conflict of interest
Supportive care is often assumed to be beneficial in managing the anxiety symptoms common in patients in sterile hematology unit. The authors of this study hypothesize that personal massage can help the patient, particularly in this isolated setting where physical contact is extremely limited.
The main objective of this study therefore was to show that anxiety could be reduced after a touch-massage performed by a nurse trained in this therapy.
A single-center, randomized, unblinded controlled study in the sterile hematology unit of a French university hospital, validated by an ethics committee. The patients, aged between 18 and 65 years old, and suffering from a serious and progressive hematological pathology, were hospitalized in sterile hematology unit for a minimum of three weeks. They were randomized into either a group receiving 15-minute touch-massage sessions or a control group receiving an equivalent amount of quiet time once a week for three weeks.
In the treated group, anxiety was assessed before and after each touch-massage session, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaire with subscale state (STAI-State). In the control group, anxiety was assessed before and after a 15-minute quiet period. For each patient, the difference in the STAI-State score before and after each session (or period) was calculated, the primary endpoint was based on the average of these three differences. Each patient completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Questionnaire before the first session and after the last session.
Sixty-two patients were randomized. Touch-massage significantly decreased patient anxiety: a mean decrease in STAI-State scale score of 10.6 [7.65-13.54] was obtained for the massage group (p ≤ 0.001) compared with the control group. The improvement in self-esteem score was not significant.
The authors concluded that this study provides convincing evidence for integrating touch-massage in the treatment of patients in sterile hematology unit.
I find this conclusion almost touching (pun intended). The wishful thinking of the amateur researchers is almost palpable.
Yes, I mean AMATEUR, despite the fact that, embarrassingly, the authors are affiliated with prestigeous institutions:
- 1Nantes Université, CHU Nantes, Service Interdisciplinaire Douleur, Soins Palliatifs et de Support, Médecine intégrative, UIC 22, Nantes, F-44000, France.
- 2Université Paris Est, EA4391 Therapeutic and Nervous Excitability, Creteil, F-93000, France.
- 3Nantes Université, CHU Nantes, Hematology Department, Nantes, F-44000, France.
- 4Nantes Université, CHU Nantes, CRCI2NA – INSERM UMR1307, CNRS UMR 6075, Equipe 12, Nantes, F-44000, France.
- 5Institut Curie, Paris, France.
- 6Université Paris Versailles Saint-Quentin, Versailles, France.
- 7Nantes Université, CHU Nantes, Direction de la Recherche et l’Innovation, Coordination Générale des Soins, Nantes, F-44000, France.
- 8Methodology and Biostatistics Unit, DRCI CHU Nantes CHD Vendée, La Roche Sur Yon, F-85000, France.
- 9Nantes Université, CHU Nantes, Service Interdisciplinaire Douleur, Soins Palliatifs et de Support, Médecine intégrative, UIC 22, Nantes, F-44000, France. [email protected].
So, why do I feel that they must be amateurs?
- Because, if they were not amateurs, they would know that a clinical trial should not aim to show something, but to test something.
- Also, if they were not amateurs, they would know that perhaps the touch-massage itself had nothing to do with the outcome, but that the attention, sympathy and empathy of a therapist or a placebo effect can generate the observed effect.
- Lastly, if they were not amateurs, they would not speak of convincing evidence based on a single, small, and flawed study.
Guest post by Udo Endruscheit
Switzerland is probably the European country with the strangest complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) regulations in the health insurance system. A total of five different CAM methods have been included in the benefits catalogue of basic insurance for several years. However, this is subject to a strange proviso. How did this come about?
As almost everywhere in Europe, there was a desire in Switzerland in the 1990s to include CAM in the public healthcare system, with homeopathy naturally once again taking pole position. Initially, the urge to include five CAM modalities in basic care was granted, but only provisionally. A major project called the “Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme” (PEK) was launched in 1999 to evaluate the procedures. Even back then, the criteria of efficacy, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness were prerequisites for reimbursement in health insurance. PEK was intended to create clarity here.
One part of PEK has been the well-known Shang/Egger (2005) study on homeopathy “Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy”, which was to become a bone of contention without precedent. However, this did not change the negative result for homeopathy.
In any case, clear conclusions were drawn in Switzerland not only from this study, but also from the results of the other evaluations: the provisional inclusion of the methods in statutory basic insurance was terminated.
This in turn enraged the supporters of CAM methods, who thought they had already reached their goal with the provisional decision in their favour. Apparently, they had not even considered the possibility that scientific evaluations could actually lead to a sudden end to their wishes, which they believed had already been fulfilled.
In fact, in 2009, the friends of ineffective methods succeeded in bringing about one of the referendums for which Switzerland is known under the catchphrase “direct democracy”. And they prevailed – around two thirds of the votes cast were in favour of CAM and its inclusion in the Swiss Federal Constitution. However, it should be borne in mind that the two-thirds figure is put into perspective if the approval, including the low voter turnout, is converted to the proportion of the total electorate. This leaves just 17 per cent who voted for the CAM. And a closer look at the issue of the constitution also reveals that no unconditional protection space has been created for CAM. This is more or less a kind of good behaviour clause for CAM methods, but not rules that could render laws null and void.
The Swiss government was faced with the question of how to avoid simply ignoring the result of the referendum, while at the same time complying with the still valid requirements for reimbursement in basic insurance. So the representatives of the five CAM directions were actually asked to come to the Federal Office of Public Health with their proof of efficacy and economic efficiency. This was done in 2011.
Of course, this was a little bizarre at this stage – and of course nothing came of it. Or actually it did: once again, no proof could be provided. Meanwhile, a lot of time had passed again and a new Federal Council was forced to take up the matter.
The latter, Alain Berset, came up with the plan that the necessary proof of efficacy could actually be postponed until after the methods had been included in the catalogue of basic insurance benefits. In other words, he gave the methods a governmental leap of faith (which, in view of the long-year history of the case, meant closing several eyes) and postulated that this should be the matter until someone applied for an evaluation of one of the methods.
This is what happened in the year of our Lord 2017. Apparently everyone was able to make their peace with it, which is hardly surprising after ten years of moving around and around. Only the umbrella organisation of health insurers, Santesuisse, grumbled about it and predicted that the announced cost neutrality of such a measure could hardly be expected. Which Santesuisse did indeed prove in a dossier two years later.
The exhausted Swiss have so far left it at that. Homeopathy remained untouched. This was also unfortunate for the reason that the fairy tale of the clever and innovative Switzerland, which knew how important the wishes and preferences of its patients were, was propagated in Germany. The rather strange result of more than ten years of struggle was even passed around by German homeopaths under the name “Swiss model”. Even the leading Swiss press was embarrassed by this and published a clarifying article. And unfortunately, the Swiss began to get used to the existence of hocus-pocus in their basic insurance and to take it for granted.
Until now. Even in Switzerland, the fact that homeopathy is coming under increasing criticism everywhere has probably not gone unnoticed. And the Swiss are actually a rather critical and resistant people. And so it happened that a single brave inhabitant of the country recently decided to exercise his right to demand a new evaluation of homeopathy. The Federal Office of Public Health must have been surprised – or perhaps they were desperately waiting for it? Perhaps. In any case, the application was accepted without hesitation. Meanwhile, a notification has been issued that the hearing procedure for the evaluation has been initiated. The representatives of homeopathy (the service providers), the representatives of the Swiss medical profession and the representatives of the health insurance companies – the aforementioned Santesuisse – will be heard. The final decision will then be made by the Swiss government’s Department of Home Affairs.
How many attempts at an evaluation has this actually been – the third? The fourth? We can’t keep up … We have seen the consequences of scientific questions being decided by majorities. It is to be hoped that Switzerland will not add another chapter to the drama that has been going on since 2005. Mr Berset’s successor, who has been in office since the beginning of the year, should only be given a brief reminder: in Switzerland, too, homeopathy has no effect beyond contextual effects. And that is not enough to prove efficacy, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness.
But cheers to the courageous descendant of William Tell, who is about to single-handedly bring down homeopathy in the Swiss healthcare system!
The Austrian ‘Initiative für Wissenschaftliche Medizin‘ (Initiative for Scientific Medicine) did a great job by summarizing the non-scientific training events dedicated to pseudomedicine organized, supported or promoted by the ‘Österreichische Akademie der Ärzte‘ (Austrian Academy of Physicians), a partner of the Austrian Medical Association. They sorted them by date in descending order, listing the DFP points (points required for postgraduate education) awarded and the link to each specific event. The content of the programme of such events, if available, is also often “interesting”. The pseudomedicine methods are provided with links to psiram.com, where these methods are described in more detail.
So, restricting ourselves to the period of 20 years (2003-2023) and merely looking at a selection of all possible so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), we find in this treasure trove of quackery the following:
- Anthroposophic medicine – 218 events
- Homeopathy – 1 708 events
- Orthomolecular medicine – 645 events
- Neural therapy – 864 events
- TCM diagnostics – 1214 events
In total, thousands SCAM events were organized, supported or promoted by the Academy, and I am not aware of any national physicians’ organization that has done anywhere near as much for quackery.
On their website, the Austrian Academy of Physicians state that they were founded by the Austrian Medical Association as a non-profit organisation with the aim of promoting and further developing medical education in Austria… The aim is to lead the way in medical education issues in order to achieve continuous improvement in the medical profession. For the Academy, continuing medical education is an essential component of medical quality improvement…
This may sound alright but, in my view, it raises several questions, e,g,:
- Does the Academy believe that continuous improvement in the medical profession can be achieved by promoting, organizing or conducting such a huge amount of courses in quackery?
- Do they not know that this is the exact opposite of medical quality improvement?
- Are they aware of their ethical responsibility?
- Do they know that the promotion of quackery puts patients at risk?
- Have they heard of evidence-based education?
It is easy to criticize but less obvious to improve. In case the people responsible for postgraduate education at the Academy want to discuss these issues with me, I would therefore be delighted to do so, for instance, via a series of evidence-based lectures on SCAM.
If you live in the UK, it was impossible during the last week or so to escape the news that our King is going into hospital for a ‘corrective procedure’ on his benign prostate problem. Apparently, he is keen to share his diagnosis with the public to encourage other men who may be experiencing symptoms to get checked. “In common with thousands of men each year, the King has sought treatment for an enlarged prostate,” the official statement said.
According to the NHS website, the King should make lifestyle changes, such as:
- drinking less alcohol, caffeine and fizzy drinks
- limiting your intake of artificial sweeteners
- exercising regularly
- drinking less in the evening
Medicine to reduce the size of the prostate and relax your bladder may be recommended to treat moderate to severe symptoms of an enlarged prostate. Surgery is usually only recommended for moderate to severe symptoms that have not responded to medicine.
It is said that Charles had symptoms since Christmas. So, being the most outspoken fan of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), why has he not tried SCAM? Has he, for example, tried any of these treatments that have reported at least in one or more studies some promise?:
- Camelia sinensis (green or black tea),
- Solanum lycopersicum (common tomato),
- Punica granatum (pomegranate),
- Glycine max (common soy),
- Linum usitatissimum (linen),
- Ellagic acid,
- Saw palmetto,
- Pumpkin seed,
- Willow herb,
- Maritime pine bark,
- Pygeum africanum bark,
- Rye pollen,
- Nettle root,
- Dozens of Chinese herbs,
- Acupuncture,
- Homeopathy.
It seems not!
But why not?
Why does the world’s greatest SCAM enthusiast not go for his beloved natural cures and ancient wisdom?
Has Charles been advised that the studies are flimsy and the evidence is unconvincing (in that case, well-done Michael!)? I might have given the same advice. Yet, this begs the question, why are he and his head of the royal medical household, Dr Michael Dixon, fiercely in favor of SCAM? Is the evidence for other conditions any better?
Michael, in case you read this: it is not – trust me, I have studied the subject for >30 years.
Anyway, I would probably have consulted a surgeon too, if I had Charles’ problem. Yet, there is an important difference: I (in common with thousands of men) have to join the UK waiting list which currently stands at around 8 000 000.
Yes, I do try to understand that the King is the King and that I am far less of a priority.
The King is special!
The King deserves special, non-NHS treatment!
But scientific evidence is the scientific evidence, no matter whether it relates to SCAM or surgery. So, why does the King (and Dixon) promote SCAM when he himself does evidently not trust it?
Motor aphasia is common among patients with stroke. Acupuncture is recommended by TCM enthusiasts as a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for poststroke aphasia, but its efficacy remains uncertain.
JAMA just published a study that investigated the effects of acupuncture on language function, neurological function, and quality of life in patients with poststroke motor aphasia.
The study was designed as a multicenter, sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial. It was conducted in 3 tertiary hospitals in China from October 21, 2019, to November 13, 2021. Adult patients with poststroke motor aphasia were enrolled. Data analysis was performed from February to April 2023.
Eligible participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to manual acupuncture (MA) or sham acupuncture (SA) groups. Both groups underwent language training and conventional treatments.
The primary outcomes were the aphasia quotient (AQ) of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) and scores on the Chinese Functional Communication Profile (CFCP) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included WAB subitems, Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale, Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale–39, and Health Scale of Traditional Chinese Medicine scores at 6 weeks and 6 months after onset. All statistical analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
Among 252 randomized patients (198 men [78.6%]; mean [SD] age, 60.7 [7.5] years), 231 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (115 in the MA group and 116 in the SA group). Compared with the SA group, the MA group had significant increases in AQ (difference, 7.99 points; 95% CI, 3.42-12.55 points; P = .001) and CFCP (difference, 23.51 points; 95% CI, 11.10-35.93 points; P < .001) scores at week 6 and showed significant improvements in AQ (difference, 10.34; 95% CI, 5.75-14.93; P < .001) and CFCP (difference, 27.43; 95% CI, 14.75-40.10; P < .001) scores at the end of follow-up.
The authors concluded that in this randomized clinical trial, patients with poststroke motor
aphasia who received 6 weeks of MA compared with those who received SA demonstrated
statistically significant improvements in language function, quality of life, and neurological
impairment from week 6 of treatment to the end of follow-up at 6 months after onset.
I was asked by the SCIENCE MEDIC CENTRE to provide a short comment. This is what I stated:
Superficially, this looks like a rigorous trial. We should remember, however, that several groups, including mine, have shown that very nearly all Chinese acupuncture studies report positive results. This suggests that the reliability of these trials is less than encouraging. Moreover, the authors state that real acupuncture induced ‘de chi’, while sham acupuncture did not. This shows that the patients were not blinded and the outcomes might easily be due to a placebo response.
Here, I’d like to add two further points:
- We have learnt that the vast majority of research coming out of China is fabricated.
- I think it is lamentable that a journal of high standing is not more critical and repeatedly falls for such suspect acupuncture studies.
A we have heard from our homeopathic friend, Dana Ullaman, homeopathy works well for plants. Unfortunatley, he was unable to provide any good evidence for his claim. To show what a nice guy I am, I herewith help him out and present a recent study on the subject:
Given the seasonal climatic characteristics, forest fires in “cerrado” areas in Central Brazil are not infrequently, with permanent damage. Due to its physicochemical qualities acting in biological regulation processes, water has been considered the primary vehicle for propagating signals from homeopathic ingredients, as suggested by previous studies carried out with solvatochromic dyes. Therefore, such inputs could, in theory, be inserted into watercourses to stimulate the regeneration of the biome destroyed by fire. This hypothesis motivated this case study.
A slow dispersion device was developed aiming at promoting continuous environmental regeneration, containing hydrocolloid and calcium carbonate as a solid base soaked in a homeopathic complex specifically designed for this purpose, composed of Arsenicum album, Arnica montana, Staphysagria, Ignatia amara, and Phosphorus, all at 30cH. The case occurred in Nascentes do Rio Taquari Park, between Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul state, Brazil. It is a “cerrado” area, with multiple springs that feed the Paraguay River, occupying an area of 26,849 hectares over the Guarani and Bauru aquifers.
After the fire in early September 2020, the devices were fixed at 9 strategic points in the park (P1 to P9) over 10 days, between September 29, and October 11, 2020, in water courses close to the main springs. To assess the restoration signs of the post-fire environment, the technicians responsible for monitoring the park made observations of flora and fauna recomposition in different locations close to four device-insertion points (P3, P5, P7, P8).
Signs of recovery were observed 40 days after the fire was over. A rapid pioneer plant restructuring was noted, with a significant regrowth of grass, herbaceous and shrub species, such as Mutamba (Guazuma ulmifolia), Murici (Byrsonima spp.), Inga (Inga sp.), Brachiaria (Brachiaria sp.), Jaraguá grass (Hyparrhenia rufa), Colonião grass (Panicum maximum), Gabiroba (Campomanesia sp.), and Pixirica (Miconia sp.). Some species, such as Mimosa (Mimosa sp.), Colonião grass (Panicum maximum), and Jaraguá grass (Hyparrhenia rufa), were not detected in the area before the fire, probably by the seed bank stimulation caused by the heat. There was rapid forest regeneration (4 months after the fire) and restoration of most of the burned trees, both for resisting the fire and for being free of invasive species highly aggressive to native plants, which were controlled by the action of fire. Concerning the fauna, a vast animal population was detected, especially birds, highlighting the “Tuiuiú” (Jabiru mycteria) and “Socó” (Tigrisoma lineatum) close to a water body with a waterfall area (P3). Both species belong to the “Pantanal” biome close to the park. Such species began to frequent the park’s lakes, being observed until February 2023 (the last survey date). The park’s inventory of lichens and fungi showed an unusual tolerance to fire in species that adhered to burned trees and remained active.
In this way, it is suggested that installing slow dispersion devices in watercourses can contribute to the regeneration of other “cerrado” biome areas subjected to fire, protecting the local biodiversity. More studies of this nature are needed to know the real impact of this method on the recovery of different biomes.
Convinced?
I suspect Dana might be (he seems to be particularly prone to confirmation bias) – but rational thinkers do probably have questions; let me just mention two:
- Was there a control area with which the findings were compared?
- Was the outcome measure objective?
As the answers are NO and NO, I fear that we need to disappoint Dana yet again:
homeopathy is a placebo treatment no matter whether we apply it to humans, animals or plants.
I have been banging on about informed consent many times; not because I have a bee in my bonnet, I hope, but because it is of vital importance. Here are a few examples:
- Informed consent for chiropractors who treat children
- Guess who made this comment on ‘INFORMED CONSENT’
- Informed consent: why chiropractors don’t like it
- INFORMED CONSENT IN ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE: ethical imperative + practical impossibility
- Informed consent in alternative medicine?
- Another serious complication after neck manipulation + a reminder of the importance of informed consent
- Informed consent in alternative medicine: the example of chiropractic
- Informed consent is a serious threat to osteopaths and other alternative practitioners
- 30% of UK patients are not informed by their chiropractor about the risks of the treatment they are about to receive
- The lack of chiropractic ethics: “valid consent was not obtained in a single case”
I am convinced that informed consent is a key issue in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Thus I was delighted to find an article that fully agrees with my view. Even though it has been published a few years ago, it is, I feel, important enough to cite it here:
The demand for informed consent in clinical medicine is usually justified on the basis that it promotes patient autonomy. In this article I argue that the most effective way to promote autonomy is to improve patient understanding in order to reduce the epistemic disparity between patient and medical professional. Informed consent therefore derives its moral value from its capacity to reduce inequalities of power as they derive from epistemic inequalities. So in order for a patient to have given informed consent, she must understand the treatment. I take this to mean that she has sufficient knowledge of its causal mechanisms and has accepted the explanations in which the treatment is implicated. If this interpretation of informed consent is correct, it is unethical for medical professionals to offer or endorse ‘alternative medicine’ treatments, for which there is no known causal mechanism, for if they do, they may end up widening the epistemic disparity. In this way, informed consent may be understood as an effective way of ruling out particular treatments in order to improve patient autonomy and maintain trust in the medical profession.
In other words, if we apply one of the most fundamental rule of medical ethics to SCAM, it would bring about the end of most of SCAM. If we fail to do this, we accept that SCAM is unethical which, in my view, is not a reasonable option.
Only a few years ago, measles – a potentially lethal disease – were deemed to be almost eradicated. Now we hear that, in the UK and the US, cases of measles have been rising again. The latest UK outbreaks are centered in the West Midlands and London. The UK Health Security Agency has thus declared a national incident after the outbreaks in the UK West Midlands. Health officials are encouraging people to have the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) jab, after figures showed uptake at the lowest level for more than a decade.
I have long warned that the rise in measle cases is due to proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Particularly implicated are:
- doctors of anthroposophical medicine,
- chiroparactors,
- homeopaths,
- naturopath,
- other healthcare professionals who employ these methods.
A recent case seems to suggest that this is as true today as it was years ago.
A midwife in New York administered nearly 12,500 bogus homeopathic pellets to roughly 1,500 children in lieu of providing standard, life-saving vaccines, the New York State Department of Health reported yesterday. Jeanette Breen, a licensed midwife who operated Baldwin Midwifery in Nassau County, began providing the oral pellets to children around the start of the 2019–2020 school year, just three months after the state eliminated non-medical exemptions for standard school immunizations. She obtained the pellets from a homeopath outside New York and sold them as a series called the “Real Immunity Homeoprophylaxis Program.” The program falsely claimed to protect children against deadly infectious diseases covered by standard vaccination schedules, including diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (covered by the DTaP or Tdap vaccine); hepatitis B; measles, mumps and rubella (MMR vaccine); polio; chickenpox; meningococcal disease; Haemophilus influenzae disease (HiB); and pneumococcal diseases (PCV).
You might say that this is just one silly midwife, but I’m afraid you would be mistaken. Here is the very first websites that appeared today on my search for measles/alternative medicine:
Few studies have examined the effectiveness of specific homeopathic remedies. A professional homeopath, however, may recommend one or more of the following treatments for measles based on his or her knowledge and clinical experience. Before prescribing a remedy, homeopaths take into account a person’s constitutional type, includes your physical, emotional, and intellectual makeup. An experienced homeopath assesses all of these factors when determining the most appropriate remedy for a particular individual.
-
- Aconitum , for symptoms that come on suddenly including fever, conjunctivitis, dry cough, and restlessness. It is best used very early in the course of the disease.
- Apis mellifica , for individuals with swollen lips and eyes and a rash that is not fully developed. Warmth increases itchiness as well as swelling.
- Belladonna , can be used either during early stages of measles or after the rash has erupted. It is useful for those who have difficulty sleeping and symptoms that include fever, headache, and drowsiness.
- Bryonia , for individuals with a delayed rash who have a dry, painful cough, headaches, and muscle pain that worsens with movement and warmth. This remedy is most appropriate for people with a rash primarily on the chest, a dry mouth, and a desire for cold drinks.
- Euphrasia , for nasal discharge, red eyes, and tears associated with measles. This remedy is most appropriate for people who have a strong sensitivity to light.
- Gelsemium , for the early stages of measles when there is a slow onset of fever and chilliness, cough, headache, weakness, and a watery nasal discharge that burns the upper lip. This remedy is most appropriate for people who are apathetic and have little or no thirst.
- Pulsatilla , can be used at any stage of the measles but often used after fever has resolved. This remedy is most appropriate for people who may have thick, yellow nasal discharge, a dry cough at night, a productive cough in the daytime, and mild ear pain. Symptoms are frequently mild.
- Sulphur , for measles in which the skin has a purplish appearance. The individual for whom this remedy is appropriate may have red mucus membranes with a cough and diarrhea that is worse in the mornings.
Similar nonsense can easily be found on ‘X’; here are but a few examples of the dangerous BS that fans of SCAM posted recently:
- Measles are extremely mild, alternative medicine is better than petroleum-based drugs that don’t even promise to cure anything, and JK Rowling is a Christian.
- 1. Can we now talk about the fact that MMR does not produce life long immunity? 2. Can we talk about the Hep A, tuberculosis and measles that are now community spread due to not vetting the health of illegals? 3. Can we finally discuss actual homeopathy remedies that work?
- I so regret obeying our local school district and having my kids vaccinated. Homeopathy has SAFE medicines to prevent childhood illnesses such as chicken pox, measles, polio, small pox, etc, and more SAFE medicines to cure these illnesses.
- My kids had chicken pox and pertussis & covid. Cured all 3 with homeopathy. Never had measles.
- How to Treatment of Measles with Dr.Reckweg R.No.62 Homeopathy Medicine
I think it is high time that:
- we realize that SCAM providers can be dangerous through the irresponsible advice they tend to give,
- we change their attitude through educating them adequately and, failing this, penalize them for endangering our health.
Proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are often – as we had many opportunities to observe here on this blog – not impressed with the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccinations. This is despite the fact that several studies have demonstrated the huge number of lives saved by them, both at national and multi-country level in the earlier stages of the pandemic. I wonder whether the doubters will be convinced by new evidence.
This analysis estimates how many lives were directly saved by vaccinating adults against COVID in the Region, from December 2020 through March 2023.
The researchers estimated the number of lives directly saved by age-group, vaccine dose and circulating Variant of Concern (VOC) period, both regionally and nationally, using weekly data on COVID-19 mortality and COVID-19 vaccine uptake reported by 34 European areas and territories (CAT), and vaccine effectiveness (VE) data from the literature. They calculated the percentage reduction in the number of expected and reported deaths.
The authors found that vaccines reduced deaths by 57% overall (CAT range: 15% to 75%), representing ∼1.4 million lives saved in those aged ≥25 years (range: 0.7 million to 2.6 million): 96% of lives saved were aged ≥60 years and 52% were aged ≥80 years; first boosters saved 51%, and 67% were saved during the Omicron period.
The authors concluded that over nearly 2.5 years, most lives saved by COVID-19 vaccination were in older adults by first booster dose and during the Omicron period, reinforcing the importance of up-to-date vaccination among these most at-risk individuals. Further modelling work should evaluate indirect effects of vaccination and public health and social measures.
The authors feel that their results reinforce the importance of up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination, particularly among older age-groups. Communication campaigns supporting COVID-19 vaccination should stress the value of COVID-19 vaccination in saving lives to ensure vulnerable groups are up-to-date with vaccination ahead of periods of potential increased transmission.
Those SCAM proponents who are not convinced of the merits of COVID and other vaccinations will undoubtedly claim that this new analysis was biased and thus unreliable. Therefore, it seems worth stating that this work was supported by a US Centers for Disease Control cooperative agreement, who had no role in data analysis or interpretation. The authors affiliated with the World Health Organization (WHO) are alone responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of the WHO.
Patients are increasingly using and requesting so-called alternative medicine Medicine (SCAM), especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it remains unclear whether they use SCAMs in conjunction with conventional medicine or to replace vaccination or other approaches and whether they discuss them with their physicians as part of shared decision-making. This study aimed to evaluate the use and initiation of SCAM during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the association between SCAM-use and COVID-19 vaccination status.
It was a part of the longitudinal cohort of the CoviCare program, which follows all outpatients tested for COVID-19 at the Geneva University Hospitals. Outpatients tested for COVID-19 were contacted 12 months after their positive or negative test between April and December 2021. Participants were asked about their vaccination status and if they had used SCAM in the past 12 months. SCAM-use was defined based on a list of specific therapies from which participants could choose the options they had used. Logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, education, profession, severe acute respiratory system coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and pre-existing conditions were used to evaluate the association between being unvaccinated and complementary medicine use. SARS-CoV-2 infection status was evaluated for effect modification in the association between being unvaccinated and complementary medicine use.
This study enrolled 12,246 individuals (participation proportion = 17.7%). Their mean age was 42.8 years, 59.4% were women, and 63.7% used SCAM. SCAM-use was higher in women, the middle-aged, and those with a higher education level, a SARS-CoV-2 infection, or pre-existing co-morbidities. A third of cases initiated SCAM as prevention against COVID-19. Being unvaccinated was associated with higher levels of SCAM-use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.22 [1.09–1.37]). SCAMs were frequently used for COVID-19 prevention (aOR 1.61 [1.22–2.12]). Being unvaccinated was associated with the use of several specific SCAMs:
- zinc (OR 2.25 [1.98–2.55]),
- vitamin D (OR 1.45 [1.30–1.62]),
- vitamin C (OR 1.59 [1.42–1.78]).
Only 4% of participants discussed using SCAM with their primary care physicians.
The authors concluded that, while SCAM is increasingly used, it is rarely discussed with primary care physicians. SCAM-use, especially for COVID-19 prevention, is associated with COVID-19 vaccination status. Communication between physicians, patients, and SCAM therapists is encouraged to facilitate a truly holistic approach to making a shared decision based on the best available information.
This survey confirmed the findings of several previous investigations. It also shows that the terminologies often employed are inadequate:
- alternative medicine: as it does not work, it cannot be an alternative;
- complementary medicine: many patients do not use it to complement real medicine.
As I have explained many times, I thus find SCAM a much more appropriate term.
The last sentence of the authors conclusion is puzzeling. What can SCAM pratitioners contribute to a ‘truly holistic approach’ to decisions about vaccinations? I feel this sentence should be changed into something like the following:
Communication between physicians and patients should be encouraged. To facilitate an effective approach to making shared decisions on vaccinations, SCAM practitioners should be excluded until they are able to convincingly demonstrate that their advice is based on sound evidence.
