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

conflict of interest

1 2 3 66

Anthony Fauci is the American physician, scientist, and immunologist who serves as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President. I have never met him in person but, from all that I know about him, I have great respect for him and his work (he also happens to share with me a John Maddox Prize for standing up for science; he received it in 2020 and I in 2015). Not everyone, however, shares my admiration for Fauci.Image

This week Lara Logan, a host on Fox News’ streaming platform Fox Nation, confirmed Godwin’s law by comparing Dr. Anthony Fauci to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor who performed some of the most horrific experiments on Jewish twins at Auschwitz Concentration Camp during the Third Reich: “This is what people say to me: He doesn’t represent science,” the former “Logan of Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He represents Josef Mengele … the Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews during the Second World War in the concentration camps. And I am talking about people all across the world are saying this! Because the response from COVID. What it has done to countries everywhere. What it has done to civil liberties. The suicide rates. The poverty.”

She made the comment during an appearance on “Fox News Primetime,” following a rant about how there was “no justification for putting people out of their jobs or forcing mandates” for a disease that has death rates “that compare very much to seasonal flu.” (The death rate from COVID-19 is up to 10 times higher than that of most strains of the flu.)

Only hours after the comments by Logan, the Fox News host, Tucker Carlson has compared Dr Anthony Fauci to Italian fascist World War II dictator Benito Mussolini. Holocaust comparisons have become a common feature of protests against COVID-19 strategies. Conservative politicians and media personalities have repeatedly compared vaccine mandates and pandemic restrictions to the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.

The US is sadly not alone. In Germany and Austria, such comparisons between the atrocities of the Third Reich and COVID vaccinations have become common too. In Germany, this has gone so far that the judiciary is now taking action against people who compare Corona politics with the crimes of Nazis.

Personally, I find these comparisons not just stupid but despicable, and I agree that they should be outlawed. Journalists, in particular, must know that by employing this type of rhetoric, they act against all decency and undermine our efforts to protect the public from the pandemic. I, therefore, feel that Logan, Carlson, and anyone else who descends that low should be prosecuted.

The effectiveness of manipulation versus mobilization for the management of spinal conditions, including cervicogenic headache, is conflicting, and a pragmatic approach comparing manipulation to mobilization has not been examined in a patient population with cervicogenic headache.

This study evaluated the effectiveness of manipulation compared to mobilization applied in a pragmatic fashion for patients with cervicogenic headache.

Forty-five (26 females) patients with cervicogenic headache were randomly assigned to receive either pragmatically selected manipulation or mobilization. Outcomes were measured at baseline, the second visit, discharge, and 1-month follow-up. The endpoints of the study included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), the Global Rating of Change (GRC), the Patient Acceptable Symptoms Scale (PASS). The primary outcome measures were the effects of treatment on disability and pain. They were examined with a mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment group (manipulation versus mobilization) as the between-subjects variable and time (baseline, 48 hours, discharge, and follow-up) as the within-subjects variable.

The interaction for the mixed model ANOVA was not statistically significant for NDI (p = 0.91), NPRS (p = 0.81), or HIT (p = 0.89). There was no significant difference between groups for the GRC or PASS.

The authors concluded that manipulation has similar effects on disability, pain, GRC, and cervical range of motion as mobilization when applied in a pragmatic fashion for patients with cervicogenic headaches.

Essentially, this study is an equivalence trial comparing one treatment to another. As such it would need a much larger sample size than the 45 patients enrolled by the investigators. If, however, we ignored this major flaw and assumed the results are valid, they would be consistent with both manipulation and mobilization being pure placebos.

I can imagine that many chiropractors find this conclusion unacceptable. Therefore, let me offer an alternative: both approaches were equally effective. Therefore, mobilization, which is associated with far fewer risks, is preferable. This means that patients suffering from cervicogenic headache should see an osteopath who is less likely to use manipulation than a chiropractor.

And again, I can imagine that many chiropractors find this conclusion unacceptable.

The complex links between so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and the pandemic have been a regular subject on this blog. Here is more:

This study investigated if people’s response to the official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with conspiracy beliefs related to COVID-19, a distrust in the sources providing information on COVID-19, and an endorsement of SCAM.

The sample consisted of 1325 Finnish adults who filled out an online survey advertised on Facebook. Structural regression analysis was used to investigate whether:

1) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of SCAM predict people’s response to the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic,

2) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM are related to people’s willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine.

The results indicate that individuals with more conspiracy beliefs and lower trust in information sources were less likely to have a positive response to the NPIs. Individuals with less trust in information sources and more endorsement of SCAM were more unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Distrust in information sources was the strongest and most consistent predictor in all models. In addition, the analyses revealed that some of the people who respond negatively to the NPIs also have a lower likelihood to take the vaccine. This association was partly related to lower trust in information sources.

The authors concluded that distrusting the establishment to provide accurate information, believing in conspiracy theories, and endorsing treatments and substances that are not part of conventional medicine, are all associated with a more negative response to the official guidelines during COVID-19. How people respond to the guidelines, however, is more strongly and consistently related to the degree of trust they feel in the information sources than to their tendency to hold conspiracy beliefs or endorse CAM. These findings highlight the need for governments and health authorities to create communication strategies that build public trust.

I also believe that these findings highlight the urgent need for improvements in education. In my view, it should start at school and continue into adult life. It should focus on a better understanding of science and – crucially – on the ability to differentiate facts from fiction and conspiracies.

Steiner (Waldorf) schools, like anthroposophical medicine, are the inventions of Rudolf Steiner. His followers have often been associated with rampant anti-vax sentiments. Yet, officially such beliefs are usually denied.

A few days ago, I came across this tweet:

Der Dachverband der anthroposophischen Medizin begrüßt Corona-Impfungen… & distanziert sich von Querdenken und Co. Steiner war selbst gegen Pocken geimpft und ließ impfen. 

As it is in German, allow me to translate it for you:

The umbrella organization of anthroposophical medicine welcomes corona vaccinations… & distances itself from lateral thinking and co. Steiner himself was vaccinated against smallpox and had it vaccinated.

Almost simultaneously, it was reported that, after the Corona outbreak at a Freiburg Steiner school with more than 100 people infected, it is now certain: the certificates presented to the school for exemption from wearing masks were invalid.

During circus performances at the Steiner school in Freiburg, more than 100 people had become infected with the coronavirus in October: among them pupils, teachers, and contact persons. Therefore, the school inspectorate of the Freiburg Regional Council examined the certificates that freed people from the obligation to wear masks at school for health reasons. Heike Spannagel, a spokeswoman for the Freiburg Regional Council, called the results surprising. There were 55 certificates, 52 from pupils and three from teachers – and all of them were invalid. Heike Spannagel added that the school will no longer recognize any of the certificates. Those who cannot present new certificates that are more convincing will therefore have to wear the mask, Spannagel said.

It was noticeable that many certificates came from (far remote) private clinics in Bavaria or Berlin. In addition, a Freiburg doctor had exempted pupils from the obligation to wear a mask with identical justifications. According to the regional council, however, justifications must be individually tailored. In the meantime, the public prosecutor’s office in Freiburg has requested documents from the regional council in order to initiate an investigation.

So, what has been going on?

To me, it looks like the Steiner school was tolerating or even encouraging the use of dodgy certificates. This contrasts somewhat with the tweet cited above. And, in turn, this seems to indicate that proponents of anthroposophy say one thing about COVID and then do something entirely different. This suspicion was strengthened by a tweet that appeared a little while later as a response to the tweet cited above:

Alle Anhänger der Anthroposophie, die ich kenne, sind nicht geimpft. Es ist ja schön, wenn diese Verbände das öffentlich so verkünden. Die Praxis sieht leider anders aus.

Allow me to translate again:

All the followers of anthroposophy that I know are not vaccinated. It is nice when these associations proclaim this publicly. Unfortunately, the practice looks different.

The following press release was published by the AMA on 16/11/2021. I consider it sufficiently relevant to re-publish it here in full and, as it is entirely self-explanatory, without further comment:

At its Special Meeting today, the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates approved a resolution stating that only licensed physicians should determine whether a person should receive a medical exemption from vaccines.

The policy comes in the wake of tens of thousands of people seeking exemptions to state and municipal COVID mandates, contending they have medical reasons for remaining unvaccinated. The new policy states that only licensed physicians should have the medical authority and the power to grant these exemptions.

“Vaccine hesitancy has played an unfortunate role in extending the COVID-19 public emergency. Failing to get vaccinated has resulted in tragic and unnecessary deaths. To protect everyone, we must be sure that a trained, licensed physician is making the judgment on whether a person actually warrants an exemption,” said Willie Underwood III, M.D., M.Sc., M.P.H., a member of the AMA Board of Trustees.

The definition of “medical authority” varies from state to state, with some states allowing alternative practitioners, such as naturopathic providers, to approve vaccine exemptions. Surveys have shown that naturopathic providers and other alternative medicine providers (such as homeopaths and chiropractors) are less likely to recommend vaccines—or even recommend against vaccines—despite scientific evidence of safety and efficacy.

“State policymakers need to limit the definition to physicians who have the training necessary to recognize a medical condition that prevents a patient from receiving a vaccine,” Dr. Underwood said. “We shouldn’t jeopardize public health by listening to unlicensed and untrained providers.”

The AMA already has policy opposing nonmedical (religious, philosophic, or personal belief) exemptions from immunizations, since such exemptions endanger the health of the unvaccinated individual and the health of the community at large. The AMA supports the immunization recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for all individuals without medical contraindications. It also supports legislation eliminating nonmedical immunization exemptions and encourages state medical associations to seek removal of nonmedical exemptions in states requiring mandatory immunizations.

“One of the unfortunate side effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and misinformation around it is the questioning of vaccine efficacy even though vaccines have nearly wiped out diseases that once plagued us. Physicians must make the argument clearly and loudly based on the science: Vaccines save lives,” Underwood said.

Long-COVID syndrome is a condition that will affect a large proportion of those who survived a COVID-19 infection. According to a recent meta-analysis, it is associated predominantly with poor quality of life, persistent symptoms including fatigue, dyspnea, anosmia, sleep disturbances, and mental health problems.

At present, we are still struggling to understand the exact causes and mechanisms of this condition. Therefore, its optimal treatment is as yet uncertain. Governments around the world have therefore made sizable research funds available to make progress in this area, and research in this area is frantically active.

Regardless of the evidence, practitioners and entrepreneurs of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are gearing up to jump on this bandwagon by declaring that their offerings are a solution to this growing problem. Indeed, many of them have already done so. Here are just three sites that I found today which are promoting homeopathy for long COVID:

One hardly needs to mention that homeopathy is not supported by sound evidence in the management of long-Covid (or any other condition for that matter). Neither does one need to stress that homeopaths are just one example, and virtually all other SCAM providers are promoting their services in the absence of evidence.

A recent review of the literature stated this:

Patients with long COVID commonly refer to taking ‘the stack’ or ‘the supplement stack’, which includes high-dose vitamin C and D, niacin (nicotinic acid), quercetin, zinc, selenium, and sometimes also magnesium. Further research is needed to confirm or refute the impact of supplements in long COVID. Examples of noteworthy interactions with supplements include: niacin causing an increased risk of bleeding events when combined with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, increased risk of rhabdomyolysis together with statins, and quercetin causing inhibition and induction of various human cytochrome P450 enzymes.

Why then are SCAM providers promoting SCAM for long-COVID?

This is a daft question if there ever was one.

It seems obvious they do it because:

  • they are believers who don’t care about evidence,
  • they are in it for the money,
  • or both.

Some time ago, this homeopath already indicated, that SCAM providers should see COVID as an opportunity: For homeopathy, shunned during its 200 years of existence by conventional medicine, this outbreak is a key opportunity to show potentially the contribution it can make in treating COVID-19 patients. We should perhaps not hold our breath to see the emergence of convincing evidence, but we should be prepared to warn the public of getting exploited by charlatans who disregard both ethics and evidence.

Equine-assisted therapies (EAT) are sometimes used for improving the physical function and the quality of life (QoL) of people (often children) with disabilities through the practice of hippotherapy or therapeutic riding (TR). Yet, the effectiveness for or against these approaches has so far not been well documented.

This review aimed to systematically evaluate and meta-analyze the available data on the potential health benefits of EAT in patients with multiple sclerosis (PwMS).

Four electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus) were searched systematically from their inception until June 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies that provided information regarding the effects of EAT on PwMS. The studies’ methodological quality assessment was performed using the PEDro and the MINORS scales. For the meta-analysis, heterogeneity across studies was quantified using the I2 statistic. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to obtain the pooled results in the case of low (I2 < 30%) or high (I2 > 30%) heterogeneity values, respectively. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the change in each outcome.

After removing duplicated studies, 234 results were retrieved by the literature search and 11 were eligible for full text search. Finally, 9 studies with a methodological quality ranging from good to low quality met the inclusion criteria. Six of them focused on hippotherapy and 4 of them were included in the quantitative analysis.

In them, a total of 225 PwMS patients were evaluated. Findings from the meta-analysis indicated that this therapy improved static (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.78) but not dynamic balance (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI: -0.04, 1.06), while significant benefits were observed on the patients’ QoL (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.73). Hippotherapy showed effectiveness for reducing self-perceived fatigue (SMD = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.33, 1.07), while TR showed mixed effects on balance and QoL.

The authors concluded that the actual evidence on the effectiveness of EAT in PwMS is mainly limited to hippotherapy. This rehabilitation approach seems to have beneficial effects on static balance, QoL and fatigue, but not directly on gait and dynamic balance. Altogether, the findings suggest that hippotherapy could be incorporated as a complementary therapy when developing comprehensive care plans for PwMS.

These results are further supported by a new study concluding that Hippotherapy improved postural balance, functional mobility, fatigue, and quality of life in people with relapsing-remitting MS. This suggests that hippotherapy may be a useful approach for complementary treatment among people with MS.

EAT is, of course, one of those modalities which are difficult to research. What, for instance, is a good control intervention? And how can one blind the patient? Moreover, EAT is expensive and required lots of resources that are rarely available. Considering these issues, one should perhaps ask whether EAT is sufficiently better than other therapeutic options to justify the cost.

Guest post by Richard Rasker

Last summer, I strolled through my garden, enjoying the abundance of flowers and insects. At the far end, the garden gave way to shrubs and reedy grass and a tiny pond that, contrary to past years, hadn’t dried out completely yet.

And right there, at the water’s edge, is where I stumbled upon IT.

At first I thought the small white object was a twig or something similar, but upon closer inspection it turned out to be a small bone – looking remarkably like a human femur, albeit a bit eroded. So I looked around in the vicinity, to see if I could find any more bones. This was not the case, but what I DID find was even more breathtaking: a slender, 2-inch long gauze-like wing.

Immediately a mind-blowing realization dawned: there are fairies in the back of my garden!

Of course I had to be careful not to get carried away based on this single observation, so I spent the following months painstakingly searching for more corroborating evidence. And what I found was astounding: at least a dozen similar bones and wings, and even a very small tuft of brownish hair. And the bogs and marshes a few miles from my home proved an even richer treasure trove. Of course I also identified remains of numerous dead animals, mostly mice and other small rodents, but the femur-like bones I found were definitely too long for mice.

So I can now safely reveal my findings: fairies do exist after all! This is truly world-shattering!

Now what does this have to do with homeopathy, one may ask? The answer is simple: the gathering of evidence for the viability of homeopathy (and many other alternative modalities) is fully analogous to the way that I found scientific evidence for the existence of fairies:

  • People (scientists or homeopaths) believe that they stumbled upon something special.
  • They almost immediately consider their finding as either a type of revelation, or as something that lends strong support to their prior belief.
  • They then set out to gather more evidence in support of the phenomenon they found, thus affirming their belief.
  • And after a lot of painstaking work, the conclusion is reached that the observed phenomenon indeed exists!

Recently, a commenter on this blog tried to bolster the validity of homeopathy by naming a couple of scientists who did exactly this: they started believing in homeopathy, not because of proper clinical trials with homeopathic medicines, but because of revelation-type experiences, or because of hypotheses and/or observations that appeared to explain and support one important prerequisite of homeopathy, the so-called ‘water memory’.

These scientists come up with all sorts of hypothetical mechanisms how this water memory is supposed to work. Usually, quantum physics is invoked – even though real quantum physicists are unanimous in condemning this as nonsense, because quantum physics doesn’t work the way that homeopaths say it does. Nevertheless, these believers in homeopathy come up with ‘explanations’ that involve entanglement, or ‘coherence domains’, or stable nanostructures in water. And there are still lots of other mechanisms dreamed up by believers in homeopathy that aim to explain the all-important water memory.

First of all, most of these hypotheses are completely bonkers, without any real-world evidence to back up the suggestions and claims made – and none of these scientists have so far succeeded in distinguishing an arbitrary homeopathic dilution from plain water, even though some claim that they can find minute differences for a few very specific substances. Just too bad that these results have not been replicated by other scientists, and that they have not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. And even if these results are legitimate, the effect found is absolutely tiny – just like all other homeopathic research with positive results.

But for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that these findings with regard to water memory are real (although no two researchers agree on even the basics of the purported mechanisms). Does this provide enough evidence to make us accept that homeopathy is a viable system of medicine?

No, of course it doesn’t!

Even if water would retain certain ‘nanostructures’ or ‘coherence domains’ or ‘quantum-entangled particles’, this means just that: that an almost undetectable ‘something’ apparently persists in water. It says NOTHING about how this tiny something can have a huge range of highly specific therapeutic effects, necessitating a hugely intricate structure (of which not a trace has ever been found). It says nothing about how this something finds its way from the water to the specific parts of the body to exert those beneficial effects, or about the way that this something interacts with the organism. It does not tell us why this something only ends up in water if it is shaken, or why this something becomes more potent with higher dilutions, or how this something can pass from homeopathic water to sugar pellets while retaining its very special water-based(!) structure – or why, in spite of this all, literally nobody can distinguish a homeopathic dilution from plain water.

Saying that the existence of water memory proves that homeopathy is real is like saying that the existence of those bones and wings I found proves that fairies exist. It is a totally unwarranted inference, and an excellent example of, in the words of Dr. Harriet Hall, Tooth Fairy science: these people spend lots of time, effort and money doing very serious research into all sorts of mechanisms and effects to explain how homeopathy works, but totally neglect to answer the primary question first: does homeopathy work at all? And even worse: these people think that the tiniest glimmer of an effect supporting their hypothesis immediately proves all of homeopathy right. Which is not so much jumping to conclusions, but making leaps of astronomical proportions that would have made even Neil Armstrong jealous. This is not how science works.

For homeopathy, I think that the primary question is answered pretty definitively: even after 227 years, homeopaths have not succeeded in coming up with even ONE ‘remedy’ that is efficacious beyond a shadow of a doubt. NOT ONE.

And to add insult to injury, nothing in science even remotely supports the very core tenets of homeopathy, the similia principle and the law of infinitesimals. ‘Like’ does NOT ‘cure like’, and higher dilutions most certainly were never found to become more potent medicines – quite the contrary, as is observed on a daily basis literally everywhere.

Most other ancient and traditional forms of medicine have come up with at least some treatments or herbs that turned out to have scientifically proven efficacy and have become part of modern medicine – but not homeopathy. Homeopathy DOES NOT WORK, PERIOD.

(Although, to be fair, homeopathy has given us one important insight with regard to medicine: that for many ailments, simply doing nothing is often the best choice. Because most conditions resolve naturally, without medical intervention.)

On a friendlier note: I do not think that those people who study water memory mechanisms and other similarly elusive effects are useless as scientists. Their painstaking research into things like nanostructures in water may one day produce interesting and useful new scientific insights. But it would benefit them greatly if they would distance themselves from homeopathy and its associated pseudoscience, because that is truly a dead-end street, bringing them nothing but scorn and derision.

And oh, about those bones and wings that I said I found? Those were of course likely from frogs and dragonflies, respectively. Or maybe I was the victim of a prank, or maybe I simply made up the whole story. Believe what you will, but you probably agree with me that almost any explanation one can think of is more likely than the fairy scenario. And this again is analogous to homeopathy: almost any explanation one can think of is more plausible than the explanation that mere shaking and diluting magically transforms water into a highly specific medicine.

There are many fans of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) who think that vitamin C is the answer to COVID (and many other ailments). Here, for instance, is a press release from Damien Downing (we already encountered him in my last post):

Vitamin C and COVID-19 Coronavirus

by Damien Downing, MBBS, MRSB and Gert Schuitemaker, PhD

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Feb 28, 2020

There is only one existing treatment for the new coronavirus: vitamin C.

Vitamin C supports your immune system. Vitamin C helps to kill the virus and reduces the symptoms of infection. It’s not a COVID “cure,” but nothing is. It might just save your life, though, and will definitely reduce the severity of the infection.

If someone tells you it’s not proven, consider two things:

    1. Nothing is proven to work against COVID-19, because it is a new virus.
    2. Vitamin C has worked against every single virus including influenzas, pneumonia, and even poliomyelitis.

What to do

If you do nothing else, start taking vitamin C right away; at least 3 grams a day, spread right across the day. That’s a 1,000 milligram capsule every 8 hours, or a level teaspoon of powder dissolved in a pint or so of water, drank all through the day.

If you’re smart and motivated, do all the other things recommended in our previous release Vitamin C Protects Against Coronavirus (http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v16n04.shtml)

When and if you catch a bug that might be COVID-19, simply increase your vitamin C intake: a rounded teaspoon (that’s 4 to 5 grams) in water (which helps to keep you hydrated) every 3 or 4 hours. And keep on taking it.

Do you consult a doctor? Do you self-isolate? Yes and yes. Of course you do; that’s your duty to others.

Vitamin C and the other measures are what you do for yourself…

Damien Downing’s press release did not age all that well, I fear. The evidence to support his claims is not just flimsy, it is negative. Let me show you the most recent (October 2021) systematic review of the subject:

Background and aims: Vitamin C has been used as an anti-oxidant in various diseases including viral illnesses like coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

Methods: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating the role of vitamin C supplementation in COVID-19 was carried out.

Results: Total 6 RCTs including n = 572 patients were included. Vitamin C treatment didn’t reduce mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.27; I2 = 0%; P = 0.27), ICU length of stay [SMD 0.29, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.63; I2 = 0%; P = 0.09), hospital length of stay (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.58; I2 = 92%; P = 0.57) and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; P = 0.76). Further sub-group analysis based on severity of illness (severe vs. non-severe), route of administration (IV vs. oral) and dose (high vs. low) failed to show any observable benefits.

Conclusion: No significant benefit noted with vitamin C administration in COVID-19. Well-designed RCTs with standardized control group needed on this aspect.

What does that tell us?

I think it suggests three things:

  • Damien Downing might be suffering from proctophasia,
  • we would be ill-advised to follow the advice of such pseudo-experts,
  • vitamin C is not the solution to COVID-19 infections.

‘Survive Cancer’ is a UK charity that promotes and researches orthomolecular medicine in the treatment of cancer, septic shock, mental health, and other illnesses. They claim to provide information about research and trials and a multi-pronged treatment approach for sufferers of cancer. Specifically for cancer, they recommend the following ‘top ten‘ so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs):

  • Gerson
  • Vitamin C therapy
  • Anti-angiogenic therapy
  • Immunotherapy
  • Photodynamic-/Photo-therapy
  • Melatonin
  • Bisphosphonates (for bone cancer)
  • Coley’s toxins
  • Salvestrols
  • Pain management

Interesting?

Yes, because it is misleading to the extreme. Here, for example, is what they say about an old favorite of mine (and of Prince Charles):

Gerson Therapy

Max Gerson was a German doctor who in the early twentieth century devised an anti-cancer diet and regime based on radically altering the sodium/potassium ratio in the body for the better, thus allowing optimal cellular functions, and nutrition, coupled with intensive detoxification through the use of coffee enemas.

Coffee enemas (see Detox, in First Steps, 5 Rs of Cancer Survival,) are a scientifically established, and medically accepted, way of stimulating the production of glutathione-s-transferases, a major liver detoxifying enzyme family. The diet is vegetarian, low in protein, with fresh organic fruit and vegetable juices daily, and certain specified supplements, such as potassium, niacin and vitamin C. At the end of his life Gerson testified before Congress with the details of 50 cases he had cured. His daughter, Charlotte, has continued Gerson’s work in the U.S. However, she has not made an attempt to integrate modern nutritional state-of-the-art knowledge into the therapy. This is being done by Gar Hildebrand. A retrospective study showed that the Gerson therapy is much more effective than chemotherapy for ovarian cancer and melanoma, both particularly aggressive forms of cancer. Gerson himself had notable successes with various kinds of brain tumour, even after some neurological damage had occurred. Orthomolecular Oncology suggests combining Immunopower with Gerson as an update. We can also cite a remarkable case of a 11 year remission in Multiple Myeloma, another fast-moving, relentless cancer without conventional cure, otherwise conventionally untreated, achieved through a combination of Gerson and modern orthomolecular approaches. Gerson is a powerful, comprehensive therapy, still capable of producing cures, even in its unmodulated form. However, it requires great discipline, time, and extra assistance. Read Gerson’s book and/or contact the Gerson Institute for further details.

One does not need to be a genius to predict that cancer patients following this sort of advice, will significantly shorten their lives, diminish their quality of life and empty their bank account. One does, however, need to be a genius to predict when the UK charity commission is finally going to do something about the many UK charities that prey on vulnerable cancer patients.

PS

I almost forgot: the patrons of this charity are:

1 2 3 66
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