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

commercial interests

1 2 3 95

As discussed regularly on this blog, there is plenty of evidence to show that many chiropractors, homeopaths, and naturopaths discourage their patients from getting vaccinated. Now, a further investigation from the US seems to confirm these findings.

This analysis aims to evaluate differences between categories of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) regarding vaccination behavior among US adults.

The data from the 2017 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS; n = 26,742; response rate 80.7%) was used for this purpose. Prevalences of flu vaccination, consultations with SCAM practitioners in the past 12 months, and their potential interactions were examined.

A total of 42.7% of participants had received the flu vaccination in the past 12 months, 32.4% had seen one or more SCAM practitioners. Users of any type of SCAM were as likely as non-users to have received a flu vaccination (44.8% users versus 41.7% non-users; p = 0,862; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95-1.07).

Regarding specific SCAMs, individuals consulting with

  • naturopaths (p < 0.001; AOR = 0.67, 95 %CI = 0.54-0.82),
  • homeopaths (p < 0.001; AOR = 0.55; 95 %CI = 0.44-0.69),
  • chiropractors (p = 0.016; AOR = 0.9, 95 %CI = 0.83-0.98)

were less likely, while other SCAM approaches showed no significant association with flu vaccination behavior. Independent predictors for a flu shot were prior diabetes, cancer, current asthma, kidney disease, overweight and current pregnancy. As well, higher educational level, age, ethnicity, health insurance coverage, and having seen a general physician or medical specialist in the past 12 months were also associated with a higher vaccination rate.

The authors concluded that SCAM users were equally likely to receive an influenza vaccination compared with non-users. Different complementary therapies showed varied associations with vaccination behavior. Further analyses may be needed to distinguish influencing factors among patients’ vaccination behavior.

This investigation confirms the prevalent anti-vax stance within chiropractic, homeopathy, and naturopathy. The effect is strongest by far with homeopaths. Nothing new! We knew this for a very long time. The question is WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT? Or more specifically, are the professional organizations of these SCAM professions finally going to take any actions against even the most rabid anti-vaxxers in their midst?

And the answer?

You guessed it: NO!

And the irony of all this must not get lost here: chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, and their respective organizations all pride themselves regularly that they attribute particular importance to disease prevention.

Guest post by Emeritus Professor Alastair MacLennan AO, MB ChB, MD, FRCOG, FRANZCOG

The sale and promotion of a therapeutic drug in most countries require rigorous assessment and licencing by that country’s therapeutic regulatory body. However, a new surgical technique can escape such checks and overview unless the technique is subject to local medical ethics review in the context of a research trial. New medical devices in Australia such as carbon dioxide or Er-YAG lasers can be listed on its therapeutic register without critical review of their efficacy and safety. Thermal injury to the postmenopausal vaginal wall in the hope of rejuvenating it has become a lucrative fad for some surgeons outside formal well-conducted clinical trials.

There are many published studies of this technique but the large majority are small, uncontrolled and observational. The few randomised controlled trials using sham controls show a placebo effect and debatable clinical efficacy with limited follow-up of adverse effects. A review of these therapies in July 2020 published by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence summarised apparent claims for some efficacy in terms of vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, sexual function, and incontinence but noted confounding in the study’s designs such as concurrent breast cancer treatments, local oestrogen therapy and lubricants (!). Most studies had very limited follow up for adverse events but elsewhere the literature has reported burns, infection, increased dyspareunia and scarring. There is no physiological mechanism by which burning atrophic vaginal epithelium will magically rejuvenate it.

A recent well-conducted randomised sham-controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up of Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser for the treatment of vaginal symptoms associated with menopause has been published in JAMA by Li et al has shown no efficacy for this treatment(2).

At 12 months, there was no difference in overall symptom severity based on a 0-100 scale (zero equals no symptoms), with a reduction in symptom severity of 17.2 in the treatment group compared with 26.6 in the sham group.

The treatment had no impact on quality of life. “Sexual activity rates and quality of sex were not significantly different between the groups at baseline or 12 months”. The study compared 46 paired vaginal wall biopsies, taken at baseline and six months into treatment, and no significant histological improvement with laser was evident.

“The annual cost of laser treatment to the individual for management of vaginal menopausal symptoms was reported to be AUD$2,733, and because there is no demonstrable difference versus sham treatment, it cannot be considered to be cost-effective.”

Although one could still call for more quality sham-controlled randomised trials in different circumstances there is no justification for touting this therapy commercially. Complications following this therapy outside of ethical trials could become the next medico-legal mine-field.

Vaginal atrophy in the years after menopause is almost universal and is primarily due to oestrogen deficiency. The efficient solution is local vaginal oestrogen or systemic hormone replacement therapy. However, the misreporting of the Women’s Health Initiative and Million Women’s Study has created exaggerated fear of oestrogen therapies and thus a market for alternative and often unproven therapies (3). The way forward is education and tailoring of hormonal therapies to minimise risk and maximise efficacy and quality of life and not to resort to quackery.

References

1. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg697/documents/overview

2. Li FG, Maheux-Lacroix S, Deans R et al. Effect of Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser vs Sham Treatment on Symptom Severity in Women With Postmenopausal Vaginal Symptoms A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;326:1381-1389.

3. MacLennan AH. Evidence-based review of therapies at the menopause. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2009; 7: 112-123.

Recently, I wrote about the court case of a French naturopath. Last week, the judge has issued his verdict. Miguel Barthéléry was sentenced to a two-year suspended prison term and to a fine of 5 000 Euros. Two cancer patients had died following his treatments and recommendations. Barthéléry was also found guilty of impersonating a doctor and illegally practising medicine. In addition, he was also banned for life from practising as a healthcare professional.

The Paris criminal court found that Miguel Barthéléry had deliberately created confusion about his qualifications by presenting himself as a doctor on the internet and in text messages to the two victims. The defendant had claimed to have a doctorate and a post-doctorate from the United States. The judgment “has the consequence of dissuading all those who engage in the same abuses, they are now warned that we can not do anything with the health of people,” said the judge.

The case had begun in February 2019 with the complaint of the companion of a man who had died two months earlier of testicular cancer. Diagnosed in 2016, the patient had not consulted a doctor but had preferred to follow a “health plan” drawn up by the naturopath. It was based on fasting and cures, raw food, and essential oils. Later, the family of a Belgian physiotherapist, who died of uterine cancer at the age of 39, joined the legal case. However, according to Code Source, the Parisien podcast, the case is more extensive, with seven further suspicious deaths of Barthéléry’s patients.

Barthéléry’s lawyer said that the decision “raises questions more generally about the appreciation that we now have of alternative therapeutic practices, which now seem, although not prohibited by law, to be subject to condemnation by the courts.”

 

The bad news for German homeopathy just keeps on coming. As I reported, recent events must be depressing for homeopaths, e.g.:

And now this:

After heated debates in the run-up, the Bavarian Medical Association decided yesterday to ditch the postgraduate education program in homeopathy for its doctors. This means that, of the 17 regional medical associations in Germany, 12 have now discontinued their further education efforts in homeopathy. The ones that have not yet done so are:

  • Baden-Württemberg,
  • Rhineland-Palatinate,
  • Saxony,
  • Thuringia,
  • Westphalia-Lippe.

In the past months, homeopaths had collected 11,597 signatures in favor of maintaining the additional qualification of homeopathy. The ~ 400 doctors in Bavaria, who have acquired ‘homeopathy’ as an additional title, will be permitted to continue to use it.

The spokesperson of the Information Network Homeopathy, Dr. Christian Lübbers, welcomed the decision of the Medical Association. It was a “landslide victory for patient safety”, he said. The Bavarian regional chairman of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors, Dr. Ulf Riker, regretted the outcome of the vote and added: “We will consider legal steps very seriously.” I would advise against such a step which would only render homeopaths more ridiculous than they already are.

Yes, it’s bad news for German homeopaths – very bad news indeed. Of course, homeopathy fans will claim that it is all a sinister conspiracy against them. Sadly, they are unable to realize that the only driving force behind the long-overdue decline of German homeopathy is the evidence: HOMEOPATHY DOES NOT WORK BEYOND PLACEBO and therefore it has no place in the evidence-based medicine of the 21st century.

The ‘International Chiropractors Association’ (ICA) has just issued a statement entitled “International Chiropractors Association Affirms Policy on Health Freedom“. On the background of the fact that US President Biden, issued a series of Executive Orders related to mandating federal employees and federal contractors to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the ICA try to explain their position regarding vaccinations. Here are a few passages from this statement:

…In a world of public health that promotes evidence-based decision making, we see the importance of natural immunity being ignored and replaced with a totalitarian approach of compulsory vaccination.  At a time when the Surgeon General says misinformation has become an urgent threat to public health, misinformation is now being used in an attempt to discredit the chiropractic profession, the International Chiropractors Association, and all chiropractic patients who desire to focus on improving health naturally. After enduring 18 months of shutdowns, lockdowns, flattening the curve, masking, limitations of speech on social media; and a cancel culture environment that threatens the basic freedoms our country was founded upon in 1776, ICA will not compromise on the importance of protecting health freedom…

The ICA Policy on Immunization and Vaccination has remained unchanged for almost 50 years and clearly states:

“The International Chiropractors Association recognizes that the use of vaccines is not without risk and questions the wisdom of mass vaccination programs.  Chiropractic principles favor the enhancement of natural immunity over artificial immunization.

The ICA supports each individual’s right to select his or her own health care and to be made aware of the possible adverse effects of vaccines upon a human body.  In accordance with such principles and based upon the individual’s right to freedom of choice, the ICA is opposed to compulsory programs which infringe upon such rights.

The International Chiropractors Association is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws, providing an elective course of action for all regarding immunization, thereby allowing patients freedom of choice in matters affecting their bodies and health.”

The International Chiropractors Association maintains that all healthcare interventions, including the chiropractic adjustment, are associated with some level of risk and that every individual is entitled to be informed of those risks, no matter how insignificant. All individuals must retain the freedom to accept or reject any healthcare product, procedure, or medication including vaccinations.  The International Chiropractors Association therefore strongly opposes the use of medical mandates that violate personal sovereignty, violate the principles of informed consent, and constrain the rights of patients to make their own health care choices…

The ICA encourages the recognition that natural efforts to enhance the innate immune system ability to adapt to novel viruses are grounded in science and rejects the notion that the patients’ freedom to rely on naturally acquired immunity is not based upon unscientific beliefs.

The ICA rejects the premise that the chiropractic profession’s long history of promoting health freedom and supporting conscientious exemptions is based upon unscientific or non-mainstream beliefs…

I find this statement clear as mud and have the following questions:

  • Do the ICA recommend vaccinations?
  • In particular, do they encourage their members to get vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines?
  • Do they advise to recommend COVID-19 vaccinations to their patients?
  • Or do they think that natural immunity is preferable and advise their members and patients accordingly?
  • Do they believe that spinal manipulation enhances natural immunity?
  • Do they think that spinal manipulations are an effective alternative to COVID-19 vaccinations?
  • Do they believe that scientific evidence trumps dogma or vice versa?
  • Which of the two should, according to their conviction, must influence the decision-making processes in healthcare?
  • If the ICA object to misinformation about COVID, why do they not stop their members from promoting it?
  • What makes them think that information about the possible adverse effects of vaccines upon a human body is unavailable?
  • If the ICA recognizes the risks of spinal manipulation, why do they not inform the public about them regularly and objectively?
  • If the ICA knows about the importance of informed consent, why do not all of their members adhere to it?
  • And finally, why do the ICA insist on the term ‘international’ in the name of their organization, if they purely deal with the US situation?

I do not expect the ICA to give me the answers to these questions. But perhaps their Wiki page goes some way towards answering some of them: “… The ICA supports the efforts of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).[13] The NVIC is known for promoting false and misleading information about vaccines, in particular the discredited claim that vaccines cause autism.

The ICA’s annual conferences have featured anti-vaccination propaganda. In 2018 Guest Speaker Beau Pierce (Pierce co-produced a series entitled Vaccines Revealed) hosted a session entitled Vaccines Revealed.,[14] and Jeff Hays, known for producing the anti-Vaccine propaganda Vaccines Revealed, was invited to host a session the 2017 ICA Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics Annual Conference. In 2016 the widely discredited anti-vaccination propaganda film VAXXED was shown at a conference sponsored by the ICA’s Council on Chiropractic Pediatrics …”

SAY NO MORE!

This article from AP News caught my attention. Here it is (I haven’t changed a word):

The flashy postcard, covered with images of syringes, beckoned people to attend Vax-Con ’21 to learn “the uncensored truth” about COVID-19 vaccines.

Participants traveled from around the country to a Wisconsin Dells resort for a sold-out convention that was, in fact, a sea of misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines and the pandemic. The featured speaker was the anti-vaccine activist who appeared in the 2020 movie “Plandemic,” which pushed false COVID-19 stories into the mainstream. One session after another discussed bogus claims about the health dangers of mask wearing and vaccines.

The convention was organized by members of a profession that has become a major purveyor of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic: chiropractors.

At a time when the surgeon general says misinformation has become an urgent threat to public health, an investigation by The Associated Press found a vocal and influential group of chiropractors has been capitalizing on the pandemic by sowing fear and mistrust of vaccines.

They have touted their supplements as alternatives to vaccines, written doctor’s notes to allow patients to get out of mask and immunization mandates, donated large sums of money to anti-vaccine organizations and sold anti-vaccine ads on Facebook and Instagram, the AP discovered. One chiropractor gave thousands of dollars to a Super PAC that hosted an anti-vaccine, pro-Donald Trump rally near the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

They have also been the leading force behind anti-vaccine events like the one in Wisconsin, where hundreds of chiropractors from across the U.S. shelled out $299 or more to attend. The AP found chiropractors were allowed to earn continuing education credits to maintain their licenses in at least 10 states.

On this blog, I have often discussed that chiropractors tend to be anti-vax. It all goes back to their founding father, DD Palmer, who famously wrote:

  • Vaccination and inoculation are pathological; chiropractic is physiological,
  • and who in 1894, published his views on smallpox vaccination: ‘…the monstrous delusion … fastened on us by the medical profession, enforced by the state boards, and supported by the mass of unthinking people …’
  • and who stated in 1896 that keeping tissue healthy is therefore the best prevention against infections; and this is best achieved by magnetic healing.

But that’s long ago! We are not like that anymore! … say the chiros of today.

Do you believe them?

If so, you might want to read this article by Jann Bellamy. Or alternatively, just look at some of my finds from the Internet:

 

 

 

The purpose of this survey was to quantify and describe the clinical practice beliefs and behaviors associated with US chiropractors. A 10% random sample of US chiropractors (n = 8975) was selected from all 50 state regulatory board lists and invited to participate in a survey. The survey consisted of a 7-item questionnaire; 6 items were associated with chiropractic ideological and practice characteristics and 1 item was related to the self-identified role of chiropractic in the healthcare system which was utilized as the dependent variable to identify chiropractic subgroups. Multinomial logistic regression with predictive margins was used to analyze which responses to the 6 ideology and practice characteristic items were predictive of chiropractic subgroups.

The survey instrument used in this study was developed by the authors and modeled after similar chiropractic identity analyses. The survey instrument included a total of 7 items intended to elicit divergent ideologies and practice behaviors. The figure below is a copy of the survey instrument.

A total of 3538 responses were collected (39.4% response rate). Respondents self-identified into three distinct subgroups based on the perceived role of the chiropractic profession in the greater healthcare system:

  1. 57% were spine/neuromusculoskeletal focused;
  2. 22% were primary care focused;
  3. 21% were vertebral subluxation focused.

Patterns of responses to the 6 ideologies and practice characteristic items were substantially different across the three professional subgroups.

The authors concluded that respondents self-identified into one of three distinct intra-professional subgroups. These subgroups can be differentiated along themes related to clinical practice beliefs and behaviors.

Here are the results in more detail as sated by the authors:

Regarding scope of examination (survey question 1), respondents reporting the scope of their clinical examination to only include spinal analysis for the assessment of vertebral subluxation had a 70% probability of belonging to the subluxation focused subgroup, a 20% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. Conversely, respondents who reported the scope of their clinical examination only includes a differential diagnosis had a 0% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, an 80% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Concerning conditions treated (survey question 2), respondents who reported predominantly treating vertebral subluxation as an encumbrance to health had an 80% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 10% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. In contrast, respondents reporting predominantly treating neuromusculoskeletal conditions had a 0% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 90% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Regarding the role of spinal manipulation for those with cancer (survey question 4), respondents reporting the role of spinal manipulation for those with cancer is to remove interference to innate intelligence had a 70% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 20% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. Respondents reporting there is no role of spinal manipulation in those with cancer also had a 10% probability of belonging to the subluxation focused subgroup, an 80% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Regarding vaccination (survey question 5), respondents who strongly disagreed that vaccinations have had a positive effect on global public health had a 50% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, an approximately 25% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and an approximately 25% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. In contrast, respondents who strongly agreed that vaccinations have had a positive effect on global public health had a 0% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 90% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Concerning the detection of vertebral subluxation on x-ray (survey question 6), respondents who strongly agreed that x-ray is helpful in detecting vertebral subluxations had a 40% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 40% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. Respondents who strongly disagreed that x-ray is helpful in detecting vertebral subluxations had a near 0% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, an 80% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and slightly below a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Regarding use of x-rays for new patients (survey question 7), respondents who reported prescribing x-rays for 0–20% of new patients had a 20% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 60% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. Respondents reporting prescribing x-rays for 81–100% of new patients had a 40% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 40% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

END OF QUOTE

While I am not sure that the division into the 3 subgroups is valid and suspect that there must be a substantial overlap between them, I must admit that the paper is rich in fascinating information. Generally speaking, I find all subgroups somewhat mysterious and would ask them the following questions:

Subgroup 1: why did you not study medicine or physiotherapy?

Subgroup 2: does it not bother you that your education and training are woefully insufficient for primary care?

Subgroup 3: is it not time to abandon the obsolete nonsense of your guru, the old charlatan DD Palmer?

 

 

Practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) regularly claim with great pride that they treat the ROOT CAUSES of disease. The claim has at least 4 effects:

  1. It distracts from the true causes of disease which are often multifactorial.
  2. It attracts customers to SCAM.
  3. It implies that conventional medicine is at best symptomatic and thus far inferior to SCAM.
  4. It encourages the patients of SCAM practitioners to turn their backs on mainstream healthcare.

The notion that SCAM practitioners treat the root causes is based on the practitioners’ understanding of etiology:

  • If a traditional acupuncturist, for instance, becomes convinced that all disease is the expression of an imbalance of life-forces, and that needling acupuncture points will re-balance these forces thus restoring health, he must automatically assume that he is treating the root causes of any condition.
  • If a chiropractor believes that all diseases are due to ‘subluxations’ of the spine, it must seem logical to him that spinal ‘adjustment’ is synonymous with treating the root cause of whatever complaint his patient is suffering from.
  • If a Bowen therapist is convinced that “the Bowen Technique aims to balance the whole person, not just the symptoms“, he is bound to be equally sure that the root cause of “practically any problem can potentially be addressed” by this intervention.
  • If a homeopath is convinced that all illness stems from a weakness of the ‘vital force’ and that only homeopathic remedies can revitalize it, they are likely to believe that their remedies tackle the root cause of all diseases.
  • Etc., etc.

So, are SCAM practitioners correct when they claim to treat the root causes of disease?

When a root cause has been eliminated, the disease has been eliminated by its root. Treating a root cause, therefore, means that the disease is permanently cured. The above question can therefore be re-phrased as follows:

Is there any SCAM that cures any disease permanently?

I think the answer is NO. (At least, I know none. I would, however, be most grateful if someone could name one together with the evidence)

Even demonstrably effective forms of SCAM are effective only in terms of alleviating the symptoms. The one with the best evidence is probably St John’s wort. It works fine for mild to moderate depression. Yet, it does not cure depression: if we discontinue the treatment, the depression is likely to return.

And what about conventional medicine? Does it offer any permanent cures?

I have been searching and have to admit that I cannot find many either. Here is my list so far of diseases that are potentially curable (meaning they are unlikely to come back once the treatment has stopped and excluding disease prevention) with conventional medicine – and again, I would be really grateful if readers could add to my preliminary list:

  • Acute emergencies, like anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, etc.
  • Bacterial infections (well most of them)
  • Cancer (some), like Hodgkin lymphoma
  • Malnutrition like beriberi of iron-deficiency anemia
  • Phobias (some)
  • Fungal infections (some)
  • Poisonings (some)
  • Many surgical indications such as appendicitis, gall stones, carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.

Not a long list, I admit (but better than nothing!) – so, please help me to prolong it by adding diseases that I did not mention.

THANKS

 

Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa, Korth.) is an evergreen tree that is indigenous to Southeast Asia. It is increasingly being used as a recreational drug, to help with opium withdrawal, and as a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for pain, erectile dysfunction, as a mood stabilizer, and for boosting energy or concentration.  When ingested, Kratom leaves produce stimulant and opioid-like effects (see also my previous post).

Kratom contains 7‑hydroxymitragynine, which is active on opioid receptors. The use of kratom carries significant risks, e.g. because there is no standardized form of administration as well as the possibility of direct damage to health and of addiction.

There are only very few clinical trials of Kratom. One small placebo-controlled study concluded that the short-term administration of the herb led to a substantial and statistically significant increase in pain tolerance. And a recent review stated that Kratom may have drug interactions as both a cytochrome P-450 system substrate and inhibitor. Kratom does not appear in normal drug screens and, especially when ingested with other substances of abuse, may not be recognized as an agent of harm. There are numerous cases of death in kratom users, but many involved polypharmaceutical ingestions. There are assessments where people have been unable to stop using kratom therapy and withdrawal signs/symptoms occurred in patients or their newborn babies after kratom cessation. Both banning and failure to ban kratom places people at risk; a middle-ground alternative, placing it behind the pharmacy counter, might be useful.

In Thailand, Kratom had been outlawed since 1943 but now it has become (semi-)legal. Earlier this year, the Thai government removed the herb from the list of Category V narcotics. Following this move, some 12,000 inmates who had been convicted when Kratom was still an illegal drug received amnesty. However, Kratom producers, traders, and even researchers will still require licenses to handle the plant. Similarly, patients looking for kratom-based supplements will need a valid prescription from licensed medical practitioners. Thai law still prohibits bulk possession of Kratom. Users are encouraged to handle only minimum amounts of the herb to avoid getting prosecuted for illegal possession.

In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration stated that Kratom possesses the properties of an opioid, thus escalating the government’s effort to slow usage of this alternative pain reliever. The FDA also wrote that the number of deaths associated with Kratom use has increased to a total of 44, up from a total of 36 since the FDA’s November 2017 report. In the majority of deaths that the FDA attributes to Kratom, subjects ingested multiple substances with known risks, including alcohol.

In most European countries, Kratom continues to be a controlled drug. In the UK the sale, import, and export of Kratom are prohibited. Yet, judging from a quick look, it does not seem to be all that difficult to obtain Kratom via the Internet.

I was surprised to discover that there is an entire website by a homeopath. He used to comment regularly on my blog but eventually got banned (I think). Now that chap writes pages and pages explaining that my criticisms of homeopathy are all wrong and that I actually haven’t got a clue. This seems to suggest that his homeopathy is not very effective for anger control. The texts are so intensely funny that I took the liberty of copying a short passage for you (without altering a single word).

Here we go:

When I started this blog in 2013, it was aimed to rebut Professor Edzard Ernst’s scientific examination and critique of homeopathy.

After 7 years of engaging with his posts, I realised that he does not have a clue about homeopathy due to rejecting the central tenet of homeopathy that disorder of the vital force leads to disease and, over time, to incurable medical conditions.

This blog aims to dispel false notions about the philosophy and practice of homeopathy and I recommend that the widely used clinical approach to homeopathy is discarded and replaced with spiritual/dynamic approach to homeopathy that is aligned with the principles set out in Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine.

Dr. Edzard Ernst has, for more than two decades, engaged in a comical and polemical critique of what he considers to be ‘homeopathy’:

  • He does not hold a recognized qualification in homeopathy.
  • His understanding of homeopathy has, from the very outset, been below par: See my post ‘Arnica’.
  • He associated Bach Flower Remedies with ‘homeopathy’ because both use potentised substances.
  • He included Berlin Wall remedy in his new book, a remedy that he referred to as homeopathy’s finest in one of his blogs. Berlin Wall originated in the imagination of Colin Griffith (‘New Materia Medica’: isn’t that hilarious?) and it is not listed in the official Homeopathic Pharmacopeia.
  • He continues to write blogs about homeopathic treatment of certain clinical conditions and his study of the ‘adjunctive treatment’ of asthma with homeopathy is in opposition to Hahnemann’s instruction that no other medicines should be used during homeopathic treatment.
  • He seems to be unable to understand that homeopathy does not treat medical conditions, and that for classical homeopathy, as set out by Kent, most ‘medical conditions’ are beyond the curable stage of homeopathic treatment.
  • He seems not even to know in detail Hahnemann’s works: The Organon, Chronic Diseases, and Materia Medica Pura. Evidence of this is that, in 7 years, I never read a post that was written by him that engaged in a critique of these works.
  • He writes silly blogs about Boris Johnson almost being a homeopath.
  • He has, on last count, six pages of blogs written in derision and criticism of HRH Prince of Wales.
  • In discussion, he even asks the question: ‘are you speaking out of your arse?’
  • He did a bit of reading on the Russia collusion investigation that he seemed to think was negative against President Trump and worried that the Donald might start world war 3.
  • He rated himself as the world’s number one researcher in SCAM (so called alternative medicine of which homeopathy is one of the major forms of treatment).

I rate him as the world’s number one clown-critic of homeopathy.

Before Dr. Ernst started his journey to become the world eminent critic of homeopathy (and every other alternative health modality), he could have done two things:

  1. Undertaken a meticulous study of the works by Samuel Hahnemann and James Tyler Kent in order to gain an understanding of what Homeopathy is. I have yet to read a post by Edzard Ernst that provides a critique of the original works on homeopathy by the founders of homeopathy. Instead, he seems to have preferred to bypass the tedious work of reading texts and substituted his own interpretation of homeopathy in his critical reviews of ‘homeopathy’.

In Dr. Ernst’s view, the central tenet of homeopathy that there is a ‘vital force’ (living intelligence) in the human body must be rejected because it is an ‘outdated’ concept of ‘vitalism’. It seems to me, from my reading of his posts, that he considers atheism and materialist epistemology to be self-evident and idealist epistemology to be obviously deluded.  Edzard Ernst is obviously not the philosophical type because if he was then he would have realised that his rejection of the ‘principle of vitalism’ automatically invalidates homeopathy as a credible subject of scientific investigation. Why did he waste so much time studying something that is evidently nonsense?

  1. Before embarking on expensive and time consuming trials and meta analyses of homeopathy, Dr. Ernst ought to have first sought to find independently verified scientific evidence of homeopathic cures of non self-resolving clinical conditions and illnesses documented in clinical practice and publications. As far as I am aware, there is no hard medical scientific evidence that homeopathy cures any non self-resolving clinical conditions and illnesses and so how sensible was it that numerous researchers conducted RCTs over several decades to test whether or not homeopathy is an effective treatment for medical conditions?

END OF QUOTE

 

There is more, much more – and it’s all as hilarious as the above. So, whenever you are having a bad day and feeling a bit low, please read it. It is certain to cheer you up.

1 2 3 95
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