half did not describe the experience and training of the practitioners. Forty percent of all studies did not report on safety; 79 percent of observational studies did not. Regarding model validity, which is essential for replicability and interpretability, fewer than two-thirds of the reviewed studies were consistent with homeopathic principles…
Recommendations
Drawing from the outcomes of our homeopathic clinical research literature review and the deliberations of our expert panel, we and the panelists developed the following six recommendations:
1. Funders, researchers, and journal editors and reviewers should require authors to follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and guidelines specific to reporting homeopathic studies, such as the Reporting Data on Homeopathic Treatments (RedHot) criteria for trials, and develop guidelines, as needed. In addition, training institutions should include training on the early use and reference to these guidelines in homeopathic research curricula.
2. All homeopathic studies should proactively monitor and report on adverse events as recommended in CONSORT and several other guidelines for the study of homeopathy [6].
3. Organizations with credibility and acceptability within the homeopathic research community [7] should identify methodological exemplar studies and make them known to researchers, so that these studies can be used to guide future research.
4. Training and support for homeopathic researchers should be increased, and where possible, research teams examining homeopathy should include experienced medical researchers who have an excellent track record for high-quality research. [7]
5. Funders and researchers should consider studies determining the validity of the Critical Appraisal Tool for Homeopathic Intervention Studies (CATHIS) tool as a quality measure for studies of homeopathy.
6. An organization with credibility and acceptability within the homeopathic research community [7] should assemble representative panels of stakeholders to obtain agreement about a small number of areas of focus for future research, with each area reflecting a specific population, treatment or prevention of a condition, and type of homeopathy in a particular country. These stakeholder panels could also address such research quality issues as determining the level of quality sufficient for making clinical decisions and setting policy guidelines, weighting the relative importance of different aspects of external and model validity, and establishing how to describe homeopathic practice [8]…
Conclusion
The goal of this project was to develop recommendations for the future of homeopathic research to ensure higher-quality evidence on the most relevant uses of homeopathy [9]. We accomplished this goal through a review of recent homeopathic clinical research literature, input from an expert panel, and a synthesis of results from both. We found that the state of homeopathic research could be greatly improved in terms of internal, external, and model validity. Strict adherence to reporting guidelines, with attention to quality criteria during study design, would likely result in most of the needed improvement. However, there is also a need for the homeopathic community to decide where to focus future research in terms of conditions, populations, and types of homeopathy studied. These focus areas could take many forms and should align with the community’s research goals. An appropriate focus (or set of focuses) should also balance answering questions to improve homeopathic treatment with the requirements for coverage by payers and desired inclusion in the broader health care system. [10]
We are grateful for the important feedback from members of our expert panel:
- Iris Bell, M.D., Ph.D., University of Arizona College of Medicine (Retired) and Sonoran University of Health
Sciences; - Dan Cherkin, Ph.D., Osher Center for Integrative Health, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington;
- Roger Chou, M.D., Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology and Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University;
- Katharina Gaertner, MBBS, Research Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke;
- Klaus Linde, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Coordinator, Technische Universität München, Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research;
- Alexander Tournier, Ph.D., Homeopathy Research Institute and Institute of Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University of Bern;
- Esther van der Werf, M.Sc., Ph.D., Clinical Research Lead, Homeopathy Research Institute, and Honorary Senior Lecturer, Primary
Care Infection, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol; - Harald Walach, Ph.D., CHS Institute. [11]
The project’s steering committee: Wayne B. Jonas, M.D., President, Healing Works Foundation [11]; and Jennifer Jacobs, M.D., M.P.H., Clinical Assistant Professor, Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health [11].
_______________________________
- The fundamentally important question whether more research of homeopathy is required was studiously ignored.
- Not exactly an organisation that is known to be impartial.
- After reading the entire document, I found very little critical input.
- I am not sure what “gaps in research quality” are; do they mean deficits?
- I think that’s normally called ‘clinical homeopathy’.
- Failure to do so is not merely a little lapse but a violation of research ethics!
- They do not exist.
- This is not realistic.
- There is a wide consensus that “relevant uses of homeopathy” do not exist.
- The crucial question was avoided, whether it is ethical to waste money and effort on researching something that, by a general consensus, is nonsense.
- Member of our ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME!
My final comment: imagine the ‘Flat Earth Society’ convenes an expert panel to decide about the shape of our planet …
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the UK is subject to voluntary, publicly funded regulation. SCAM practitioners are known to make misleading health claims. This study used an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to measure the prevalence of such claims. Websites operated by practitioners of SCAM, registered with the UK ‘Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council’, were downloaded and assessed by the AI, which determined whether a website was relevant to the investigation and, if so, identified health-related claims that it judged as false or misleading, supplying a rationale.
Of 6096 registrants, 1326 met the selection criteria, of which 872 clinics had 725 relevant and operational websites. The AI assessed text from 11 771 web pages, identifying false or misleading claims in 704 (97%) of the websites. The AI’s performance was quality-assured by four human assessors, who manually reviewed 23 relevant web pages. Humans identified on average 39.5 claims likely to be judged false or misleading by advertising regulators, the AI identified 36. Humans misidentified an average of 4.8 claims, AI misidentified two.
The authors concluded that the overwhelming majority of practitioners registered with the CNHC who use pseudoscientific modalities are making false and/or misleading claims on their websites. This puts them in breach of their terms of registration. An AI tool can be used to monitor websites of practitioners promoting pseudoscientific modalities for breaches of compliance with regulators’ codes of conduct for advertising, and does so with a level of accuracy comparable with that of human assessors. It presents an opportunity for regulators to offer more effective consumer protection from their members’ online misinformation than at present.
The investigation was an unfunded project conducted entirely by volunteer scientists, motivated by the wish to protect consumers from health misinformation. The researchers acknowledge a grant of £550 from WePlanet to cover the cost of AI tokens used and thank University College London for paying the journal’s publication fee to enable the public to access their research.
The authors of this paper — emeritus professors David Colquhoun and Susan Bewley; retired clinical research consultant and HealthSense trustee Les Rose, and HealthSense newsletter editor Mandy Payne as well as IT scientist Simon Perry — feel that AI could be a game-changer in protecting the public by supporting regulators to quickly and cheaply clamp down on health misinformation so that the public can put their trust in the PSA Quality Mark logo displayed.
I congratulate the authors on their important study and hope they are correct – but I am not holding my breath.
Having recently come across the strange and scary story of the Nazi’s experiments on Caladium Seguinum, I did some research to find out about the current medicinal uses of this plant. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is today mostly advocated as a homeopathic remedy. In particular, it is highly recommended for erectile dysfunction (ED) and premature ejaculation. Here are some extracts from a particularly ‘impressive’ article on this topic:
… [Caladium Seguinum] … is particularly suited for treating premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction, since these two problems cause widespread testicular swelling. The genital swelling is often associated with pruritus and internal inflammation that can be effectively treated with caladium.
The use of Caladium Seguinum is more common among men who are diagnosed with typical symptoms, along with an established case of either premature ejaculation or erectile dysfunction. Prescription of caladium is more common among men who suffer from genitals lacking vitality, wherein the penis doesn’t enter a state of arousal in a normal manner.
It has been noted that emotional and stress-linked problems are often the cause of underlying, undiagnosable causes of sexual problems among men. Similarly, ED and premature ejaculation are more commonly associated with men who are mentally exhausted or suffering from a mental trauma. In such cases, the use of caladium is applicable.
In cases wherein male impotency is linked to lifestyle habits like smoking, caladium is often prescribed. Further, premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction in men who also complain of motion sickness are more likely to be treated with caladium. Caladium is very helpful if the premature ejaculation or erectile dysfunction has resulted in visible inflammation of the penile region, particularly redness of the glans.
Men who are suffering from ED along with symptoms like cold sweats and thickening of the scrotum skin are ideal candidates for caladium treatment. Men presenting disturbed respiratory functions, often described as an asthma-like condition, along with having erectile dysfunction are better candidates for caladium treatment.
Some of the other symptoms that contribute towards premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction and are usually treated with caladium or caladium-enriched homeopathic mixtures include:
- Propensity towards unintentional penile erection
- Painful erection
- Testicular discomfort associated with gonorrhea
- Itching or surface eruptions on scrotal sac
- Disturbed sleep patterns
- Nighttime discharge from penis
Advantages of Caladium Seguinum
The biggest advantage of using homeopathic remedies for male infertility problems like erectile dysfunction is their overall safety. None of the homeopathic medications, including caladium, are known to induce any serious side-effects. However, the use of Caladium without medical supervision of a homeopathic specialist is highly inadvisable. Caladium Seguinum is retailed in various potencies and gauging the required potency is rather difficult.
For instance, Caladium Seguinum is commonly retailed with potency grading between 6X and 30X. Here, determining the appropriate potency largely depends upon understanding the associated symptoms and past medical history. In some cases, Caladium of lower potency is better suited since it is prescribed in combination with other homeopathic medications for better results.
__________________________
I think I know the question you were about to ask:
IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THESE CLAIMS?
The short answer is NO!
- The article itself does not provide any.
- My Medline search did not identify any.
- Further searches were equally unsuccessful.
In fact, there is no homeopathic remedy that has been shown to be effective for the named conditions.
What is more, there is no homeopathic remedy that has been shown to be effective for ANY condition.
This begs the question as to what we should call the many claims to the contrary:
- Wishful thinking?
- Naive mistakes?
- Commercials?
- Fraud?
You decide.
