About 85% of German children are treated with herbal remedies. Yet, little is known about the effects of such interventions. A new study might tell us more.
This analysis accessed 2063 datasets from the paediatric population in the PhytoVIS data base, screening for information on indication, gender, treatment, co-medication and tolerability. The results suggest that the majority of patients was treated with herbal medicine for the following conditions:
- common cold,
- digestive complaints,
- skin diseases,
- sleep disturbances
The perceived effect of the therapy was rated in 84% of the patients as very good or good without adverse events.
The authors concluded that the results confirm the good clinical effects and safety of herbal medicinal products in this patient population and show that they are widely used in Germany.
If you are a fan of herbal medicine, you will be jubilant. If, on the other hand, you are a critical thinker or a responsible healthcare professional, you might wonder what this database is, why it was set up and how exactly these findings were produced. Here are some details:
The data were collected by means of a retrospective, anonymous, one-off survey consisting of 20 questions on the user’s experience with herbal remedies. The questions included complaints/ disease, information on drug use, concomitant factors/diseases as well as basic patient data. Trained interviewers performed the interviews in pharmacies and doctor’s offices. Data were collected in the Western Part of Germany between April 2014 and December 2016. The only inclusion criterion was the intake of herbal drugs in the last 8 weeks before the individual interview. The primary endpoint was the effect and tolerability of the products according to the user.
And who participated in this survey? If I understand it correctly, the survey is based on a convenience sample of parents using herbal remedies. This means that those parents who had a positive experience tended to volunteer, while those with a negative experience were absent or tended to refuse. (Thus the survey is not far from the scenario I often use where people in a hamburger restaurant are questioned whether they like hamburgers.)
So, there are two very obvious factors other than the effectiveness of herbal remedies determining the results:
- selection bias,
- lack of objective outcome measure.
This means that conclusions about the clinical effects of herbal remedies in paediatric patients are quite simply not possible on the basis of this survey. So, why do the authors nevertheless draw such conclusions (without a critical discussion of the limitations of their survey)?
Could it have something to do with the sponsor of the research?
The PhytoVIS study was funded by the Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR Bonn, Germany.
Or could it have something to do with the affiliations of the paper’s authors:
1 Institute of Pharmacy, University of Leipzig, Brüderstr. 34, 04103, Leipzig, Germny. firstname.lastname@example.org.
2 Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR, Plittersdorfer Str. 218, 573, Bonn, Germany. email@example.com.
3 Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
4 ClinNovis GmbH, Genter Str. 7, 50672, Cologne, Germany.
5 Bayer Consumer Health, Research & Development, Phytomedicines Supply and Development Center, Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk GmbH, Havelstr. 5, 64295, Darmstadt, Germany.
6 Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR, Plittersdorfer Str. 218, 53173, Bonn, Germany.
7 Institute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Max-von-Laue-Str. 9, 60438, Frankfurt, Germany.
8 Chair of Naturopathy, University Medicine Rostock, Ernst-Heydemann Str. 6, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Even the NEW SCIENTIST seems alarmed about Gwyneth and her activities:
Psychic readings, energy healing and vampire facials are just a few of the adventures had by actor and alternative health guru Gwyneth Paltrow and her team in her forthcoming Netflix series The Goop Lab. Goop, Paltrow’s natural health company, has already become a byword for unrestrained woo, but the TV series takes things to the next level.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it isn’t happening. There is unlikely to be any escape from The Goop Lab after it is released on 24 January, judging by the current explosion of interest in Goop’s latest offering, a candle scented like Paltrow’s vagina, which has reportedly sold out…
Yet, I am sure we got her all wrong!
Good old Gwennie is really one of us – she is a true sceptic!
Think about it; it’s the only explanation.
When she first started dabbling in woo, she only wanted to test us. I’ll just display a few cupping marks and see how they react, she thought.
Then she saw that most people were so gullible that they bought it. Of course, she thought, if they buy it, I might as well take their money. In her attempt to see how far she can push her boat out, she decided to conduct a sceptical experiment and went further and further. This is when she started to focus on her vagina – jade eggs, steaming it, etc. Surely, she thought, eventually they must realise that I am a sceptic taking the Mikey!
But they never did realise it; at least not so far.
So, she decided to do something even more brazen and sell candles to dispense the smell of her vagina in the homes of her fans. That will do it, she felt, now they will realise what I want to achieve with all this.
But what happened? They sold out in no time (actually, both the candles and the gullible public)! That was a surprise even to our Gwennie. She thought she had seen it all, but she was wrong.
Now she is trying to think of something even more outrageous – but she admits, it’s not easy. What can be a more obvious and disgusting hoax than filling people’ homes with the smell of my genitals and let them pay through their noses for the pleasure? she asks herself.
Yes, poor old Gwennie is at loss! Stuck in her own vagina, so to speak.
Perhaps you can help her? Please suggest what vaginal gimmick she might sell next to make her position inescapably clear to even the dumbest of the gullible. Just mention your ideas in the comment section below; I have a feeling she is an avid reader of this blog. Gwennie might even show herself generous; if she likes your innovation, she will certainly make it worth your while.
Because, by Jove, she can afford to be generous. Apparently her business is now worth a quarter of a billion US$. But we must not be envious. Knowing that she did all this merely to stimulate sceptical thinking in the general public, you will not be surprised to learn what she intends to do with all this dosh: once she has succeeded in demonstrating to all the gullible pin heads and devotees that she really is on the side of the angles, she will donate all of it to sceptic organisations across the globe.
So, sceptics of the world: stop snarling at my friend Gwennie, rejoice and prepare for a major windfall.
I am beginning to think that a devotion to homeopathy is conducive to telling porkies. When I read texts by homeopaths, I almost invariably discover untruths. Take this article on the popularity of homeopathy, for instance:
- Worldwide, over 200 million people use homeopathy on a regular basis.1, 2
- Homeopathy is included in the national health systems of a number of countries e.g. Brazil, Chile, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Switzerland.
- India leads in terms of number of people using homeopathy, with 100 million people depending solely on homeopathy for their medical care.1
- There are over 200,000 registered homeopathic doctors currently, with approximately 12,000 more being added every year.3
- 100 million EU citizens, some 29% of the EU’s population, use homeopathic medicines in their day-to-day healthcare.2
- Homeopathy is practised in 40 out of 42 European countries.4
- 10% of people in the UK use homeopathy – an estimated 6 million people.5
- In Britain, the market for homeopathy is growing at around 20% per year. In 2007, it was estimated to be worth £38m, and is projected to reach £46m in 2012.6
- There are ~ 400 doctors in the UK that use homeopathy, regulated by the Faculty of Homeopathy and promoted by the British Homeopathic Association.7
- There are ~1,500 professional homeopaths (non-medically qualified homeopaths) in the UK,8 regulated by the Society of Homeopaths (65%), Alliance of Registered Homeopaths and Homeopathic Medical Association. They largely operate in private practice outside the NHS.
- See NHS spending on homeopathy
- According to the National Institutes of Health, over 6 million people in the United States use homeopathy, mainly for self-care of specific health conditions.
- Of those who use homeopathy, ~1 million are children and over 5 million are adults.9, 10
- Prasad R. Homoeopathy booming in India. Lancet, 2007; 370:1679-80 | Full Text
- Homeopathic medicinal products. Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directives 92/73 and 92/74 | Full Text
- Ghosh AK. A short history of the development of homeopathy in India. Homeopathy, 2010;99(2):130-6 | PubMed
- Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative Medicine: A Worldwide Review, World Health Organization, 2001 | Full Text
- Professor Woods of the MHRA, response to Q211, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee hearing of evidence in preparation of Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy report (London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2010) | Full Text
- Mintel, Complementary Medicines, April 2007 | Link
- Faculty of Homeopathy | Link
- Society of Homeopaths | Link
- Black LI, et al. Use of Complementary Health Approaches Among Children Aged 4–17 Years in the United States: National Health Interview Survey, 2007–2012. National Health Statistics Reports, 2015; 78: February | Link
- Clarke TC, et al. Trends in the Use of Complementary Health Approaches Among Adults: United States, 2002–2012. National Health Statistics Reports, 2015; 79: February | Link
Contrast this with the (as far as I know) only systematic review on the subject:
Aim: To systematically review surveys of 12-month prevalence of homeopathy use by the general population worldwide.
Methods: Studies were identified via database searches to October 2015. Study quality was assessed using a six-item tool. All estimates were in the context of a survey which also reported prevalence of any complementary and alternative medicine use.
Results: A total of 36 surveys were included. Of these, 67% met four of six quality criteria. Twelve-month prevalence of treatment by a homeopath was reported in 24 surveys of adults (median 1.5%, range 0.2-8.2%). Estimates for children were similar to those for adults. Rates in the USA, UK, Australia and Canada all ranged from 0.2% to 2.9% and remained stable over the years surveyed (1986-2012). Twelve-month prevalence of all use of homeopathy (purchase of over-the-counter homeopathic medicines and treatment by a homeopath) was reported in 10 surveys of adults (median 3.9%, range 0.7-9.8%) while a further 11 surveys which did not define the type of homeopathy use reported similar data. Rates in the USA and Australia ranged from 1.7% to 4.4% and remained stable over the years surveyed. The highest use was reported by a survey in Switzerland where homeopathy is covered by mandatory health insurance.
Conclusions: This review summarises 12-month prevalence of homeopathy use from surveys conducted in eleven countries (USA, UK, Australia, Israel, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, South Korea, Japan and Singapore). Each year a small but significant percentage of these general populations use homeopathy. This includes visits to homeopaths as well as purchase of over-the-counter homeopathic medicines.
Spot some discrepancies?
I wonder why the author (no name was provided) failed to cite the systematic review (it was published by pro-homeopathy researchers in a journal which they surely know – it’s called ‘Homeopathy’!). Perhaps because he/she writes for the ‘Homeopathy Research Institute‘. This organisation states that the HRI is an innovative international charity created to address the need for high quality scientific research in homeopathy. The charity was founded by physicist, Dr Alexander Tournier, who previously worked as an independent researcher for Cancer Research UK, conducting interdisciplinary research at the boundaries between mathematics, physics and biology.
The HRI also claims that the evidence suggests that homeopathy could provide solutions to many of the challenges facing us today – from overuse of antibiotics to spiraling healthcare budgets…
You see, now it all makes sense!
An enthusiast of homeopathy recently posted an overview of systematic reviews of homeopathy concluding that the data we do have point towards homeopathy as having an effect greater than that of placebo:
In recent decades, homeopathy has been examined via a number of clinical trials, the number of which now allow meta-analysis. As we can see from the study findings, the type of homeopathy research (ie, individualized vs non-individualized, placebo-controlled vs non-placebo-controlled) can have a strong influence on the results, although trial quality also has a strong effect.
All meta-analyses performed in at least a somewhat open and rigorous manner have found statistically significant effects. This suggests that homeopathy has a greater-than-placebo effect, or at least a strong trend in that direction, when using data from the totality of homeopathy research, or from individualized, placebo-controlled trials. The meta-analyses with questionable methodology, one of which is undergoing government investigation for academic irregularities, have produced negative results, which have been demonstrated to be a direct result of their exclusion of vast swathes of the homeopathic clinical trial literature (based on arbitrary and unexplained criteria), as well as of their failure to differentiate – as Mathie has done – different types of homeopathic research.
The clinical data are flawed. Issues with methodology used in homeopathy RCTs, combined with a lack of research funding, have produced a lack of high-quality trials and data. However, the data we do have point towards homeopathy as having an effect greater than that of placebo.
There can be no argument with this conclusion, aside from possible new data emerging. Anyone who disputes this is going against the existing set of the highest-quality evidence on homeopathy.
His overview is based on the following publications:
|Kleijnen, 19911||All types of homeopathy (eg, single remedy vs combination). Methodological quality assessed; 105 trials. Results: Positive trend, regardless of type of homeopathy; 81 trials were positive, 24 showed no effect.|
|Linde, 19972||All types of homeopathy. Out of 185 trials, 119 met inclusion criteria; 89 of these had extractable data. Results: OR = 2.45 (95% CI 2.05-2.93).|
|Ernst, 19983||Individualized homeopathy; 5 trials determined to be high-quality. Results: OR = 0.|
|Linde, 19985||Individualized homeopathy; 32 trials, 19 of which had extractable data. Results: OR = 1.62 for all trials (95% CI 1.17-2.23). Only high-quality trials produced no significant trend.|
|Cucherat, 20009||All types of homeopathy; 118 trials, 16 of which met inclusion criteria. Used unusual method of combining p values. Results: All trials = p< 0.000036. Less than 10% dropouts: p<0.084; less than 5% dropouts (higher standards than most trials considered reliable): p<0.08 (non-significant).|
|Shang, 200511||All types of homeopathy; only 8 trials selected from 21 high-quality trials of 110 selected with unusual criteria. Results: OR = 0.88 (0.65-1.19). Result strongly disputed by statisticians.|
|Mathie, 201413||Individualized homeopathy; of the analysis pooled data from 22 higher-quality, individualized, double-blind RCTs. Results: OR = 1.53 (1.22-1.91) for all trials pooled; OR = 1.93 (1.16-3.38) for the 3 reliable trials.|
|NHMRC, 201516||Out of 176 studies, 171 were excluded, leaving only 5 for the study. Investigators used unprecedented methods, did not combine data, and are currently under investigation for outcome shopping. Results: Negative results.|
|Mathie, 201720||Non-individualized homeopathy; very few higher-quality trials. Results: For 54 trials with extractable data, SMD = -0.33 (-0.44, -0.21). When these were adjusted for publication bias, SMD = -0.16 (-0.46,-0.09). The 3 high-quality trials had non-significant results: SMD = -0.18 (-0.46, +0.09).|
|Mathie, 201821||Individualized, other-than-placebo-controlled trials; 11 trials found, 8 with extractable data. Results: 4 heterogeneous comparative trials showed a non-significant difference. One trial in this group was positive. Three heterogeneous trials with additive homeopathy showed a statistically significant SMD. No definitive conclusion possible due to trial heterogeneity, poor quality, and low number of trials.|
|Mathie, 201922||Non-individualized, other-than-placebo-controlled trials; 17 RCTs found, 14 with high risk of bias. Results: Significant heterogeneity prevented much comparison; 3 comparable trials showed a non-significant SMD.|
- Many older systematic reviews were omitted (including about 10 of my own papers). This is relevant because the author of the above review went beck until 1991 to find the reviews he included.
- Several new papers were missing as well. This is relevant because the author evidently included reviews up to 2019. Here are the key passages from the conclusions of some of them:
We tested whether p-curve accurately rejects the evidential value of significant results obtained in placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathic ultramolecular dilutions. Our results suggest that p-curve can accurately detect when sets of statistically significant results lack evidential value.
I am, of course, not saying that this overview amounts to anything like a systematic review. It merely gives you a flavour how trustworthy proponents of homeopathy are when they pretend to provide us with an objective evaluation of the best available evidence.
‘HOMEOPATHY360’ are fiercely decided to defend homeopathy, no matter what. They state that we promise to stand by your side always to fight against the critical attacks on Homeopathy… Therefore, I was not really surprised when, a couple of days ago, I received an email by them urging me to support US homeopaths against the threat by the FDA. Here is part of this correspondence:
… If you want to know more about the FDA’s proposed new rules for homeopathic medicines, here’s a summary of the most important points:
- The new rules, if adopted, will allow the FDA to withdraw even properly manufactured and labeled homeopathic medicines from the marketplace. This is puzzling because these have never posed any sort of safety concern according to an initial review of public FDA records by Americans for Homeopathy Choice.
- It is clear that the FDA intends to use this authority and has even mentioned specific medicines such as Belladonna, Nux vomica and Lachesis muta in its public statements regarding enforcement.
- The authority for this kind of assault on homeopathy will result from the declaration by the FDA that all homeopathic medicines are “new drugs.” We all know this is nonsense. Homeopathic medicines have been around for 200 years.
- But this nonsense declaration means that under U.S. law all homeopathic remedies will become technically “illegal” and subject to withdrawal from the marketplace. If the FDA just thinks there is a problem with a homeopathic medicine, it can withdraw it forever without conducting any sort of investigation.
- Since the agency has already said that it thinks that Belladonna, Nux vomica, Lachesis muta and several other remedies are dangerous, we can anticipate that it will try to remove them from the marketplace as soon as its new rules are adopted.
- But, it won’t be possible for Americans to get remedies that are banned sent to them from abroad. The FDA will simply stop these remedies at the border.
I could tell you more, but what I’ve told you so far should convince you that we ought to help the American homeopathy community defeat these unreasonable and misinformed rules. The rules simply do not reflect the realities of homeopathic medicines, namely, that they are nontoxic, mild, effective and have few, if any, side-effects. And, homeopaths use them in ways that individualize treatment. That this is the best way to treat patients was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann 200 years ago.
The enemies of homeopathy are everywhere and they appear to be stepping up their attacks. That’s why the world homeopathy community must work together to stand up to them…
I have reported about the FDA initiatives on homeopathy before. In 2015, they started it with a public hearing. Since then, the FDA also issued several warnings to manufacturers who were putting consumers at risk (see, for instance, here, here, and here).
What the FDA seem to be trying to do is nothing else but meeting their ethical, moral and legal responsibility vis a vis consumer safety. Homeopathy has had a free ride for far too long. It is high time that this sector joins the 21st century.
The above quote, with its bonanza of bogus claims and falsehoods, shows the urgency of this task. The defenders of homeopathy seem to live on a different planet where rationality, facts and evidence can easily be over-ruled by creed, dogma and wishful thinking. If homeopaths want their trade to join the realm of real medicine they need, at the very minimum, to show with sound evidence:
- that their remedies generate more good than harm,
- that they adhere to acceptable quality standards.
Failing this – and so far, homeopaths not only failed at this task but continue bombarding us with an incessant flow of bogus and dangerous claims – homeopathics cannot be considered to be medicines, and homeopaths cannot be called responsible healthcare professionals. It is high time to stop turning a blind eye to the double standards that have been applied for 200 years.
Yesterday morning, I was listening to the Today Programme on BBC 4 when a man called Matt Adams was given airtime to explain and promote his ‘bionutrient reader’. What he said sounded like pure quackery – but this is quackery outside my area of expertise. Therefore, I looked it up; here is what the website tells us (apart from the fact that, for ~ US$ 400, you can buy the device):
The bionutrient meter is actually, in many ways, a shockingly simple device. It has lights (LEDs – light emitting diodes) that emit light at very specific wavelengths (fancy sciency word for colors), which then bounce off objects (like carrots, or carrot pulp, or spinach, or soil), while some of it is absorbed (turned into other forms of energy like heat) by the object, and then a light sensor in the device reads how much light bounces back (for each wavelength, multiple times, very quickly).
Why this matters (light bouncing off) is because this is actually a characteristic of objects that is directly correlated to the chemical compounds that the object is made of. So in the case of food, there are known correlations between light reflectance, at specific wavelengths, and the amount of different nutrients found in that food (vitamins, antioxidants, and aromatic compounds [things that smell, and also usually contribute to taste and health-giving attributes of food], to name a few). What makes this extra complicated though, is that these light-bouncing characteristics and compounds “overlap” with each other – so we need to look at lots of data to try to parse out what is causing the response we’re seeing.
To me, this does look suspiciously close to quackery to me.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
If you, like many of us, have heavily ‘toxed’, you might now consider ‘detoxing’. What I mean is that we have probably all over-indulged a bit over the holidays. Unless you were the guest of someone, you had to pay dearly for it (Champagne is not cheap!). And now, a whole industry of ‘detox’ entrepreneurs tells you to pay again – this time, for detox.
As you payed ‘through your nose’ for the ‘tox’, you might as well use the same orifice for the ‘detox’. An Indian tradition called Nasiyam (or Nasyam? or Nasya? – I am confused!) makes it possible. This website explains:
Nasal Instillation (Nasyam) is the practice of instilling medicated oils, fresh juices of leaves or flowers in the nostrils … Nasyam is specially directed towards the purification of various parts related to the head…
I don’t know about you, but I always felt that all my parts were related to my head! So, Nasyam is for purification of all my parts? The announcement below – I picked it up on Twitter – is much clearer: detox through the nasal doorway! Who would refuse such an offer after the festivities of late?
This sounds fascinating, I thought. Thus I ran a quick Medline search but only found this abstract:
Ardita (facial paralysis) is a medical condition that disfigures or distorts the facial appearance of the sufferer causing facial asymmetry and malfunction. Ardita patients may benefit from considering alternative treatments such as Ayurveda, including Taila Nasya (nasal instillation of medicated oil).
To synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of different Nasya oils in the treatment of Ardita.
INCLUSION CRITERIA TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS:
Studies conducted on adult sufferers (18-70 years) of Ardita (chronic or acute) in any setting were considered. Studies including participants who were pregnant or suffered allergic rhinitis, fever, intracranial tumor/hemorrhage and bilateral facial palsy were excluded.
Standalone treatment of Nasya (at all dosages and frequencies) compared to Nasya in combination with other Ayurvedic treatments was considered. Comparisons between different interventions including Taila Nasya alone, Taila Nasya in combination with other Ayurvedic interventions and Ayurvedic interventions that did not include Taila Nasya were also considered.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:
Changes in Ardita symptoms, including facial distortion, speech disorders and facial pain, were measured.
TYPES OF STUDIES:
All quantitative study designs (experimental, quasi-experimental and observational) were considered.
Relevant studies were identified following a comprehensive literature search. References provided within these key studies identified additional resources. Indian universities were also contacted for results of Ardita studies undertaken in their institutions.A three-step search strategy aimed to find studies of published and unpublished studies was undertaken. Studies published in the English language were considered for inclusion, irrespective of publication date/year. Following an initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL, the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe each articles were analyzed. From the identified keywords and index terms, searches were undertaken across all relevant databases such as PubMed, CINHAL, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Scopus, Centre for Review and Dissemination databases, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), EMBASE, EBM Reviews, DHARA, Google Scholar, MedNar and ProQuest Dissertations. Finally, reference lists of identified theses and articles were searched for additional studies. Universities and website operators related to Ayurvedic research in India were contacted, including the National Institute of Ayurveda for relevant studies. Besides this, the University of Adelaide librarian was contacted to retrieve those studies identified in the reference lists of theses and articles.
Studies were critically assessed by the review author and a secondary reviewer prior to inclusion in the review using the standardized critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute.
Data was extracted by the primary reviewer using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute.
Different interventions and comparators across studies precluded meta-analysis. Narrative synthesis was performed.
Only two pseudo randomized studies with a small number of participants met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. One study with 20 participants, divided equally into two groups compared the effectiveness of two nasal instillations in alleviating four Ardita symptoms. The second study of 15 participants each in two groups compared the effectiveness of nasal instillation with placement of medicated oil on the head on seven Ardita symptoms. Observational measurements of Ardita symptoms were graded as Mild, Moderate or Marked at baseline and after one month. The study conducted on 30 participants using Nasya intervention showed participants had better relief from the symptoms of facial pain, speech disorder and earache within the range of 78.2% to 90.9%, graded as Marked. Along with statistical data available in the studies, this review found low levels of evidence favoring Taila Nasya intervention. The review did not include any studies examining effectiveness of Nasya compared to conventional treatment for Ardita.
This review presents extremely limited evidence from only two small experimental studies that administration of Nasya oil alone may provide some relief from Ardita symptoms of facial distortion, speech disorder, inability to shut eyelids/upward eye rolling and dribbling of saliva in adult patients. No strong conclusions may be drawn from the evidence included in the review due to the limited number of studies, limited number of participants and poor quality of studies.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:
Practitioners should advice Ardita patients that there is extremely limited evidence suggesting the potential effectiveness of Nasya oils alone or Nasya in conjunction with other Ayurvedic treatments in managing symptoms. However, given the absence of a strong evidence base, practitioners should be guided by clinical wisdom and patient preference.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH:
Well controlled clinical trials comparing standalone Nasya therapy to other Ayurvedic treatments and/or conventional medicine for Ardita symptoms need to be conducted to examine the relative effectiveness of different Nasya oils in treating.
I think you agree, that’s nothing to write home about.
So, on second thought I might give Nasya (or whatever it is called) a miss. The same applies, by the way, to any other form of detox.
The current Cochrane review of clinical trials testing the effectiveness of manipulation/mobilisation for neck pain concluded as follows:
Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.
Such a critical assessment must be tough for chiropractors who gain a substantial part of their income from treating such patients. What is the solution? Simple, convene a panel of chiros and issue recommendations that are more prone to stimulate their cash flow!
Exactly that seems to have just happened.
The purpose of the researchers was to develop best-practice recommendations for chiropractic management of adults with neck pain.
A steering committee of experts in chiropractic practice, education, and research drafted a set of recommendations based on the most current relevant clinical practice guidelines. Additional supportive literature was identified through targeted searches conducted by a health sciences librarian. A national panel of chiropractors representing expertise in practice, research, and teaching rated the recommendations using a modified Delphi process. The consensus process was conducted from August to November 2018. Fifty-six panelists rated the 50 statements and concepts and reached consensus on all statements within 3 rounds.
The statements and concepts covered aspects of the clinical encounter, ranging from informed consent through diagnosis, assessment, treatment planning and implementation, and concurrent management and referral for patients presenting with neck pain.
The authors concluded that these best-practice recommendations for chiropractic management of adults with neck pain are based on the best available scientific evidence. For uncomplicated neck pain, including neck pain with headache or radicular symptoms, chiropractic manipulation and multimodal care are recommended.
Let’s be clear what this amounts to: a panel of highly selected chiropractors (sponsored by a chiropractic organisation) has reached a consensus (and published it in a chiropractic) which allows them to continue to treat patients with neck pain.
Isn’t that just great?
Now let’s think ahead – what next?
I suggest the following:
- A panel of homeopaths recommending homeopathy.
- A panel of faith healers recommending faith healing.
- A panel of crystal healers recommending crystal healing.
- A panel of colon therapists recommending colonic irrigation.
- A panel of supplement manufacturers recommending to buy supplements.
I am sure you get the gist.
Guest post by Richard Rasker
Almost two years ago, in March 2018, a group of 124 doctors and other medical professionals published an article in the French newspaper ‘Le Figaro’, warning the general public for the false promises, unproven claims and dangers of alternative medicine.
Homeopathy in particular is denounced as an unscientific belief in magic, utterly lacking in plausibility as well as in evidence of efficacy for any condition. Subjecting people to these kinds of unproven treatments is unethical, and may result in serious harm by delaying proper medical treatment. Also, homeopaths and other alternative practitioners often express anti-vaccine sentiments, endangering children by dissuading their parents from vaccination.
For these and several other reasons, these 124 medical professionals made an appeal for alternative and esoteric treatments to be excluded from the field of science-based medicine, and to stop reimbursement of homeopathic and other alternative treatments under France’s national health care insurance system.
In a somewhat belated response, French homeopaths are now filing no less than 63 disciplinary complaints with the French Medical Council against the signatories of the appeal in Le Figaro, apparently for “uncollegial behaviour” and “defiling medical ethics”. The homeopaths are represented by homeopathic doctor Daniel Scimeca, president of the French Federation of Homeopathic Societies, who also has close relations with Boiron laboratories, the biggest manufacturer of homeopathic products in the world.
At the time of this writing, 11 complaints have been adjudicated, resulting in 7 warnings, and 4 releases or dismissals. It is unclear how serious such a ‘warning’ should be taken, but it is clear that homeopaths are trying to punish real doctors for supporting and expressing an overwhelming scientific consensus, i.e. that there is no evidence whatsoever that homeopathy is actually good for anything.
And even though these French homeopaths do not resort to the sort of vile, underhanded media smear campaign perpetrated by the late Claus Fritzsche against Dr. Ernst, there are certain parallels – the most important of which is that proponents of unproven ‘medicine’ attempt to silence science-based criticism by unscientific means, instead of open discourse about the merits (or more precisely: the lack thereof) of their chosen profession.
I personally find it rather worrying that almost two-thirds of the complaints resulted in a slap on the wrist for the medical professional involved. Especially in a field that is so strongly dependent on both science and trust, well-founded criticism should be encouraged and made public, not punished and silenced.
At the heart of this story is Joseph Mercola, a dietary supplement entrepreneur and osteopath.
His website states that:
EVERYONE can benefit from Dr Mercola’s unparalleled knowledge. For expertise in alternative healthcare and high quality supplemental medicine, it’s hard to beat visionary Dr Joseph Mercola. The Chicago-based health wizard has his own website, Mercola.com (‘Take Control of Your Health’), but you can find so many of his health support products right here at Evolution Organics. Our customers swear by them. They love the diversity of the range, and that the products are priced affordably, meaning that everyone can benefit from Dr Mercola’s vast experience and unmatched know-how. And it’s not just men, women and children who can feel better ‘the Dr Mercola way’ – his brand includes health support products for pets, too.
However, an article in the Washington Post tells a different story; allow me to quote a few excerpts:
The National Vaccine Information Center was founded in 1982 by Barbara Loe Fisher, who has said that her son was injured by a vaccine. The group claimed credit this year for helping to defeat legislation in a dozen states that would have made it harder for parents to opt out of vaccinating their children. At the beginning of last year’s flu season, Fisher and Mercola appeared in a YouTube video urging people to be skeptical about flu shots. Mercola claimed that vaccines have been associated with “deaths and permanent neurological complications,” and he said vitamin D supplements were among “far more effective, less expensive and less risky alternatives.” … Fisher said in an interview that Mercola has asked for nothing in exchange for his donations and that the National Vaccine Information Center does not sell or advertise Mercola’s products on its site. “I do not take funding for a quid pro quo,” she said. “When [Mercola] called me, he said, ‘I admire your work. I’d like to help you.’ ” The center’s homepage, which the group says was visited more than 1.2 million times last year, displays Mercola.com’s logo. An affiliated website run by Fisher’s group refers numerous times to Mercola.com as one of the most popular health and wellness websites…
In recent years, the center has been at the forefront of a movement that has led some parents to forgo or delay immunizing their children against vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles… The Northern Virginia-based National Vaccine Information Center lists Mercola.com as a partner on its homepage and links to the website, where readers can learn about and purchase Mercola’s merchandise…Asked if his companies benefit from his donations to the anti-vaccine group, Mercola said in an email that “being an adversary to powerful industries is not a positive for a business like mine.” …
On this blog, I have repeatedly warned that many so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) practitioners recommend against vaccinations. Specifically implicated are:
- Physicians practising integrative medicine
- Doctors of anthroposophical medicine
We knew about the ‘ideology’ and the misinformation pushing SCAM-related anti-vaccination sentiments. The article in the Washington Post is a stark reminder of the financial interests behind all this. As a result, SCAM-use is associated with low vaccination-uptake (as we have discussed ad nauseam – see for instance here, here, here and here). Anyone who needs more information will find it by searching this blog. Anyone claiming that this is all my exaggeration might look at papers which have nothing to do with me (there are plenty more for those who are willing to conduct a Medline search):
- Lehrke P, Nuebling M, Hofmann F, Stoessel U. Attitudes of homeopathic physicians towards vaccination. Vaccine. 2001;19:4859–4864. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00180-3. [PubMed]
- Halper J, Berger LR. Naturopaths and childhood immunizations: Heterodoxy among the unorthodox. Pediatrics. 1981;68:407–410. [PubMed]
- Colley F, Haas M. Attitudes on immunization: A survey of American chiropractors. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 1994;17:584–590. [PubMed]