Here is the abstract of a paper that makes even the most senior assessor of quackery shudder:
The purpose of this report is to describe the manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) treatment of 6 infants with newborn torticollis with a segmental dysfunction at C1/C2.
Six infants aged 4 1/2 to 15 months previously diagnosed with newborn torticollis were referred to a doctor of chiropractic owing to a failure to respond adequately to previous conservative therapies. Common physical findings were limited range of motion of the upper cervical spine. Radiographs demonstrated rotational malpositions and translation of atlas on axis in all 6 infants, and 1 had a subluxation of the C1/C2 articulation.
Interventions and Outcome:
Selection was based on complexity and variety of different clinical cases qualifying for MUA. Treatment consisted of 1 mobilization and was performed in the operating room of a children’s hospital by a certified chiropractic physician with the author assisting. Along with the chiropractor and his assistant, a children’s anesthesiologist, 1 to 2 operating nurses, a children’s radiologist, and in 1 case a pediatric surgeon were present. Before the mobilization, plain radiographs of the cervico-occipital area were taken. Three infants needed further investigation by a pediatric computed tomography scan of the area because of asymmetric bony conditions on the plain radiographs. Follow-up consultations at 2, 3, 5, or 6 weeks were done. Patient records were analyzed for restriction at baseline before MUA compared with after MUA treatment for active rotation, passive rotation, and passive rotation in full flexion of the upper cervical spine. All 3 measurements showed significant differences. The long-term outcome data was collected via phone calls to the parents at 6 to 72 months. The initial clinical improvements were maintained.
These 6 infants with arthrogenic newborn torticollis, who did not respond to previous conservative treatment methods, responded to MUA.
After reading the full text, I see many very serious problems and questions with this paper; here are 14 of the most obvious ones.
1. A congenital torticollis (that’s essentially what these kids were suffering from) has a good prognosis and does not require such invasive treatments. There is thus no plausible reason to conduct a case series of this nature.
2. A retrospective case series does not allow conclusions about therapeutic effectiveness, yet in the article the author does just that.
3. The same applies to her conclusions about the safety of the interventions.
4. It is unclear how the 6 cases were selected; it seems possible or even likely that they are, in fact, 6 cases of many more treated over a long period of time.
5. If so, this paper is hardly a ‘retrospective case series’; at best it could be called a ‘best case series’.
6. The X-rays or CT scans are unnecessary and potentially harmful.
7. The anaesthesia is potentially very harmful and unjustifiable.
8. The outcome measure is unreliable, particularly if performed by the chiropractor who has a vested interest in generating a positive result.
9. The follow-up by telephone is inadequate.
10. The range of the follow-up period (6-72 months) is unacceptable.
11. The exact way in which informed consent was obtained is unclear. In particular, we would need to know whether the parents were fully informed about the futility of the treatment and its considerable risks.
12. The chiropractor who administered the treatments is not named. Why not?
13. Similarly, it is unclear why the other healthcare professionals involved in these treatments are not named as co-authors of the paper.
14. It is unclear whether ethical approval was obtained for these treatments.
The author seems inexperienced in publishing scientific articles; the present one is poorly written and badly constructed. A Medline research reveals that she has only one other publication to her name. So, perhaps one should not be too harsh in judging her. But what about her supervisors, the journal, its reviewers, its editor and the author’s institution? The author comes from the Department of Chiropractic Medicine, Medical Faculty University, Zurich, Switzerland. On their website, they state:
The Faculty of Medicine of the University of Zurich is committed to high quality teaching and continuing research-based education of students in health care professions. Excellent and internationally recognised scientists and clinically outstanding physicians are at the Faculty of Medicine devoted to patients and public health, to teaching, to the support of young researchers and to academic medicine. The interaction between research and teaching, and their connection to clinical practice play a central role for us…
The Faculty of Medicine of the University of Zurich promotes innovative research in the basic fields of medicine, in the clinical application of knowledge, in personalised medicine, in health care, and in the translational connection between all these research areas. In addition, it encourages the cooperation between primary care and specialised health care.
It seems that, with the above paper, the UZH must have made an exception. In my view, it is a clear case of scientific misconduct and child abuse.
I am being told to educate myself and rethink the subject of NAPRAPATHY by the US naprapath Dr Charles Greer. Even though he is not very polite, he just might have a point:
Edzard, enough foolish so-called scientific, educated assesments from a trained Allopathic Physician. When asked, everything that involves Alternative Medicine in your eyesight is quackery. Fortunately, every Medically trained Allopathic Physician does not have your points of view. I have partnered with Orthopaedic Surgeons, Medical Pain Specialists, General practitioners, Thoracic Surgeons, Forensic Pathologists and Others during the course, whom appreciate the Services that Naprapaths provide. Many of my current patients are Medical Physicians. Educate yourself. Visit a Naprapath to learn first hand. I expect your outlook will certainly change.
I have to say, I am not normally bowled over by anyone who calls me an ‘allopath’ (does Greer not know that Hahnemann coined this term to denigrate his opponents? Is he perhaps also in favour of homeopathy?). But, never mind, perhaps I was indeed too harsh on naprapathy in my previous post on this subject.
So, let’s try again.
Just to remind you, naprapathy was developed by the chiropractor Oakley Smith who had graduated under D D Palmer in 1899. Smith was a former Iowa medical student who also had investigated Andrew Still’s osteopathy in Kirksville, before going to Palmer in Davenport. Eventually, Smith came to reject Palmer’s concept of vertebral subluxation and developed his own concept of “the connective tissue doctrine” or naprapathy.
Dr Geer published a short article explaining the nature of naprapathy:
Naprapathy- A scientific, Evidence based, integrative, Alternative form of Pain management and nutritional assessment that involves evaluation and treatment of Connective tissue abnormalities manifested in the entire human structure. This form of Therapeutic Regimen is unique specifically to the Naprapathic Profession. Doctors of Naprapathy, pronounced ( nuh-prop-a-thee) also referred to as Naprapaths or Neuromyologists, focus on the study of connective tissue and the negative factors affecting normal tissue. These factors may begin from external sources and latently produce cellular changes that in turn manifest themselves into structural impairments, such as irregular nerve function and muscular contractures, pulling its’ bony attachments out of proper alignment producing nerve irritability and impaired lymphatic drainage. These abnormalities will certainly produce a pain response as well as swelling and tissue congestion. Naprapaths, using their hands, are trained to evaluate tissue tension findings and formulate a very specific treatment regimen which produces positive results as may be evidenced in the patients we serve. Naprapaths also rely on information obtained from observation, hands on physical examination, soft tissue Palpatory assessment, orthopedic evaluation, neurological assessment linked with specific bony directional findings, blood and urinalysis laboratory findings, diet/ Nutritional assessment, Radiology test findings, and other pertinent clinical data whose information is scrutinized and developed into a individualized and specific treatment plan. The diagnostic findings and results produced reveal consistent facts and are totally irrefutable. The deductions that formulated these concepts of theory of Naprapathic Medicine are rationally believable, and have never suffered scientific contradiction. Discover Naprapathic Medicine, it works.
What interests me most here is that naprapathy is evidence-based. Did I perhaps miss something? As I cannot totally exclude this possibility, I did another Medline search. I found several trials:
1st study (2007)
Four hundred and nine patients with pain and disability in the back or neck lasting for at least 2 weeks, recruited at 2 large public companies in Sweden in 2005, were included in this randomized controlled trial. The 2 interventions were naprapathy, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage, and stretching (Index Group) and support and advice to stay active and how to cope with pain, according to the best scientific evidence available, provided by a physician (Control Group). Pain, disability, and perceived recovery were measured by questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 7, and 12 weeks.
At 7-week and 12-week follow-ups, statistically significant differences between the groups were found in all outcomes favoring the Index Group. At 12-week follow-up, a higher proportion in the naprapathy group had improved regarding pain [risk difference (RD)=27%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 17-37], disability (RD=18%, 95% CI: 7-28), and perceived recovery (RD=44%, 95% CI: 35-53). Separate analysis of neck pain and back pain patients showed similar results.
This trial suggests that combined manual therapy, like naprapathy, might be an alternative to consider for back and neck pain patients.
2nd study (2010)
Subjects with non-specific pain/disability in the back and/or neck lasting for at least two weeks (n = 409), recruited at public companies in Sweden, were included in this pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The two interventions compared were naprapathic manual therapy such as spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, (Index Group), and advice to stay active and on how to cope with pain, provided by a physician (Control Group). Pain intensity, disability and health status were measured by questionnaires.
89% completed the 26-week follow-up and 85% the 52-week follow-up. A higher proportion in the Index Group had a clinically important decrease in pain (risk difference (RD) = 21%, 95% CI: 10-30) and disability (RD = 11%, 95% CI: 4-22) at 26-week, as well as at 52-week follow-ups (pain: RD = 17%, 95% CI: 7-27 and disability: RD = 17%, 95% CI: 5-28). The differences between the groups in pain and disability considered over one year were statistically significant favoring naprapathy (p < or = 0.005). There were also significant differences in improvement in bodily pain and social function (subscales of SF-36 health status) favoring the Index Group.
Combined manual therapy, like naprapathy, is effective in the short and in the long term, and might be considered for patients with non-specific back and/or neck pain.
3rd study (2016)
Participants were recruited among patients, ages 18-65, seeking care at the educational clinic of Naprapathögskolan – the Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine in Stockholm. The patients (n = 1057) were randomized to one of three treatment arms a) manual therapy (i.e. spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, stretching and massage), b) manual therapy excluding spinal manipulation and c) manual therapy excluding stretching. The primary outcomes were minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and pain related disability. Treatments were provided by naprapath students in the seventh semester of eight total semesters. Generalized estimating equations and logistic regression were used to examine the association between the treatments and the outcomes.
At 12 weeks follow-up, 64% had a minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity and 42% in pain related disability. The corresponding chances to be improved at the 52 weeks follow-up were 58% and 40% respectively. No systematic differences in effect when excluding spinal manipulation and stretching respectively from the treatment were found over 1 year follow-up, concerning minimal clinically important improvement in pain intensity (p = 0.41) and pain related disability (p = 0.85) and perceived recovery (p = 0.98). Neither were there disparities in effect when male and female patients were analyzed separately.
The effect of manual therapy for male and female patients seeking care for neck and/or back pain at an educational clinic is similar regardless if spinal manipulation or if stretching is excluded from the treatment option.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t call this ‘evidence-based’ – especially as all the three trials come from the same research group (no, not Greer; he seems to have not published at all on naprapathy). Dr Greer does clearly not agree with my assessment; on his website, he advertises treating the following conditions:
Chronic Neck Pain
Hip Muscle Strain
Knee Ligament Injuries
Lower Back Injuries
Lumbar Herniated Disc
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Sciatica (Not Due to Disc Displacement)
Sciatica (Not Due to Disc Displacement)
Sports Injuries of the Knee
Tennis Elbow (Lateral Epicondylitis)
Thoracic Disc Disorders
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
Odd, I’d say! Did all this change my mind about naprapathy? Not really.
But nobody – except perhaps Dr Greer – can say I did not try.
And what light does this throw on Dr Greer and his professionalism? Since he seems to be already quite mad at me, I better let you answer this question.
Chiropractic may be nonsense, but it nevertheless earns chiros very good money. Chiropractors tend to treat their patients for unnecessarily long periods of time. This, of course, costs money, and even if the treatment in question ever was indicated (which, according to the best evidence, is more than doubtful), this phenomenon would significantly inflate healthcare expenditure. It was reported that over 80% of the money that the US Medicare paid to chiropractors in 2013 went for medically unnecessary procedures. The federal insurance program for senior citizens thus spent roughly $359 million on unnecessary chiropractic care that year.
Such expenditure may not benefit patients, but it surely benefits the chiropractors. A recent article in Forbes informed us that, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook Handbook, the employment of chiropractors is expected to grow 12% from 2016 to 2026, faster than the average for all occupations.
According to the latest data from the Bureau Occupational Employment Statistics, as of 2017, the average income of an US chiropractor amounts to US $ 85,870. However, chiropractors’ salaries aren’t this high in every US state. The lowest average income (US$ 45 000) per year is in the state of Wyoming.
Below you’ll find a breakdown of where chiropractors’ incomes are the highest.
These are tidy sums indeed – remember, they merely depict the averages. Individual chiropractors will earn substantially more than the average, of course. And there are hundreds of websites, books, etc. to teach chiros how to maximise their cash-flow. Some of the most popular ‘tricks of the chiro trade’ include:
- maintenance therapy,
- treatment of children,
- making unsupported therapeutic claims,
- disregarding the risks of spinal manipulation,
- selling useless dietary supplements.
Considering the sums of money that are at stake, I am beginning to understand why chiropractors tend to get so nervous, often even furious and aggressive, when I point out that they might be causing more harm than good to their patients.
Its the money, stupid!
The aim of the study was to report epidemiologic data on ‘biofield healers’ (all types of energy healers) in radiation therapy patients, and to assess the possible objective and subjective benefits.
A retrospective study was conducted in a French cancer institute. All consecutive breast or prostate cancer patients undergoing a curative radiotherapy during 2015 were screened (n = 806). Healer consultation procedure, frequency, and remuneration were collected. Patient’s self-evaluation of healer’s impact on treatment tolerance was reported. Tolerance (fatigue, pain) was assessed through visual analogic scale (0 to 10). Analgesic consumption was evaluated.
A total of 500 patients were included (350 women and 150 men), and 256 patients (51.2%) consulted a healer during their radiation treatment, with a majority of women (58%, p < 0.01). Most patients had weekly (n = 209, 41.8%) or daily (n = 84, 16.8%) appointments with their healer. Regarding the self-reported tolerance, > 80% of the patients described a “good” or “very good” impact of the healer on their treatment. Healers were mainly voluntary (75.8%). Regarding the clinical efficacy, no difference was observed in prostate and in breast cancer patients (toxicity, antalgic consumption, pain).
The authors concluded that this study reveals that the majority of patients treated by radiotherapy consults a healer and reports a benefit on subjective tolerance, without objective tolerance amelioration.
The authors admit that their investigation has several limitations:
- Among the 806 screened patients, only 500 were finally included. These patients more likely report their subjective benefit on biofield healing, and could overestimate benefits in the healer group.
- Practices were highly variable from a healer to another.
- Toxicities evaluation might have been biased due to retrospective analysis based on medical patient record.
But what does this study really show?
I think, it demonstrates that:
- Healing is frightfully popular in France. I use the term deliberately, because this level of irrationality does, in fact, frighten me.
- Healing does not seem to alter the natural history of cancer.
And what about the fact that 84% of the patients reported a good or very good impact of the biofield healer on their tolerance to radiotherapy? Does this prove or even suggest that healing has positive effects? I think not! This result is to be expected. Imagine a retrospective study of patients who chose to eat a hamburger. Would we not expext that a similar percentage might claim that eating it did them good?
I rest my case.
My friend Roger, the homeopath, alerted me to the ‘Self-Controlled Energo Neuro Adaptive Regulation‘ (SCENAR). He uses it in his practice and explains:
The scenar uses biofeedback; by stimulating the nervous system, it is able to teach the body to heal itself. The device sends out a series of signals through the skin and measures the response. Each signal is only sent out when a change, in response to the previous signal, is recorded in the electrical properties of the skin. Visible responses include reddening of the skin, numbness, stickiness (the device will have the feeling of being magnetically dragged), a change in the numerical readout and an increase in the electronic clattering of the device.
The C-fibres, which comprise 85% of all nerves in the body, react most readily to the electro-stimulation and are responsible for the production of neuropeptides and other regulatory peptides. A TENS unit will only stimulate the A & B-fibres for temporary relief.
The body can get accustomed to a stable pathological state, which may have been caused by injury, disease or toxicity. The Scenar catalyses the process to produce regulatory peptides for the body to use where necessary, by stimulation of C-fibres . It is these neuropeptides that in turn reestablish the body’s natural physiological state and are responsible for the healing process. As these peptides last up to several hours, the healing process will continue long after the treatment is over. The large quantity of neuropeptides and C-fibres in the Central Nervous System can also result in the treatment on one area aiding with other general regulatory processes, like chemical imbalances, correcting sleeplessness, appetite and behavioral problems.
Sounds like science fiction?
Or perhaps more like BS?
But, as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Roger explains:
What conditions can Scenar treat?
In the UK, the devices are licensed by the British Standards Institute for pain relief only. Likewise the FDA has approved the Scenar for pain relief. However, because of the nature of the device, viz., stimulating the nervous system, the Russian experience is that Scenar affects all the body systems in a curative manner.
The Russian experience suggests that it can be effective for a very broad range of diseases, including diseases of the digestive, cardio-vascular, respiratory, musculo-skeletal, urinary, reproductive and nervous systems. It is also useful for managing ENT diseases, eye diseases, skin conditions and dental problems. It has also been found beneficial in burns, fractures, insect bites, allergic reactions, diseases of the blood and disorders involving immune mechanisms; endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders; stress and mental depression, etc.
It is known to give real relief from many types of pain. It does so because it stimulates the body to heal the underlying disease causing the pain!
Another SCENAR therapist is much more specific. He tells us that SCENAR is effective for:
- Sports and other injuries
- Musculoskeletal problems
- Issues with circulation
- Respiratory diseases
- Digestive disorders
- Certain infections
- Immune dysfunctions
Perhaps I was a bit hasty; perhaps the SCENAR does work after all. It is certainly offered by many therapists like Roger. They cannot all be charlatans, or can they?
Time to do a proper Medline search and find out about the clinical trials that have been done with the SCENAR. Disappointingly, I only found three relevant papers; here they are:
A new technique of low-frequency modulated electric current therapy, SCENAR therapy, was used in treatment of 103 patients with duodenal ulcer (DU). The influence of SCENAR therapy on the main clinical and functional indices of a DU relapse was studied. It was shown that SCENAR therapy, which influences disturbed mechanisms of adaptive regulation and self-regulation, led to positive changes in most of the parameters under study. Addition of SCENAR therapy to the complex conventional pharmacotherapy fastened ulcer healing, increased the effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication, and improved the condition of the gastroduodenal mucosa.
Administration of artrofoon in combination with SCENAR therapy to patients with localized suppurative peritonitis in the postoperative period considerably reduced plasma MDA level, stabilized ceruloplasmin activity, and increased catalase activity in erythrocytes compared to the corresponding parameters in patients receiving standard treatment in combination with SCENAR therapy.
The author recommends a self-control energoneuroadaptive regulator (SCENAR) as effective in the treatment of neurogenic dysfunction of the bladder in children with nocturnal enuresis. This regulator operates according to the principles of Chinese medicine and may be used in sanatoria and at home by the children’s parents specially trained by physiotherapist.
While the quantity of the ‘studies’ is lamentable, their quality seems quite simply unacceptable.
We are thus left with two possibilities: either the SCENAR is more or less what its proponents promise and the science has for some strange reason not caught up with this reality; or the reality is that SCENAR is a bogus treatment used by charlatans who exploit the gullible public.
I know which possibility I favour – how about you?
As you can imagine, I get quite a lot of ‘fan-post’. Most of the correspondence amounts to personal attacks and insults which I usually discard. But some of these ‘love-letters’ are so remarkable in one way or another that I answer them. This short email was received on 20/3/19; it belongs to the latter category:
You have been trashing homeopathy ad nauseum for so many years based on your limited understanding of it. You seem to know little more than that the remedies are so extremely dilute as to be impossibly effective in your opinion. Everybody knows this and has to confront their initial disbelief.
Why dont you get some direct understanding of homeopathy by doing a homeopathic proving of an unknown (to you) remedy? Only once was I able to convince a skeptic to take the challenge to do a homeopathic proving. He was amazed at all the new symptoms he experienced after taking the remedy repeatedly over several days.
Please have a similar bravery in your approach to homeopathy instead of basing your thoughts purely on your speculation on the subject, grounded in little understanding and no experience of it.
THIS IS HOW I RESPONDED
Dear Mr …
thank you for this email which I would like to answer as follows.
Your lines give the impression that you might not be familiar with the concept of critical analysis. In fact, you seem to confuse my criticism of homeopathy with ‘trashing it’. I strongly recommend you read up about critical analysis. No doubt you will then realise that it is a necessary and valuable process towards generating progress in healthcare and beyond.
You assume that I have limited understanding of homeopathy. In fact, I grew up with homeopathy, practised homeopathy as a young doctor, researched the subject for more than 25 years and published several books as well as over 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers about it. All of this, I have disclosed publicly, for instance, in my memoir which might interest you.
The challenge you mention has been taken by me and others many times. It cannot convince critical thinkers and, frankly, I am surprised that you found a sceptic who was convinced by what essentially amounts to little more than a party trick. But, as you seem to like challenges, I invite you to consider taking the challenge of the INH which even offers a sizable amount of money, in case you are successful.
Your final claim that my thoughts are based purely on speculation is almost farcically wrong. The truth is that sceptics try their very best to counter-balance the mostly weird speculations of homeopaths with scientific facts. I am sure that, once you have acquired the skills of critical thinking, you will do the same.
Best of luck.
I ought to admit to a conflict of interest regarding today’s post:
I am not a fan of Mr Corbyn!
He fooled us prior to the Referendum claiming he was backing Remain and subsequently campaigned less than half-heartedly for it. Not least thanks to him and his sham of a campaign Leave won the referendum. Subsequently, the UK embarked on a bonanza of self-destruction and a frenzy of xenophobia which changed the UK beyond recognition. Currently, Mr Corbyn is doing the same trick again. He had to concede in the Labour manifesto that his party would eventually support a People’s Vote, and now he bends over backwards to avoid doing anything remotely like it. This strategy, together with his rather non-transparent stance on anti-Semitism does it for me. I could not vote for Corbyn in a million years now.
NOTHING TO DO WITH ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE!, I hear you exclaim.
Yes, you are right – but this has:
Excuse my frankness, but I find this short tweet embarrassingly stupid (regardless of who authored it).
Apart from two spelling mistakes, it contains several fundamental errors and fallacies:
- Corbyn seems to think that, because some people experience improvement after taking a homeopathic remedy, homeopathy is effective. Does he also believe that the crowing of a cock makes the sun rise in the morning? The statement shows a most irritating lack of understanding as to what constitutes medical evidence and what not. That it was made by a politician makes it only worse.
- Corbyn also tells us that homeopathy is an appropriate adjunct to conventional healthcare. His impression is based on the fact that ‘it works for some people’. This assumption reveals a naivety that is deplorable in a politician who evidently thinks himself sufficiently well-informed to tweet about the matter.
- The final straw is Corbyn’s little afterthought: they both come from organic matter. Many conventional medicines come from inorganic matter. And homeopathic remedies? Yes, many also come from inorganic materials.
Yes, I know, you probably think me a bit pedantic here. As I said, I have strong misgivings against Mr Corbyn.
But, even leaving my prejudice aside, I do think that politicians and other people of influence should comment on issues only after they informed themselves about them sufficiently to make good sense. Otherwise they are in danger to merely disclose their ineptitude in the same way as Corbyn did when he wrote the above tweet.
I stared my Exeter post in October 1993. It took the best part of a year to set up a research team, find rooms etc. So, our research began in earnest only mid 1994. From the very outset, it was clear to me that investigating the risks of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) should be our priority. The reason, I felt, was simple: SCAM was being used a million times every day; therefore it was an ethical imperative to check whether these treatments were as really safe as most people seemed to believe.
In the course of this line of investigation, we did discover many surprises (and lost many friends). One of the very first revelation was that homeopathy might not be harmless. Our initial results on this topic were published in this 1995 article. In view of the still ongoing debate about homeopathy, I’d like to re-publish the short paper here:
Homoeopathic remedies are believed by doctors and patients to be almost totally safe. Is homoeopathic advice safe, for example on the subject of immunization? In order to answer this question, a questionnaire survey was undertaken in 1995 of all 45 homoeopaths listed in the Exeter ‘yellow pages’ business directory. A total of 23 replies (51%) were received, 10 from medically qualified and 13 from non-medically qualified homoeopaths.
The homoeopaths were asked to suggest which conditions they perceived as being most responsive to homoeopathy. The three most frequently cited conditions were allergies (suggested by 10 respondents), gynaecological problems (seven) and bowel problems (five).
They were then asked to estimate the proportion of patients that were referred to them by orthodox doctors and the proportion that they referred to orthodox doctors. The mean estimated percentages were 1 % and 8%, respectively. The 23 respondents estimated that they spent a mean of 73 minutes on the first consultation.
The homoeopaths were asked whether they used or recommended orthodox immunization for children and whether they only used and recommended homoeopathic immunization. Seven of the 10 homoeopaths who were medically qualified recommended orthodox immunization but none of the 13 non-medically qualified homoeopaths did. One non-medically qualified homoeopath only used and recommended homoeopathic immunization.
Homoeopaths have been reported as being against orthodox immunization’ and advocating homoeopathic immunization for which no evidence of effectiveness exists. As yet there has been no attempt in the United Kingdom to monitor homoeopaths’ attitudes in this respect. The above findings imply that there may be a problem. The British homoeopathic doctors’ organization (the Faculty of Homoeopathy) has distanced itself from the polemic of other homoeopaths against orthodox immunization, and editorials in the British Homoeopathic Journal call the abandonment of mass immunization ‘criminally irresponsible’ and ‘most unfortunate, in that it will be seen by most people as irresponsible and poorly based’.’
Homoeopathic remedies may be safe, but do all homoeopaths merit this attribute?
This tiny and seemingly insignificant piece of research triggered debate and research (my group must have published well over 100 papers in the years that followed) that continue to the present day. The debate has spread to many other countries and now involves numerous forms of SCAM other than just homeopathy. It relates to many complex issues such as the competence of SCAM practitioners, their ethical standards, education, regulation, trustworthiness and the risk of neglect.
Looking back, it feels odd that, at least for me, all this started with such a humble investigation almost a quarter of a century ago. Looking towards the future, I predict that we have so far merely seen the tip of the iceberg. The investigation of the risks of SCAM has finally started in earnest and will, I am sure, continue thus leading to a better protection of patients and consumers from charlatans and their bogus claims.
“Most of the supplement market is bogus,” Paul Clayton*, a nutritional scientist, told the Observer. “It’s not a good model when you have businesses selling products they don’t understand and cannot be proven to be effective in clinical trials. It has encouraged the development of a lot of products that have no other value than placebo – not to knock placebo, but I want more than hype and hope.” So, Dr Clayton took a job advising Lyma, a product which is currently being promoted as “the world’s first super supplement” at £199 for a one-month’s supply.
Lyma is a dietary supplement that contains a multitude of ingredients all of which are well known and available in many other supplements costing only a fraction of Lyma. The ingredients include:
- vitamin D3.
Apparently, these ingredients are manufactured in special (and patented) ways to optimise their bioavailabity. According to the website, the ingredients of LYMA have all been clinically trialled with proven efficacy at levels provided within the LYMA supplement… Unless the ingredient has been clinically trialled, and peer reviewed there may be limited (if any) benefit to the body. LYMA’s revolutionary formulation is the most advanced and proven super supplement in the world, bringing together eight outstanding ingredients – seven of which are patented – to support health, wellbeing and beauty. Each ingredient has been selected for its efficacy, purity, quality, bioavailability, stability and ultimately, on the results of clinical studies.
The therapeutic claims made for the product are numerous:
- it will improve your hair, skin and nails (80% improvement in skin smoothness, 30% increase in skin moisture, 17% increase in skin elasticity, 12% reduction in wrinkle depth, 47% increase in hair strength & 35% decrease in hair loss)
- it will support energy levels in both the body and the brain (increase in brain membrane turnover by 26% and increase brain energy by 14%),
- it will improve cognitive function,
- it will enhance endurance (cardiorespiratory endurance increased by 13% compared to a placebo),
- it will improve quality of life,
- it will improve sleep (reducing insomnia by 70%),
- it will improve immunity,
- it will reduce inflammation,
- it will improve your memory,
- it will improve osteoporosis (reduce risk of osteoporosis by 37%).
These claims are backed up by 197 clinical trials, we are being told.
If true, this would be truly sensational – but is it true?
I asked the Lyma firm for the 197 original studies, and they very kindly sent me dozens papers which all referred to the single ingredients listed above. I emailed again and asked whether there are any studies of Lyma with all its ingredients in one supplement. Then I was told that they are ‘looking into a trial on the final Lyma formula‘.
I take this to mean that not a single trial of Lyma has been conducted. In this case, how do we be sure the mixture works? How can we know that the 197 studies have not been cherry-picked? How can we be sure that there are no interactions between the active constituents?
The response from Lyma quoted the above-mentioned Dr Paul Clayton stating this: “In regard to LYMA, clinical trials at this stage are not necessary. The whole point of LYMA is that each ingredient has already been extensively trialled, and validated. They have selected the best of the best ingredients, and amalgamated them; to enable consumers to take them all in a convenient format. You can quite easily go out and purchase all the ingredients separately. They aren’t easy to find, and it would mean swallowing up to 12 tablets and capsules a day; but the choice is always yours.”
It’s kind, to leave the choice to us, rather than forcing us to spend £199 each month on the world’s first super-supplement. Very kind indeed!
Having the choice, I might think again.
I might even assemble the world’s maximally evidence-based, extra super-supplement myself, one that is supported by many more than 197 peer-reviewed papers. To not directly compete with Lyma, I could use entirely different ingredients. Perhaps I should take the following five:
- Vitamin C (it has over 61 000 Medline listed articles to its name),
- Vitanin E (it has over 42 000 Medline listed articles to its name),
- Collagen (it has over 210 000 Medline listed articles to its name),
- Coffee (it has over 14 000 Medline listed articles to its name),
- Aloe vera (it has over 3 000 Medline listed articles to its name).
I could then claim that my extra super-supplement is supported by some 300 000 scientific articles plus 1 000 clinical studies (I am confident I could cherry-pick 1 000 positive trials from the 300 000 papers). Consequently, I would not just charge £199 but £999 for a month’s supply.
But this would be wrong, misleading, even bogus!!!, I hear you object.
On the one hand, I agree.
On the other hand, as Paul Clayton rightly pointed out: Most of the supplement market is bogus.
*If my memory serves me right, I met Paul many years ago when he was a consultant for Boots (if my memory fails me, I might need to order some Lyma).
In a previous post, I have tried to explain that someone could be an expert in certain aspects of homeopathy; for instance, one could be an expert:
- in the history of homeopathy,
- in the manufacture of homeopathics,
- in the research of homeopathy.
But can anyone really be an expert in homeopathy in a more general sense?
Are homeopaths experts in homeopathy?
OF COURSE THEY ARE!!!
What is he talking about?, I hear homeopathy-fans exclaim.
Yet, I am not so sure.
Can one be an expert in something that is fundamentally flawed or wrong?
Can one be an expert in flying carpets?
Can one be an expert in quantum healing?
Can one be an expert in clod fusion?
Can one be an expert in astrology?
Can one be an expert in telekinetics?
Can one be an expert in tea-leaf reading?
I am not sure that classical homeopaths can rightfully called experts in classical homeopathy (there are so many forms of homeopathy that, for the purpose of this discussion, I need to focus on the classical Hahnemannian version).
An expert is a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area. An expert in any medical field (say neurology, gynaecology, nephrology or oncology) would need to have sound knowledge and practical skills in areas including:
- organ-specific anatomy,
- organ-specific physiology,
- organ-specific pathophysiology,
- nosology of the medical field,
- disease-specific diagnostics,
- disease-specific etiology,
- disease-specific therapy,
None of the listed items apply to classical homeopathy. There are no homeopathic diseases, homeopathy is largely detached from knowledge in anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology, homeopathy disregards the current knowledge of etiology, homeopathy does not apply current criteria of diagnostics, homeopathy offers no rational mode of action for its interventions.
An expert in any medical field would need to:
- deal with facts,
- be able to show the effectiveness of his methods,
- be part of an area that makes progress,
- benefit from advances made elsewhere in medicine,
- would associate with other disciplines,
- understand the principles of evidence-based medicine,
None of these features apply to a classical homeopath. Homeopaths substitute facts for fantasy and wishful thinking, homeopaths cannot rely on sound evidence regarding the effectiveness of their therapy, classical homeopaths are not interested in progressing their field but religiously adhere to Hahnemann’s dogma, homeopaths do not benefit from the advances made in other areas of medicine, homeopaths pursue their sectarian activities in near-complete isolation, homeopaths make a mockery of evidence-based medicine.
Collectively, these considerations would seem to indicate that an expert in homeopathy is a contradiction in terms. Either you are an expert, or you are a homeopath. To be both seems an impossibility – or, to put it bluntly, an ‘expert’ in homeopathy is an adept in nonsense and a virtuoso in ignorance.