The UK Reiki Federation (UKRF) is an independent organisation of individuals who have been attuned to Reiki, with the objective of providing support and guidance to Reiki professionals and to the public, with particular reference to education and training, and the public practice of Reiki. Some of their members give of their time each week to send Reiki healing to anyone who makes a request from anywhere in the world.
Each week the volunteers receive a list of those people/animals/events that have requested healing and they all collectively send positive Reiki healing to everyone on the list.
The UKRF claim that Reiki distant healing (RDH) has now been scientifically proven by Lynne McTaggart in these articles http://www.shareguide.com/McTaggart.html and https://lynnemctaggart.com/the-intention-experiment/ that healing is magnified when many healers are involved, so we are contributing an amazing vibration of positivity into our world and doing so much good, with so little effort. Imagine how brilliant it would be if even more members decided they too wanted to support other people, with minimum effort. It’s so simple just to place your hands on the list and send Reiki to everyone on it. It can be so quick if time is an issue for you and yet so powerful.
A group of UKRF members send Reiki to each other at specific times of the week. They state that we have a list of members’ names and allocated time slots in the week when we can send and receive Reiki energy to each other. The intention is to send Reiki for all the different time slots and then sit down and receive the energy whenever it is convenient for us to do so. Those members who have given me feedback all say they can feel the energy flowing during these times.
I urge you to look up the two ‘scientific proofs’ by McTaggart – I promise, you will not regret the effort. For those who might like to see real evidence for or against RDH, I ran a quick Medline search. Somewhat to my surprise, I did find a rigorous study RDH. Here is its abstract:
In this randomised, double-blinded study, women who underwent an elective C-section were allocated to either usual care (control, n=40) or three distant reiki sessions in addition to usual care (n=40). Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The primary endpoint was the Area Under the VAS-Time Curve (AUC) for days 1-3. Secondary measures included: the proportion of women who required opioid medications and dose consumed, rate of healing and vital signs.
AUC for pain was not significantly different in the distant reiki and control groups (mean ± SD; 212.1 ± 104.7 vs 223.1 ± 117.8; p=0.96). There were no significant differences in opioid consumption or rate of healing; however, the distant reiki group had a significantly lower heart rate (74.3 ± 8.1 bpm vs 79.8 ± 7.9 bpm, p=0.003) and blood pressure (106.4 ± 9.7 mmHg vs 111.9 ± 11.0 mmHg, p=0.02) post surgery.
CONCLUSION: Distant reiki had no significant effect on pain following an elective C-section.
This begs at least three questions, in my view:
- Which evidence should I trust, that of McTaggart or that from what seems to be the only RCT on RDH?
- The UK Reiki Foundation state on their website: As the largest Reiki-only professional organisation in the UK and Europe we are setting the highest standard for Reiki. Is the promotion of the McTaggart ‘proof’ combined with the omission from the UKRF site of the only trial of RDH truly in accordance with the highest standards?
- Is a professional organisation that does such things really professional?
A pro-homeopathy site (to be taken with a pinch of salt) claims that today 300 homeopathic MDs belong to the “Unio Homoeopathica Belgica” and 4,000 MDs (about 10% of all doctors) are prescribing homeopathics at least occasionally.
One-fourth of the Belgian population uses homeopathy. As of 1998, only MDs can legally practice homeopathy. But now it seems that the free ride for Belgian homeopathy is coming to an end. Belgium has joined the long list of countries (e.g. UK, US, Spain, France, Sweden, Russia) where the usefulness of homeopathy is being questioned.
‘Test Achats’ is a Belgian not-for-profit organization which promotes consumer protection. It was founded in 1957 and publishes research in a subscription magazine. It has been reported that this organiation has issued a crushing report on homoeopathy, describing it as “unacceptable” that homeopathic remedies are allowed to be described by practitioners as medication.
Il est inacceptable que des médicaments homéopathiques et des médicaments traditionnels à base de plantes puissent être vendus en tant que “médicament” en pharmacie sans que leur efficacité n’ait été démontrée. Il en va de même pour un certain nombre de médicaments classiques et de médicaments ordinaires à base de plantes, pour lesquels nous avons également de gros doutes quant à leur efficacité et/ou leur sécurité. Le statut de “médicament” leur confère une aura de crédibilité qu’ils ne méritent absolument pas. Notre banque de données de médicaments met un terme à cette tromperie et distingue les médicaments utiles de ceux qui ne le sont pas…
Pour les 55 médicaments homéopathiques avec indication, ces pourcentages sont … 84 % à “utilité contestable” et 16 % “à déconseiller”.
‘Test-Achats’ describes homoeopathy as “quack medicine,” and states that “there are conditions where the patient really has no time to lose on products whose effectiveness has not been demonstrated. People who are suffering from very real heart and vascular conditions should immediately seek treatment by a doctor, and with truly effective medication.”
Radix Salviae Miltiorrhizae (Danshen) is a herbal remedy that is part of many TCM herbal mixtures. Allegedly, Danshen has been used in clinical practice for over 2000 years.
But is it effective?
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current available evidence of Danshen for the treatment of cancer. English and Chinese electronic databases were searched from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database, Wanfang database until September 2018. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by using the method of Cochrane system.
Thirteen RCTs with 1045 participants were identified. The studies investigated the lung cancer (n = 5), leukemia (n = 3), liver cancer (n = 3), breast or colon cancer (n = 1), and gastric cancer (n = 1). A total of 83 traditional Chinese medicines were used in all prescriptions and there were three different dosage forms. The meta-analysis suggested that Danshen formulae had a significant effect on RR (response rate) (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.66-3.42), 1-year survival (OR 1.70 95% CI 1.22-2.36), 3-year survival (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.62-4.78), and 5-year survival (OR 8.45, 95% CI 2.53-28.27).
The authors concluded that the current research results showed that Danshen formulae combined with chemotherapy for cancer treatment was better than conventional drug treatment plan alone.
I am getting a little tired of discussing systematic reviews of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that are little more than promotion, free of good science. But, because such articles do seriously endanger the life of many patients, I do nevertheless succumb occasionally. So here are a few points to explain why the conclusions of the Chinese authors are nonsense:
- Even though the authors claim the trials included in their review were of high quality, most were, in fact, flimsy.
- The trials used no less than 83 different herbal mixtures of dubious quality containing Danshen. It is therefore not possible to define which mixture worked and which did not.
- There is no detailed discussion of the adverse effects and no mention of possible herb-drug interactions.
- There seemed to be a sizable publication bias hidden in the data.
- All the eligible studies were conducted in China, and we know that such trials are unreliable to say the least.
- Only four articles were published in English which means those of us who cannot read Chinese are unable to check the correctness of the data extraction of the review authors.
I know it sounds terribly chauvinistic, but I do truly believe that we should simply ignore Chinese articles, if they have defects that set our alarm bells ringing – if not, we are likely to do a significant disservice to healthcare and progress.
One of the most difficult things in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) can be having a productive discussion with patients about the subject, particularly if they are deeply pro-SCAM. The task can get more tricky, if a patient is suffering from a serious, potentially life-threatening condition. Arguably, the discussion would become even more difficult, if the SCAM in question is relatively harmless but supported only by scarce and flimsy evidence.
An example might be the case of a cancer patient who is fond of mindfulness cognitive therapy (MBCT), a class-based program designed to prevent relapse or recurrence of major depression. To contemplate such a situation, let’s consider the following hypothetical exchange between a patient (P) and her oncologist (O).
P: I often feel quite low, do you think I need some treatment for depression?
O: That depends on whether you are truly depressed or just a bit under the weather.
P: No, I am not clinically depressed; it’s just that I am worried and sometimes see everything in black.
O: I understand, that’s not an unusual thing in your situation.
P: Someone told me about MBCT, and I wonder what you think about it.
O: Yes, I happen to know about this approach, but I’m not sure it would help you.
P: Are you sure? A few years ago, I had some MBCT; it seemed to work and, at least, it cannot do any harm.
O: Yes, that’s true; MBCT is quite safe.
P: So, why are you against it?
O: I am not against it; I just doubt that it is the best treatment for you.
O: Because there is little evidence for it and even less for someone like you.
P: But I have seen some studies that seem to show it works.
O: I know, there have been trials but they are not very reliable.
P: But the therapy has not been shown to be ineffective, has it?
O: No, but the treatment is not really for your condition.
P: So, you admit that there is some positive evidence but you are still against it because of some technicalities with the science?
O: No, I am telling you that this treatment is not supported by good evidence.
P: And therefore you want me to continue to suffer from low mood? I don’t call that very compassionate!
O: I fully understand your situation, but we ought to find the best treatment for you, not just one that you happen to be fond of.
P: I don’t understand why you are against giving MBCT a try; it’s safe, as you say, and there is some evidence for it. And I have already had a good experience with it. Is that not enough?
O: My role as your doctor is to provide you with advice about which treatments are best in your particular situation. There are options that are much better than MBCT.
P: But if I want to try it?
O: If you want to try MBCT, I cannot prevent you from doing so. I am only trying to tell you about the evidence.
P: Fine, in this case, I will give it a go.
Clearly this discussion did not go all that well. It was meant to highlight the tension between the aspirations of a patient and the hope of a responsible clinician to inform his patient about the best available evidence. Often the evidence is not in favour of SCAM. Thus there is a gap that can be difficult to breach. (Instead of using MBCT, I could, of course, have used dozens of other SCAMs like homeopathy, chiropractic, Reiki, etc.)
The pro-SCAM patient thinks that, as she previously has had a good experience with SCAM, it must be fine; at the very minimum, it should be tried again, and she wants her doctor to agree. The responsible clinician thinks that he ought to recommend a therapy that is evidence-based. The patient feels that scientific evidence tells her nothing about her experience. The clinician insists that evidence matters. The patient finds the clinician lacks compassion. The clinician feels that the most compassionate and ethical strategy is to recommend the most effective therapy.
As the discussion goes on, the gap is not closing but seems to be widening.
What can be done about it?
I wish I knew the answer!
Fibromyalgia (FM) is one of the most frequent generalized pain disorders. It accounts for a sizable proportion of healthcare costs. Despite extensive research, the etiology (the ‘root cause’) of FM remains unknown – except, of course, to SCAM practitioners!
And almost every one of them claims to treat the ‘root cause’ of the condition. Which must mean that they are able to tackle its etiology, usually some disturbance of the ‘vital force’ or ‘energy’ flow. To patients, this sadly sounds impressive.
But what, if the etiology of FM is something entirely different?
New research shows that most (if not all) patients with FM belong to a distinct population that can be segregated from a control group by their glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, a surrogate marker of insulin resistance (IR). This was demonstrated by analysing the data after introducing an age stratification correction into a linear regression model. This strategy showed highly significant differences between FM patients and control subjects (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0002, for two separate control populations, respectively).
A subgroup of FM patients meeting criteria for pre-diabetes or diabetes (patients with HbA1c values of 5.7% or greater) who had undergone treatment with metformin showed dramatic improvements of their widespread myofascial pain. This was shown comparing pre and post-treatment numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). Response to metformin plus standard treatment (ST) was followed by complete resolution of the pain (report of 0 of 10 in the NPRS) in 8 of 16 patients who had been treated with metformin (50%), a degree of improvement never observed before in such a large proportion of FM patients subjected to any available treatment. In contrast, patients treated with ST alone improved, but complete resolution of pain was generally not observed. Interestingly, some patients responded only to metformin and not to ST with NSRIs or membrane stabilizing agents. Importantly, there was a long-term retention of the analgesic effect of metformin.
The authors concluded that these findings suggest a pathogenetic relationship between FM and IR, which may lead to a radical paradigm shift in the management of this disorder.
From my perspective, these findings also suggest that all the many SCAMs allegedly claiming to tackle the ‘root cause’ of FM have been barking up the wrong tree. In fact, all these claims of SCAM practitioners about treating the ‘root causes’ can easily be disclosed as a simple (and sadly effective) marketing gimmick. Six years ago, I even challenged the world of SCAM to name a single treatment that treats the ‘root cause’ of any disease. As yet, nobody has come forward with a convincing suggestion.
‘Rationable’ has recently published a remarkable article on homeopathy. Its author starts admitting that for most of my life, I have taken it for granted that homoeopathy worked. I didn’t know how or why, I just knew that my parents and most other people swore by it, so there had to be something to it. I was treated with homoeopathy several times. In one case, it actually made things worse. The homoeopathic doctor responded with, “Things sometimes have to get worse before they get better.” I have to admit, as much as I wasn’t impressed with that answer, I liked the taste of the medicines. Always sugary and sweet or even with that little bit of alcohol. What more does a kid need in his life than to eat something sugary sweet for medicine!
The article is lengthy but well worth reading. I take the liberty of merely quoting its conclusion:
Here I am, a decade later, seeing homoeopathy from a completely different perspective than what I used to. It’s probably one of the most profound discoveries in my life and has been one of the factors that have led me to question everything, including, most importantly, myself.
Now, homoeopathy has become one of the most studied fields in the world, with an impenetrable mountain of evidence that has piled up against its claims. These studies have been done by many independent teams and analysed and reviewed by some of the most reliable scientific organisations in the world. There’s just no denying it. There is no evidence for it working…ever. Why? Because it’s just water. And if it’s brought into contact with sugar, it somehow transfers its memories to it. The more I think about it, the more implausible it sounds.
And it’s not just me. Many governmental bodies like UK’s National Health Service (NHS), The American Medical Association, the FASEB and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, have stated that there is no evidence to support the use of homoeopathic treatments. Even representatives of the WHO have said that homoeopathic remedies should not be used to treat tuberculosis or diarrhoea.
So, what do you think? Is it worth your time and money to buy water and sugar pills that have shown no evidence of working, or would you instead go to a regular doctor and get real medication that has a good chance of treating you? I, for one, will be going to the latter.
As promised, here’s the short version of this topic:
Homoeopathy is an ancient practice created in the 1700s as a counter treatment to bloodletting and other rather horrific medical practices
Homoeopathy is a process of diluting a small amount substance in more water than the whole earth can contain to treat your ailment
There has been no evidence to show that it works any better than a placebo, even after hundreds of clinical trials have been conducted.
I am always delighted to see how individuals who start thinking critically can change things for themselves and others. The evidence suggests that people who are strong on either intelligence or critical thinking experience fewer negative events, but critical thinkers tend to do better. I hope that, one day, all readers of this blog manage to benefit from the great potential of critical thinking.
Reiki is a form of energy healing popularised by the Japanese Mikao Usui (1865-1926). ‘Rei’ means universal spirit (sometimes thought of as a supreme being), and ‘ki’ is the assumed universal life energy. Reiki is broadly based on some of the obsolete concepts of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Reiki practitioners believe that they can transfer ‘healing energy’ to a patient which, in turn, stimulates the self-healing properties of the body. They assume that the therapeutic effects of this technique are obtained from a ‘universal life energy’ that provides strength, harmony, and balance to the body and mind.
This study (entitled ‘ The Power of Reiki’) was conducted to pilot testing the feasibility and efficacy of Reiki to provide pain relief among pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Paediatric patients undergoing HSCT during the inpatient phase in the Stem Cell Transplantation Unit were eligible to participate. Short and medium effects were assessed investigating the increase or decrease of patient’s pain during three specific time periods (“delta”) of the day: morning of the Reiki session versus assessment before Reiki session (within subjects control period), assessment before Reiki session versus assessment after Reiki session (within subjects experimental period) and assessment after Reiki session versus morning the day after Reiki session (within subject follow-up period). The effect of 88 Reiki therapy sessions in nine patients was analysed following a short, medium, and long-term perspective. Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a significant difference among the three periods: a decrease of the pain occurred in the experimental period in short and medium term, while in the follow-up period, the pain level remained stable.
The authors concluded that this study demonstrates the feasibility of using Reiki therapy in pediatric cancer patients undergoing HSCT. Furthermore, these findings evidence that trained pediatric oncology nurses can insert Reiki into their clinical practice as a valid instrument for diminishing suffering from cancer in childhood.
This is an unusual conclusion in that it is strictly speaking correct. What is wrong, however, that the abstract reports findings related to the alleged effectiveness of Reiki. A feasibility study is not designed for that purpose. I therefore suggest to ignore all allusions to therapeutic effects.
This, I think, begs the question as to why it is necessary or productive to study Reiki in clinical trials.
- The treatment is not plausible.
- There have been many trials already.
- The ones that are sufficiently rigorous fail to show that it has any effects beyond placebo.
- The medical literature is already highly polluted with Reiki studies reporting false-positive results.
- This can only confuse researchers who attempt to conduct reviews on the subject.
- Reiki studies discredit clinical research.
- They are a waste of valuable resources.
- Arguably, they are even unethical.
If you ask me, it is high time to stop researching such implausible nonsense.
What on earth is this new SCAM?
Do I really have a ‘biofield’?
How can I tune it?
And what effect does it have?
Here is an article that explains all this in some detail; enjoy:
While western science has yet to describe and measure this energy, other cultures, especially ancient Indian or Vedic cultures describe it extensively. The term “chakra” (wheel) in Sanskirt, refers to spinning energy vortices which are seen as structures in the body’s subtle energy anatomy. Not coincidentally, within the body at each chakra location there is a corresponding large cluster of nerves or plexuses.
One way of understanding subtle energy is through the analogy “subtle energy is to electromagnetism as water vapor is to water.” Just as we do not measure water vapor with the same tools we use to measure water, we can’t use the same tools to measure subtle energy we would use to measure electricity. Subtle energy is higher, finer, more diffuse and follows slightly different laws.
Another word for this energy is “bioplasma.” Bioplasma is a diffuse magnetic fluid which surrounds all living beings. Like a fluid, it can be of varying viscosities and densities. In Biofield Tuning (also known as “sound balancing”, we see the human biofield as a bioplasmic toroid-shaped (doughnut-shaped) bubble which surrounds the body at a distance of about five feet to the sides and two-three feet at the top and bottom; bounded by a double layer plasma membrane much like the protective boundary which defines the earth’s upper atmosphere.
During a Biofield Tuning session, a client lies fully clothed on a treatment table while the practitioner activates a tuning fork and scans the body slowly beginning from a distance. The practitioner is feeling for resistance and turbulence in the client’s energy field, as well as listening for a change in the overtones and undertones of the tuning fork. When the practitioner encounters a turbulent area he/she continues to activate the tuning fork and hold it in that specific spot. Research suggests the body’s organizational energy uses the steady coherent vibrational frequency of the tuning fork to “tune” itself. In short order, the dissonance resolves and the sense of resistance gives way. This appears to correspond to the release of tension within the body.
Practitioners work with the “Biofield Anatomy Map“, a compilation of Biofield Tuning’s founder, Eileen Day McKusick’s 20+ years of biofield observations. Areas of dissonance can be pinpointed to a specific age and type of memory. For example, one might find a strong sense of sadness at age 12 or birth trauma at the outer edge of the biofield.
Holding an activated tuning fork in the area of a traumatic memory or another difficult time period produces repeatable, predictable outcomes. The sound input seems to help the body digest and integrate unprocessed experiences. As the biofield dissonance subsides, clients generally report feeling “lighter” and a diminishment or resolution of their symptoms.
The Sonic Slider is a custom-made weighted tuning fork that harnesses the power of therapeutic sound to help you feel and look younger and healthier.
Users report a wide range of benefits including more energy, greater well-being, weight loss, increased muscle tone, smoother skin, reduced pain, improved circulation and more.
Did I promise too much? Surely, you must agree, this is FANTASTIC!
I am so glad that someone has closely studied my instructions and followed them almost to the dot – my instructions as to HOW TO BECOME A CHARLATAN. In case you have forgotten, I repeat them here:
1. Find an attractive therapy and give it a fantastic name
Most of the really loony ideas turn out to be taken: ear candles, homeopathy, aura massage, energy healing, urine-therapy, chiropractic etc. As a true charlatan, you want your very own quackery. So you will have to think of a new concept.
Something truly ‘far out’ would be ideal, like claiming the ear is a map of the human body which allows you to treat all diseases by doing something odd on specific areas of the ear – oops, this territory is already occupied by the ear acupuncture brigade. How about postulating that you have super-natural powers which enable you to send ‘healing energy’ into patients’ bodies so that they can repair themselves? No good either: Reiki-healers might accuse you of plagiarism.
But you get the gist, I am sure, and will be able to invent something. When you do, give it a memorable name, the name can make or break your new venture.
2. Invent a fascinating history
Having identified your treatment and a fantastic name for it, you now need a good story to explain how it all came about. This task is not all that tough and might even turn out to be fun; you could think of something touching like you cured your moribund little sister at the age of 6 with your intervention, or you received the inspiration in your dreams from an old aunt who had just died, or perhaps you want to create some religious connection [have you ever visited Lourdes?]. There are no limits to your imagination; just make sure the story is gripping – one day, they might make a movie of it.
3. Add a dash of pseudo-science
Like it or not, but we live in an age where we cannot entirely exclude science from our considerations. At the very minimum, I recommend a little smattering of sciency terminology. As you don’t want to be found out, select something that only few experts understand; quantum physics, entanglement, chaos-theory and Nano-technology are all excellent options.
It might also look more convincing to hint at the notion that top scientists adore your concepts, or that whole teams from universities in distant places are working on the underlying mechanisms, or that the Nobel committee has recently been alerted etc. If at all possible, add a bit of high tech to your new invention; some shiny new apparatus with flashing lights and digital displays might be just the ticket. The apparatus can be otherwise empty – as long as it looks impressive, all is fine.
4. Do not forget a dose of ancient wisdom
With all this science – sorry, pseudo-science – you must not forget to remain firmly grounded in tradition. Your treatment ought to be based on ancient wisdom which you have rediscovered, modified and perfected. I recommend mentioning that some of the oldest cultures of the planet have already been aware of the main pillars on which your invention today proudly stands. Anything that is that old has stood the test of time which is to say, your treatment is both effective and safe.
5. Claim to have a panacea
To maximise your income, you want to have as many customers as possible. It would therefore be unwise to focus your endeavours on just one or two conditions. Commercially, it is much better to affirm in no uncertain terms that your treatment is a cure for everything, a panacea. Do not worry about the implausibility of such a claim. In the realm of quackery, it is perfectly acceptable, even common behaviour to be outlandish.
6. Deal with the ‘evidence-problem’ and the nasty sceptics
It is depressing, I know, but even the most exceptionally gifted charlatan is bound to attract doubters. Sceptics will sooner or later ask you for evidence; in fact, they are obsessed by it. But do not panic – this is by no means as threatening as it appears. The obvious solution is to provide testimonial after testimonial.
You need a website where satisfied customers report impressive stories how your treatment saved their lives. In case you do not know such customers, invent them; in the realm of quackery, there is a time-honoured tradition of writing your own testimonials. Nobody will be able to tell!
7. Demonstrate that you master the fine art of cheating with statistics
Some of the sceptics might not be impressed, and when they start criticising your ‘evidence’, you might need to go the extra mile. Providing statistics is a very good way of keeping them at bay, at least for a while. The general consensus amongst charlatans is that about 70% of their patients experience remarkable benefit from whatever placebo they throw at them. So, my advice is to do a little better and cite a case series of at least 5000 patients of whom 76.5 % showed significant improvements.
What? You don’t have such case series? Don’t be daft, be inventive!
8. Score points with Big Pharma
You must be aware who your (future) customers are (will be): they are affluent, had a decent education (evidently without much success), and are middle-aged, gullible and deeply alternative. Think of Prince Charles! Once you have empathised with this mind-set, it is obvious that you can profitably plug into the persecution complex which haunts these people.
An easy way of achieving this is to claim that Big Pharma has got wind of your innovation, is positively frightened of losing millions, and is thus doing all they can to supress it. Not only will this give you street cred with the lunatic fringe of society, it also provides a perfect explanation why your ground-breaking discovery has not been published it the top journals of medicine: the editors are all in the pocket of Big Pharma, of course.
9. Ask for money, much money
I have left the most important bit for the end; remember: your aim is to get rich! So, charge high fees, even extravagantly high ones. If your treatment is a product that you can sell (e.g. via the internet, to escape the regulators), sell it dearly; if it is a hands-on therapy, charge heavy consultation fees and claim exclusivity; if it is a teachable technique, start training other therapists at high fees and ask a franchise-cut of their future earnings.
Over-charging is your best chance of getting famous – or have you ever heard of a charlatan famous for being reasonably priced? It will also get rid of the riff-raff you don’t want to see in your surgery. Poor people might be even ill! No, you don’t want them; you want the ‘worried rich and well’ who can afford to see a real doctor when things should go wrong. But most importantly, high fees will do a lot of good to your bank account.
I must say, it is truly satisfying to see one’s advice taken so literally!
The Canadian Chiropractic Association (CCA)… published a report to support clearer understanding of the chiropractic profession… Here are a few crucial quotes (in bold print) from this document (my are comments in normal print).
Put simply, chiropractors are spine, muscle and nervous system experts specifically trained to diagnose the underlying cause and recommend treatment options to relieve pain, restore mobility and prevent re occurrence without surgery or pharmaceuticals…
By this definition, I am a chiropractor! – and so are osteopaths, physiotherapists, several other SCAM practitioners, and most doctors.
… there is a concept in the pharmaceutical industry known as a risk-benefit analysis which is used to assess how much benefit a medication has compared to the potential risk. The riskier the medication, the less likely it will become mainstream.(2)
The concept of risk/benefit analysis applies to all medicine. It needs, of course, good knowledge of both the risks and the benefits. The second sentence of this paragraph is nonsense and suggests that the CCA fails to understand the concept.
Spinal manipulations should be recommended for patients when a similar risk-benefit assessment has been conducted. This assessment on the safety of chiropractic treatments is performed via the patient intake form and physical examination.
As there is no reporting system of adverse effects of spinal manipulations, a risk/benefit analysis is impossible. The second sentence of this paragraph is nonsense; there are no examinations that tell us about the risks of spinal manipulation.
Adverse reactions lasting less than 24 hours include headaches, stiffness, fatigue, local pain, prickling sensation, nausea, hot skin/flushing, and fainting. In up to 50% of patients, one or more of these have been reported over the span of a lifetime.(3, 4)
Perhaps adverse reactions last ON AVERAGE 24 hours; they can last up to 3 days. About half of all patients experience such reactions.
Exact numbers on adverse events from chiropractic manipulation are difficult to extract due to variables such as research design, inclusion criteria and study selection. There is still a lot of research to be conducted on the role of spinal manipulation in individuals with serious adverse events.
The frequency of adverse events is unknown because there is no adequate reporting scheme.
Chiropractic treatment is a safe option for the prevention, assessment, diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal conditions and associated neurological system. Canadian chiropractors have over 4,200 hours of core competency training in the musculoskeletal system. It is up to each individual patient and their healthcare provider to assess the safety of chiropractic treatments and potential risks associated, and decide if spinal manipulation is right for them.
There is no good evidence that chiropractic treatment is safe.
There is no good evidence that chiropractic treatment is effective for disease prevention.
Chiropractic treatment is an option for assessment and diagnosis??? This is another nonsensical claim.
Chiropractic treatment is an option for associated neurological system??? Another nonsense!
Each individual patient and their healthcare provider assessing the safety is not an option.
References used in the quotes:
The references cited are pitiful!
In conclusion, I suggest the CCA re-read their statement and revise it according to the evidence, common sense and the rules of the English language. As it stands, it’s just too embarrassing – even for chiropractic standards!
Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) for migraine?
There is no good evidence that it works!
On the contrary, there is good evidence that it does NOT work!
A recent and rigorous study (conducted by chiropractors!) tested the efficacy of chiropractic CSMT for migraine. It was designed as a three-armed, single-blinded, placebo -controlled RCT of 17 months duration including 104 migraineurs with at least one migraine attack per month. Active treatment consisted of CSMT (group 1) and the placebo was a sham push manoeuvre of the lateral edge of the scapula and/or the gluteal region (group 2). The control group continued their usual pharmacological management (group 3). The results show that migraine days were significantly reduced within all three groups from baseline to post-treatment. The effect continued in the CSMT and placebo groups at all follow-up time points (groups 1 and 2), whereas the control group (group 3) returned to baseline. The reduction in migraine days was not significantly different between the groups. Migraine duration and headache index were reduced significantly more in the CSMT than in group 3 towards the end of follow-up. Adverse events were few, mild and transient. Blinding was sustained throughout the RCT. The authors concluded that the effect of CSMT observed in our study is probably due to a placebo response.
One can understand that, for chiropractors, this finding is upsetting. After all, they earn a good part of their living by treating migraineurs. They don’t want to lose patients and, at the same time, they need to claim to practise evidence-based medicine.
What is the way out of this dilemma?
They only need to publish a review in which they dilute the irritatingly negative result of the above trial by including all previous low-quality trials with false-positive results and thus generate a new overall finding that alleges CSMT to be evidence-based.
This new systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluated the evidence regarding spinal manipulation as an alternative or integrative therapy in reducing migraine pain and disability.
The searches identified 6 RCTs eligible for meta-analysis. Intervention duration ranged from 2 to 6 months; outcomes included measures of migraine days (primary outcome), migraine pain/intensity, and migraine disability. Methodological quality varied across the studies. The results showed that spinal manipulation reduced migraine days with an overall small effect size as well as migraine pain/intensity.
The authors concluded that spinal manipulation may be an effective therapeutic technique to reduce migraine days and pain/intensity. However, given the limitations to studies included in this meta-analysis, we consider these results to be preliminary. Methodologically rigorous, large-scale RCTs are warranted to better inform the evidence base for spinal manipulation as a treatment for migraine.
Bob’s your uncle!
Perhaps not perfect, but at least the chiropractic profession can now continue to claim they practice something akin to evidence-based medicine, while happily cashing in on selling their unproven treatments to migraineurs!
But that’s not very fair; research is not for promotion, research is for finding the truth; this white-wash is not in the best interest of patients! I hear you say.
Who cares about fairness, truth or conflicts of interest?
Christine Goertz, one of the review-authors, has received funding from the NCMIC Foundation and served as the Director of the Inter‐Institutional Network for Chiropractic Research (IINCR). Peter M. Wayne, another author, has received funding from the NCMIC Foundation and served as the co‐Director of the Inter‐Institutional Network for Chiropractic Research (IINCR)
And who the Dickens are the NCMIC and the IINCR?
At NCMIC, they believe that supporting the chiropractic profession, including chiropractic research programs and projects, is an important part of our heritage. They also offer business training and malpractice risk management seminars and resources to D.C.s as a complement to the education provided by the chiropractic colleges.
The IINCR is a collaborative effort between PCCR, Yale Center for Medical Informatics and the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. They aim at creating a chiropractic research portfolio that’s truly translational. Vice Chancellor for Research and Health Policy at Palmer College of Chiropractic Christine Goertz, DC, PhD (PCCR) is the network director. Peter Wayne, PhD (Osher Center for Integrative Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School) will join Anthony J. Lisi, DC (Yale Center for Medical Informatics and VA Connecticut Healthcare System) as a co-director. These investigators will form a robust foundation to advance chiropractic science, practice and policy. “Our collective efforts provide an unprecedented opportunity to conduct clinical and basic research that advances chiropractic research and evidence-based clinical practice, ultimately benefiting the patients we serve,” said Christine Goertz.
Really: benefiting the patients?
You could have fooled me!