Alternative medicine suffers from what might be called ‘survey overload’: there are far too much such investigations and most of them are of deplorably poor quality producing nothing of value except some promotion for alternative medicine. Yet, every now and then, one finds a paper that is worth reading, and I am happy to say that this survey (even though it has several methodological shortcomings) belongs in this category.
This cross-sectional assessment of the views of general practitioners towards chiropractors and osteopaths was funded by the Department of Chiropractic at Macquarie University. It was designed as a quantitative descriptive study using an anonymous online survey that included closed and open-ended questions with opportunities provided for free text. The target population was Australian general practitioners. Inclusion criteria included current medical registration, membership of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and currently practicing as a general practitioner in Australia. The data being reported here were collected between May and December, 2014.
There were 630 respondents to the online survey during this period representing a response rate of 2.6 %. Results were not uniform for the two professions. More general practitioners believed chiropractic education was not evidence-based compared to osteopathic education (70 % and 50 % respectively), while the scope of practice was viewed as similar for both professions. A majority of general practitioners had never referred a patient to either profession (chiropractic: 60 %; osteopathy: 66 %) and indicated that they would not want to co-manage patients with either profession. Approximately two-thirds of general practitioners were not interested in learning more about their education (chiropractors: 68 %; osteopaths: 63 %).
The authors concluded that this study provides an indication of the current views of Australian general practitioners towards chiropractors and osteopaths. The findings suggest that attitudes may have become less favourable with a growing intolerance towards both professions. If confirmed, this has the potential to impact health service provision. The results from this cross-sectional study suggest that obtaining representative general practitioner views using online surveys is difficult and another approach is needed to supplement or replace the current recruitment strategy.
The authors do not speculate on the reasons why the attitudes of general practitioners towards chiropractic and osteopathy might have become more critical. Therefore I decided to offer a few possibilities here. The more negative views could be due to:
- better education of general practitioners,
- tightening of healthcare budgets,
- recent ‘bad press’ and loss of reputation (for instance, the BCA’s libel action against Simon Singh),
- the work of sceptics in informing the public about the numerous bogus claims made by osteopaths and chiropractors,
- the plethora of overtly bogus claims which nevertheless continue to be made by these practitioners on a daily basis,
- a more general realisation that these therapies can cause very serious harm,
- a mixture of the above factors.
Whatever the reasons are, the finding that there now seems to be a growing scepticism (in Australia, but hopefully elsewhere as well) about the value of chiropractic and osteopathy is something that cheers me up no end.
Yes, this post might come as a surprise to some.
And no, I am not changing sides in the debate in the debate about homeopathy.
But I have long felt that, when sceptics criticise homeopathy, they often wrong-foot themselves by using arguments which are not entirely correct.
Here I want to list seven of them (more details can be found here):
Homeopathy is one single, well-defined entity
During the last 200 years, many different variations of Hahnemann’s classical homeopathy have emerged, for instance clinical homeopathy, complex homeopathy and isopathy. Strictly speaking, they should be differentiated, and it is not correct to generalise across all of them.
In the 200-years’ history of homeopathy, homeopaths have done no good at all
Hahnemann and his followers can be credited with considerable achievements. Foremost, they realised that, 200 years ago, most of the conventional treatments in common use were not just useless but often outright dangerous. Their criticism of ‘heroic medicine’ helped to initiate crucial reforms and to improve health care for the benefit of millions.
No theories to explain how homeopathy might work have ever been put forward
There are several theories which might go some way in explaining how homeopathy works. But all of them are currently just theories, and none provides a full explanation as to the mechanism of action of highly diluted remedies. Yet, to claim that homeopathy is totally implausible might be a counter-productive exaggeration.
There is nothing in it
Many sceptics claim that homeopathic remedies are devoid of active ingredients. Yet, not all homeopathic remedies are highly diluted; some can contain pharmacologically active compounds for affecting human health. These preparations cannot therefore be classified as implausible.
There is no credible evidence at all that might support homeopathy
Several well-conducted clinical studies of homeopathy with positive results have been published. It is therefore not true to claim that there is no good trial evidence at all to support homeopathy. The much better point sceptics should make is that the totality of the reliable evidence fails to show that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are more effective than placebos.
Homeopaths aim at deceiving their patients because they have nothing to offer to them
It would be wrong to claim that all homeopaths aim at deceiving their patients, and it would be misleading to say that homeopaths have nothing to offer to their patients. Many patients of homeopaths primarily treasure the long, compassionate consultations that homeopaths have with their patients and see the homeopathic remedy as secondary. Seen from this perspective, homeopaths do offer something that many patients value highly.
Patients who use homeopathy must be stupid
It would be arrogant, insulting and counter-productive to claim that everyone who uses homeopathy is stupid. Patients consult homeopaths mostly because they have needs which are not met by conventional medicine but which they feel taken care of by homeopathy. Seen from this perspective, the current popularity of homeopathy in some countries is a poignant criticism of conventional medicine. To dismiss it a stupidity means missing a chance to learn an important lesson and to improve mainstream health care.
I know, my stance here can easily get misunderstood (see for instance some of the comments here). But please don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that homeopathy is a useful therapy, nor am I suggesting that we should not criticise it or stop public funding for it. All that I am trying to convey here is this: when we criticise homeopathy, we ought to make sure our arguments are factually correct – if not, we only give ammunition to our opponents.
In a nutshell: I don’t wish to undermine our arguments, but want them to be more effective.
The Scotsman reported that David Tredinnick, the somewhat feeble-minded Tory MP for Bosworth, has been at it again. Apparently he said that many of his constituents are only alive today because they have been treated with alternative medicine.
Tredennick recently urged ministers to spend more NHS money on alternative therapies such as homeopathy and acupuncture to treat patients. It seems to me that, for him and other quackery promoters, evidence and science are issues beyond comprehension. Mr Tredinnick also disclosed the fact that he received acupuncture at a Chinese medical clinic just before the Commons debate on cancer strategy – a regular treatment he credits with keeping him healthy.
Tredennick told his fellow MPs: “I was talking there to practitioners about what they are able to do for cancer patients, and there is actually a very long list of types of cancer that can be treated using traditional Chinese herbal medicine.“ One, cervical cancer, two, non-Hodkins lymphoma, three, HIV, four, colon cancer, five… six, breast cancer, seven, prostate cancer. And so the list goes on. “I have in my constituency several constituents who I believe are alive today because they have used Chinese medicine.“ And the reason for that is what it does is it strengthens your system, and it strengthens the immune system, and it is very effective after cancer treatment. It deals with particular symptoms.”
This is by no means the first outburst of quackery-promotion by the Right Honourable Gentleman. I have a whole selection of quotes from him which I sometimes use for amusing my audience during public lectures. Because amusing he is; Tredennick seems to be utterly devoid of rational thought when it comes to the subject of alternative medicine, and often his statements make for comedy gold. This time, however, he might be sailing closer to the wind than he perhaps realizes: Under English law, it is an offence to claim that any treatment can cure cancer, I believe.
We all had to learn to laugh about unethical and dangerous nonsense the ‘Tredennicks of this world’ regularly claim about alternative medicine. Laughing is the only solution for coping with such idiocy, I am afrid. If we don’t laugh, we have to consider taking it seriously – and this is a truly frightening prospect, particularly considering that this guy actually sits in parliament and has the power to influence our lives.
This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy of a homeopathic treatment in preventing excessive weight gain during pregnancy in overweight or obese women who were suspected of having a common mental disorder. For the homeopathic group (n=62), 9 homeopathic remedies were pre-selected: (1) Pulsatilla nigricans, (2) Sepia succus, (3) Lycopodium clavatum, (4) sulphur, (5) Lachesis trigonocephalus, (6) Nux vomica, (7) Calcarea carbonica, (8) phosphorus; and (9) Conium maculatum. From those 9 drugs, one was prioritized for administration for each participant. After the first appointment, a re-selection or selection of a new, more appropriate drug occurred, using the list of preselected drugs. The dosage was 6 drops orally 2 ×/day, in the morning and at night, on 4 consecutive days each week, with an interval of 3 d between doses, up until the next appointment medical appointment. The control group (n=72) took placebos. Both groups also received a diet orientation.
Weight change during pregnancy was defined as the difference between the body mass index (BMI) at the initial evaluation and that recorded at the final evaluation, adjusted for 40 weeks of gestation. In addition, the APGAR index in the newborn (a measure of the health of the baby) was evaluated. The mean variation between baseline BMI and BMI at week 40 of gestation was +4.95 kg/m2 in the control group and +5.05 kg/m2 in the homeopathy group. The difference between the two groups was not significant. APGAR 10 at 5 min (59.6% in the homeopathy group and 36.4% in the control group) was statistically significant (P = .016).
The authors concluded that homeopathy does not appear to prevent excessive body mass gain in pregnant women who are overweight or obese and suspected of having a common mental disorder. Homeopathy did not change the APGAR score to modified clinical attention at delivery room. However, the evidence observed at APGAR 10 at minute 5 suggests that homeopathy had a modulating effect on the vitality of newborns, warranting further studies designed to investigate it.
I have seen many odd studies in my time, but this must be one of the oddest?
- What is the rationale for assuming that homeopathy might affect body weight?
- Why take pregnant women with a weight problem who were suspected of having a common mental disorder?
- Why try to turn a clearly negative result into a finding that is (at least partly) positive?
The last point seems the most important one to me. The primary outcome measure of this study (weight gain) was clearly defined and was not affected by the therapy. Yet the authors feel it justified to add to their conclusions that homeopathy had a modulating effect on the vitality of newborns (almost certainly nothing but a chance finding).
Are they for real?
I suppose they are: they are real pseudo-scientific promoters of quackery!
Meniscus-injuries are common and there is no consensus as to how best treat them. Physiotherapists tend to advocate exercise, while surgeons tend to advise surgery.
Of course, exercise is not a typical alternative therapy but, as many alternative practitioners might disagree with this statement because they regularly recommend it to their patients, it makes sense to cover it on this blog. So, is exercise better than surgery for meniscus-problems?
The aim of this recent Norwegian study aimed to shed some light on this question. Specifically wanted to determine whether exercise therapy is superior to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for knee function in patients with degenerative meniscal tears.
A total of 140 adults with degenerative medial meniscal tear verified by magnetic resonance imaging were randomised to either receiving 12 week supervised exercise therapy alone, or arthroscopic partial meniscectomy alone. Intention to treat analysis of between group difference in change in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS4), defined a priori as the mean score for four of five KOOS subscale scores (pain, other symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and knee related quality of life) from baseline to two-year follow-up and change in thigh muscle strength from baseline to three months.
The results showed no clinically relevant difference between the two groups in change in KOOS4 at two years (0.9 points, 95% confidence interval −4.3 to 6.1; P=0.72). At three months, muscle strength had improved in the exercise group (P≤0.004). No serious adverse events occurred in either group during the two-year follow-up. 19% of the participants allocated to exercise therapy crossed over to surgery during the two-year follow-up, with no additional benefit.
The authors concluded that the observed difference in treatment effect was minute after two years of follow-up, and the trial’s inferential uncertainty was sufficiently small to exclude clinically relevant differences. Exercise therapy showed positive effects over surgery in improving thigh muscle strength, at least in the short-term. Our results should encourage clinicians and middle-aged patients with degenerative meniscal tear and no definitive radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis to consider supervised exercise therapy as a treatment option.
As I stated above, I mention this trial because exercise might be considered by some as an alternative therapy. The main reason for including it is, however, that it is in many ways an exemplary good study from which researchers in alternative medicine could learn.
Like so many alternative therapies, exercise is a treatment for which placebo-controlled studies are difficult, if not impossible. But that does not mean that rigorous tests of its value are impossible. The present study shows the way how it can be done.
Meaningful clinical research is no rocket science; it merely needs well-trained scientists who are willing to test the (rather than promote) their hypotheses. Sadly such individuals are as rare as gold dust in the realm of alternative medicine.
WARNING: THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
My first ever scientific paper, a spin-off from my MD thesis, was published exactly 40 years ago. Since then, I have written many more articles. Readers of this blog might think that they are all on alternative medicine, but that is not the case. My most cited paper is (I think) one which combined my research in haemorheology with that in epidemiology. Yet, I would not consider it to be my most important article.
So, what is my most important publication?
It is one that relates to the history of medicine.
In 1990, I was appointed as chair of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Vienna. On the occasion of the official opening of the new 2000-bed university hospital in Vienna, I was asked to say a few words and thought that a review of the history of my department might be a fitting subject. But I was wrong. What I discovered while researching it turned out to be totally unfitting for the event; in fact, it contributed to my decision to leave Vienna in 1993. I did, however, summarize my findings in an article – and it is this paper that I consider my most important publication. Here is its abstract:
Misguided by the notion that the decline of the German race would be prevented by purifying “Aryan blood” and eliminating foreign, particularly Jewish, influences, the Nazis evicted all Jews from universities within their growing empire during the Third Reich. The Medical Faculty of Vienna suffered more than any other European faculty from “race hygiene.” Within weeks of the Nazi annexation of Austria in 1938, 153 of the Faculty’s 197 members were dismissed. By far the most frequent reason for dismissal was Jewish origin. Most victims managed to emigrate, many died in concentration camps, and others committed suicide. The “cleansing” process encountered little resistance, and the vacant posts were quickly filled with persons known not for their medical expertise but for their political trustworthiness. It was in this climate that medical atrocities could be committed. After the collapse of the Third Reich, most members of the Faculty were burdened with a Nazi past. Most remained in office, and those who had to leave were reinstituted swiftly. The Jews evicted in 1938 were discouraged from returning. These events have significantly–and with long-lasting effects–damaged the quality of a once-leading medical school. This story needs to be told to honor its victims and to fortify us so that history does not repeat itself.
As I pointed out in my memoir, it “was not published until 1995, by which time I was no longer at the University of Vienna but had left Austria and gone joyfully back to the U.K. to take up my post at the University of Exeter. When the paper was published, it had a considerable impact and important consequences. On the one hand, I received a torrent of hate-mail and threats, and was even accused by the more sensationalistic elements of the Austrian press of having stolen considerable amounts of money from my department at the University of Vienna – an entirely fabricated story, of course, and so ridiculous that I couldn’t even take it seriously enough to instigate legal action.”
So, what else happened as a consequence of the paper?
The answer is ‘lots’.
The Nazi-dean of the medical faculty in 1938, Eduard Pernkopf, became the author of one of the world’s best anatomical atlas. Here is a short excerpt from a website on Pernkopf and his work which outlines some of the consequences of my paper:
START OF QUOTE
Following Dr. Edzard Ernst’s, revelations in the Annals of Internal Medicine (1995) about the source of Pernkopf’s “models,” Yad Vashem (the Holocaust Authority in Israel) requested that the Universities of Vienna and Insbruck conduct an independent inquiry to determine who the subjects in Pernkopf’s Atlas were and how they died. The request from Yad Vashem was initially denied; but the issue did not end. The following year, a letter by Dr. Seidelman and Dr. Howard Israel, an oral surgeon at Columbia University published in JAMA (November, 1996) in which they stated: “The abuses of medicine perpetrated during the Hitler regime pervaded the entire medical profession of the Third Reich including the academic elite. One legacy of the tragic era endures today through the continued publication of a critically acclaimed atlas, Pernkopf Anatomy…” Their letter prompted a report by the New York Times (1996).
In 1997, Alfred Ebenbauer, the rector of the University of Vienna, wrote to JAMA indicating that an investigation had been initiated and that preliminary findings indicated that the anatomy department had indeed, routinely received corpses of executed persons, among them renowned dissidents, and “brain preparations derived from children under the euthanasia program in psychiatric institutes were still stored there…” For the first time, he acknowledged publicly systematic suppression and even denial of the university’s Nazi past and its failure to conduct relevant investigations. Ebenbauer explained that this attitude had changed because of ‘‘increasing pressure from abroad’’ and a new political atmosphere in Austria (Ethics and Access…Pernkopf atlas, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 2001; Hildebrandt, 2006).
The final report of University of Vienna investigation found that at least 1,377 bodies of executed victims (guillotined or shot by the Gestapo at a rifle range); about 7,000 bodies of fetuses and children; and “8 victims of Jewish origin” had been received by the Anatomy Institute. A statement for users of Pernkop’s Atlas sent out by the U of V to all libraries states: “it is therefore within the individual user’s ethical responsibility to decide whether and in which way he wishes to use this book.” (Hildebrandt, 2006). Hildebrandt states: “the influx of bodies from executions increased so much during the NS [Nazi] regime that the rooms of the anatomy institute were sometimes overfilled and executions had to be postponed because of this.” However, she notes that the true numbers are not known because of incomplete documentation.
Howard M. Spiro, M.D., director of Yale’s Program for Humanities in Medicine and professor of internal medicine, was among the noted speakers at the convocation in Vienna marking (1998) the 60th anniversary of the dismissal of Jewish faculty members from the Vienna Medical School. In his address The Silence of Words, Dr. Spiro said, “the things that we avoid and don’t talk about are the matters that mean the most to us. The shame that has no vent in words makes other organs weep.” Dr. Spiro acknowledged that current officials of the University of Vienna are attempting to recover information that has either been hidden or destroyed and trying to locate former faculty who were interned and exiled. “There is a new generation that has taken over, and they are not afraid to look into these atrocities.”
It is now understood that many of the incredibly detailed illustrations in Pernkopf’s atlas depicted the bodies of victims of Nazi terror.
END OF QUOTE
Why do I bring this up again today?
For two reasons: firstly, I have been invited to give two lecture about these events in recent weeks. Secondly and much more importantly, we seem to live in times when the threat of fascism in several countries has again become worrisomely acute, and I think reminding people of my conclusion drawn in 1995 might not be a bad idea:
This story needs to be told to honor its victims and to fortify us so that history does not repeat itself.
WHAT DOCTORS DON’T TELL YOU (WDDTY) is probably the most vile publication I know. It systematically misleads its readers by alarming news about this or that conventional treatment, while relentlessly promoting pseudoscientific non-sense. This article , entitled “MMR can cause skin problems and ulcers if your immune system is compromised” is a good example (one of a multitude):
The MMR vaccine can cause serious adverse reactions, researchers have admitted this week. The rubella (German measles) component of the jab increases the risk of infection from the rubella virus itself, and can cause serious skin inflammation and ulcers in anyone whose immune system is compromised.
The risk is highest among people with primary immunodeficiency diseases (PIDD), chronic genetic disorders that cause the immune system to malfunction.
Although the risk for people with compromised immune systems has been known, and is even included in the package inserts supplied with the vaccine, it was theoretical, say researchers from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who say they have uncovered “genuine evidence of harm.”
The researchers analysed the health profile of 14 people—four adults and 10 children—who suffered some form of a PIDD. Seven of them still had the rubella virus in their tissues, suggesting that their immune systems were too weak to get rid of the virus in the vaccine. The virus can damage skin cells and cause ulcers, and makes the person more susceptible to the actual rubella virus, the researchers say.
People with a poor immune system already have compromised T-cells—which are responsible for clearing viral infections—and the MMR makes the problem worse.
END OF QUOTE
And what is wrong with this article?
The answer is quite a lot:
- The research seems to be about a very specific and rare condition, yet WDDTY seem to want to draw much more general conclusions.
- The research itself is not described in a way that it would be possible to evaluate.
- The sample size of what seems to have been a case-control study was tiny.
- The study is not properly cited for the reader to verify and check; for all we know, it might not even exist.
- I was not able to find the publication on Medline, based on the information given.
Collectively, these points render the article not just useless, in my view, but make it a prime example of unethical, unhelpful and irresponsible scaremongering.
On this blog, we have repeatedly discussed the issues around para-normal or spiritual healing practices. In one of these posts I concluded that these treatments are:
- utterly implausible
- not supported by good clinical evidence.
What follows seems as simple as it is indisputable: energy healing is nonsense and does not merit further research.
Yet both research and – more importantly – the practice of spiritual healing continue, not only in the developed world but even more so in poor and under-developed countries.
Traditional healers, known in Rwanda as Abarangi or Abacwezi claim to use their spiritual powers to heal sick patients. Recently, they urged their government to acknowledge them through proper regulation. Jean-Bosco Kajongi, the leader of the healers in Rwanda, said Abahereza are like doctors who have been selected by angels. “Umuhereza is someone who gets power from God to treat different diseases but particularly demonic possession such as ‘Amahembe’ and ‘Imandwa’. Sometimes, doctors detect something in the body, do surgery but find nothing. But Abarangi can identify the disease beforehand and heal it. Thus, we want to have legal personality and work with modern doctors because what we cure, they cannot even see it. Therefore, mortality rate would decrease.”
Abahereza claim to have God-given powers to heal any disease, provided that the patient has belief in their powers. Claudine Uwamahoro, a resident of Rulindo district is one of them. “Last year, I was transferred to Kanombe Military Hospital to have my leg cut off after they diagnosed me with cancer. Abarangi told me it was not cancer but rather ‘Imandwa.’ They treated me but I didn’t get healed immediately because I had not yet heeded God’s commandment because they do not use any medicines but only requires you to obey God and respect his commandments. Now my leg has been healed… Like Jesus came to save us so that we don’t perish, Umurangi also came so that we do not die of diseases that normal medicines cannot treat.”
Another patient agrees: “In 1983, I played football but later, Imandwa disabled me and my legs were paralyzed. I went to various hospitals and was given an assortment of medicines but they could not help. I always had fever; Doctors treated me but could not identify what kind of disease it really was. I even went to traditional healers but they didn’t have a solution. Pastors and priests prayed for me but in vain. Sorcerers also tried but failed. I was possessed by Imandwa and I was cured by Umurangi from Kirehe District. I believe that they have the power from God and when you respect their conditions, they treat and cure you completely.”
According to Alexia Mukahirwa, another witness, Umurangi is very powerful. “I was sick for 16 years. I went to different places and met many doctors. Some told me I had blood infection, others said it was stomach and intestinal infections. I consumed numberless medicines that never helped until I saw the power of Abarangi and believed them. Some people said that I had HIV/AIDS but it was not true. I only weighed 42 kilograms but now I have 68. Abarangi are powerful and may God bless them.”
James Mugabo, who is an “Umuhereza” or priest, said: “Before colonialism, people had their way of treating illness. But we have abandoned everything yet we should not.” The Director General of clinical services in the Ministry of Health responded by stating: “The law and policy are being drafted and will help us to know who does what kind of medicine and their identity. From that, we will know where to localize Abarangi in traditional or alternative.”
Hearing such things, we might smile and think ‘that’s Rwanda – this would not happen in developed countries’. But sadly, it does! These things happen everywhere. I know of healing ceremonies in the UK and the US that are embarrassingly similar to the ones in Rwanda – remember, for instance, the scenes seen on TV where Donald Trump was blessed by some evangelicals to receive the ability to win the election? And now they will probably claim that it worked!
Nothing to do with alternative medicine, you say? Perhaps this website on ‘spiritual homeopathy’ is more relevant then:
START OF QUOTE
What is spiritual homeopathy? It is based on the principle that “like cures like” and “wounds heal wounds” — the underlying wisdom of support groups. A Biblical story which illustrates this principle takes place on the ancient shepherding people’s journey through the desert. When they grew impatient and complained bitterly to Moses, God sent venomous snakes to bite the people. Many died. When the people confessed their sin, God told Moses to put a bronze snake on a pole. Those who were bitten and focused on the bronze snake did not die; they looked and lived.
Many years later Jesus said of his mission, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so the Chosen One must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes on the Chosen One might have eternal life.” Jesus’ disciple Peter wrote, “By Christ’s wounds you are healed.” In “The Angel that Troubled the Waters,” Thornton Wilder wrote: “Without your wound where would your power be? … In love’s service only the wounded can serve.”
As the Thanksgiving and Christmas season approaches, spiritual homeopathy offers healing to all – because the Babe in the Manger is also the Wounded Healer
END OF QUOTE
I think I rest my case.
Which illnesses can be treated with homeopathy?
The answer to this question could not be more simple: none!
This is not my opinion but the general consensus amongst critical thinkers and people who adhere to the principles of evidence-based medicine – a group that evidently does not include homeopaths. Take this website, for instance; it advocates homeopathy for almost every conceivable condition:
START OF QUOTE
Homeopathic medicines can be used for numerous illnesses, both acute and chronic. In an acute illness such as the flu or gastroenteritis, for example, the homeopath will choose the homeopathic medicine by taking into consideration and assessing the signs and symptoms exhibited by the patient from the beginning of the illness.
This is the medication or medications that will be administered to the patient with the aim of quickly reversing the pathological process and restoring optimal health.
In the case of a chronic illness such as asthma, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic gastroenteritis, the homeopathic physician will, in addition to assessing the current clinical symptoms of the illness, also take into consideration other general signs in the patient.
He will give equal importance to the person’s pathological background, their build, character, personality, attitude towards life etc.
All of this information will enable the homeopathic physician to identify the best medicine or medicines needed for the patient’s recovery.
Homeopathic treatment can space out the relapses that occur in chronic conditions, until they eventually disappear.
Numerous illnesses can be treated with homeopathy – in many cases the treatment is curative and in some cases it is palliative, when the illness is irreversible.
Some of the illnesses that respond best to homeopathic treatment are as highlighted below:
ENT and bronchial problems
- Stomach complaints
- poor digestion,
- duodenal ulcer,
- canker sores.
All types of muscle and/or joint pain due to arthrosis or arthritis:
- neck pain,
- shoulder pain,
- elbow pain,
- wrist pain,
- Back pain,
- knee pain,
- ankle pain,
- contractures etc.
- All types of trauma
- bone fractures etc.
- Recurrent urinary infections,
- Period pains,
- period disorders,
- menopausal complaints,
- Eczema, hives,
- Acne vulgaris, acne rosacea,
- Recurrent boils, verucas, plantar warts,
- Molluscum contagiosum,
- Herpes simple and zoster
- Headaches and migraines.
- Eye problems
- styes, dacryocistitis,
Behavioural and psychiatric disorders
- mental fatigue,
- Pediatric problems,
- Ear infections,
- skin complaints,
- canker sores,
- teething problems,
- sleep disorders,
- educational attainment issues,
- behavioural issues.
- Depleted immune defences,
- Recurrent infections affecting the throat,
- sinuses, nose, ears,
- connective tissue, larynx,
- bronchial tubes,
- bladder etc.
For the treatment of the diverse symptoms that appear over the course of the illness. Homeopathy can improve the patient’s general wellbeing and counteract the side effects of other treatments.
These are just a few examples, but the list could be endless – it is important to stress that homeopathy is very effective in pathologies that are difficult to establish or those with contradictory or paradoxical symptoms.
In recurrent illnesses, homeopathic medicines can boost the defences and help to regulate the sufferer’s body in order to prevent further relapses.
Homeopathy is an excellent preventive medicine.
END OF QUOTE
Some of us wonder why homeopathy continues to be popular in many parts of the world. The answer seems obvious: homeopathy is popular mostly because consumers fail to understand what it really is and therefore fall for the uncounted lies published by homeopaths and other interested parties.
If this is so, we urgently need factual and easy to understand information for consumers – and guess what: this is precisely the aim of the book I have just published – for the 1st review of this book, see here.
Dietary and herbal supplements (DHS) are currently popular. They are being promoted as being natural and therefore safe – an assumption that is clearly wrong: some DHS can contain toxic substances or they might cause interactions with drugs or other DHS.
This study explored whether adverse events were actually associated with such interactions and examined specific characteristics among inpatient DHS users prone to such adverse events. It was designed as a cross-sectional survey of 947 patients hospitalized in 12 departments of a tertiary academic medical centre in Haifa, Israel. It evaluated the rate of DHS use among inpatients, the potential for interactions, and actual adverse events during hospitalization associated with DHS use. It also assessed whether DHS consumption was documented in patients’ medical files. Statistical analysis was used to delineate DHS users at risk for adverse events associated with interactions with conventional drugs or other DHS.
The results show that about half of all patients took DHS. In 17 (3.7%) of the 458 DHS users, an adverse event may have been caused by DHS-drug-DHS interactions. According to the Drug Interaction Probability Scale, 14 interactions “probably” caused the adverse events, and 11 “possibly” caused them. Interactions occurred more frequently in older patients (p = 0.025, 95% CI: 2.26-19.7), patients born outside Israel (p = 0.025, 95% CI: 0.03-0.42), those with ophthalmologic (p = 0.032, 95% CI: 0.02-0.37) or gastrointestinal (p = 0.008, 95% CI: 0.05-0.46) comorbidities, and those using higher numbers of DHS (p < 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.52-2.48) or drugs (p = 0.027, 95% CI: 0.23-3.77).
The authors concluded that approximately one in 55 hospitalizations in this study may have been caused by adverse events associated with DHS-drug-DHS interactions. To minimize the actual occurrence of adverse events, medical staff education regarding DHS should be improved.
This seems to be a good study and it generated interesting findings on an important topic.
Why do I have nevertheless a problem with it?
The answer is simple but not pleasant: very similar results have been published almost simultaneously in more than one journal. The link above is to an article in the BR J CLIN PHARMACOL of October this year. The following text is from the abstract of an article in INTERN EMERG MED also of October this year:
Of 927 patients who agreed to answer the questionnaire, 458 (49.4 %) reported the use of 89 different DHS. Potential DHS-DHS interactions were identified in 12.9 % of DHS users. Three interactions were associated with the actual occurrence of adverse events. Patients at risk of DHS-DHS interactions included females (p = 0.026) and patients with greater numbers of concomitant medications (p < 0.0001) and of consumed DHS (p < 0.0001). In 88.9 % of DHS users, DHS use was not reported in medical files and only 18 % of the DHS involved in interactions were documented. Potential DHS-DHS interactions are common in inpatients, and may lead to hospitalization or worsen existing medical conditions. The causal relationship between potential interactions and actual adverse events requires further study.
END OF QUOTE
And to my surprise, I also found a third article also from the October issue of INTERN EMERG MED reporting on this survey. Here is part of its abstract:
DHS users were determined via a questionnaire. The Natural Medicine database was used to search for potential DHS-drug interactions for identified DHS, and the clinical significance was evaluated using Lexi-interact online interaction analysis. Medical files were assessed for documentation of DHS use. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to characterize potential risk factors for DHS-drug interactions. Of 927 patients consenting to answer the questionnaire, 458 (49 %) reported DHS use. Of these, 215 (47 %) had at least one potential interaction during hospitalization (759 interactions). Of these interactions, 116 (15 %) were potentially clinically significant. Older age [OR = 1.02 (1.01-1.04), p = 0.002], males [OR = 2.11 (1.35-3.29), p = 0.001] and increased number of used DHS [OR = 4.28 (2.28-8.03), p < 0.001] or drugs [OR = 1.95 (1.17-3.26), p = 0.011] were associated with potential interactions in DHS users. Physicians documented only 16.5 % of DHS involved in these interactions in patients’ medical files. In conclusion, a substantial number of inpatients use DHS with potential interactions with concomitant medications. Medical staff should be aware of this, question patients on DHS usage and check for such interactions.
END OF QUOTE
What is the difference between the three articles? The first one in INTERN EMERG MED authored by Levy I, Attias S, Ben Arye E, Goldstein L, Schiff E evaluated “potential DHS-DHS interactions among inpatients”. The second one in INTERN EMERG MED also authored by Levy I, Attias S, Ben Arye E, Goldstein L, Schiff E evaluated “potentially dangerous interactions of DHS with prescribed medications among inpatients”. Finally the one in BR J CLIN PHARMACOL also authored by Levy I, Attias S, Ben-Arye E, Goldstein L, Schiff E assessed in addition the interactions between DHS and prescription drugs.
Dual publications are usually considered to be a violation of research ethics. Publication of different aspects of one single data-set in multiple articles is called ‘salami-slicing’ and is often considered to be poor form.
My question to you, the reader of this post, is: What type of scientific misconduct do we have here?