cult
The objective of the present double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, feasibility trial was to identify the effects of individualized homeopathic medicinal products (IHMPs) against placebos in post-COVID-19 conditions. Sixty participants with post-COVID-19 conditions were randomised into either:
- group verum (n = 30; IHMPs plus concomitant care),
- group control (n = 30; placebos plus concomitant care).
Feasibility issues; primary—post-COVID-19 symptoms checklist; secondary—Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile version 2 (MYMOP-2); all of them were measured at baseline, and monthly intervals, up to 3 months. The intention-to-treat sample was analyzed; group differences were reported using descriptive statistics: means, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and between group effect sizes (Cohen’s d).
Feasibility concerns showed promise; recruitment, retention, and attrition rates were 34.2%, 95%, and 5%, respectively. Group differences in both primary and secondary outcomes favored IHMPs against placebos: symptoms checklist score mean difference after 3 months: −4.2, 95% CI −4.9 to −3.4, d = 2.854 and MYMOP-2 mean difference after 3 months: −2.2, 95% CI −2.8 to −1.7, d = 2.082, respectively. Natrum muriaticum (11.7%), Pulsatilla nigricans (10%), Rhus toxicodendron (8.3%), and Calcarea carbonica (8.3%) were the most frequently prescribed remedies.
The authors concluded that IHMPs produced better results than placebos in reducing symptoms checklist scores and MYMOP-2 scores in the treatment of post-COVID-19 conditions. Definitive trials are warranted to confirm the findings.
A feasibility study (the authors employ this term repeatedly) has – as I have often pointed out – the purpose of testing whether a trial disign, set-up, etc. is FEASIBLE. It is not meant to report other outcome data.
Why?
Mainly because such studies are far too underpowered for generating reliable results!
This means that the present findings can be ignored. They are most likely caused by chance.
Why are they published anyway, and why could the authors find a journal that goes along with such nonsense?
Are they too stupid or are they biased or both?
The nature of the journal might provide a hint for answering these questions (J Integr Complement Med), and so does the list of authors and their affiliations:
- 1Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 2Department of Pathology and Microbiology, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 3Department of Practice of Medicine, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 4Department of Homeopathy, East Bishnupur State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Chandi Daulatabad Block Primary Health Centre, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of West, Kolkata, India.
- 5Department of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 6Department of Community Medicine, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
I rest my case.
- complement conventional and supportive care,
- be complemented with other supportive therapies,
- substitute for supportive drugs,
- replace other supportive therapies,
- not be suitable to replace all supportive therapies,
- be the only supportive option available in some situations.
Nearly every time that I talk to proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) I hear a lot about diet. Diet is a central theme to almost all of them, it seems. In such conversations, several issues often emerge and frequently take the form of accusations, e.g.:
- Conventional medicine neglects the importance of diet for our health.
- Medical students learn next to nothing about the subject.
- In conventional medicine, hardly any research is focussed on diet.
- By contrast, practitioners of SCAM know a lot about diet.
- Many are experts in the subject.
- Patients are well-advised to consult SCAM practitioners if they want to learn how to eat healthily.
- SCAM practitioners have developed a wide range of diets that keep their patients fit and healthy.
I usually try to object to some of these points. The truth is that medical students do learn about diet, that doctors are aware of its importance, and that research into diets is highly active.
Particularly about the last point, I can get rather irritated. Sadly, this impresses the SCAM fans very little. They have their opinion and rarely budge.
After one such conversation, I decided to go on Medline and produce some figures. Here they are:
- As of 6 October, there are 1 453 clinical trials listed on Medline as published in 2024.*
- Between 1957 and today, around 57 000 such trials have been published.
- Their number shows an almost exponential growth during this period.
- The diets tested range widely and include, for instance, the Mediteranean diet, the ketogenic diet, intermittent fasting, vegetarian diet, energy restricted diet, gluten-free diet.
- There are as good as no trials on any of the SCAM diets.
- The researchers doing the diet trials are almost exclusively conventional medics or nutritionist.
- I did not find any SCAM practitioners in the list of authors.
So, the next time a SCAM proponent bullshits you about diet, you can tell him or her to get lost!
*Not all are, in fact, clinical trials
RAND claims to be “a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.” Recently, RAND has published an extensive report entitled ‘THE STATE OF HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH“. Here I show you a few interesting passages from this document [the number in square brackets refer to short comments of mine that I appended at the end]:
In this report on the state of homeopathic research, we encapsulate the outcomes of our comprehensive review and the deliberations of our expert panel. These findings and recommendations can guide the homeopathic research community, governmental agencies, and philanthropic organizations in how to best allocate research effort and fund quality and pertinent clinical research endeavors in the field of homeopathy [1].
This research was funded by the Samueli Foundation [2] and carried out by the RAND Research Across Complementary and Integrative Health Institutions (REACH) Center within the Quality Measurement and Improvement Program in RAND Health Care. The RAND REACH Center is a collaboration of researchers across institutions that educate complementary and integrative health practitioners in the United States (www.rand.org/reachcenter); several of these researchers and their students participated in this project…
We examined the state of homeopathic research by critically [3] assessing the overall quality of homeopathic clinical research literature and convening an expert panel to identify gaps in research quality [4] and in areas studied. Our assessment of research quality used a sample of studies from the most comprehensive database of published research on homeopathic research…
There were many areas in which the quality of the studies could be improved. About two-thirds of the 85 controlled trials had either high (42 percent) or unclear (24 percent) risk of bias according to internationally recognized standards for internal validity. Trials with a placebo arm were less likely than those with other comparators to have high risk of bias (29 percent versus 73 percent), primarily because of the ease of blinding patients and outcome assessors. Of the 14 observational (cohort) studies included in our sample, more than one-third did not control for important confounders in the outcome analyses. Regarding external validity, adherence was reported in less than one-third of the studies. Homeopathic consultations took place in 44 studies (the others were studies of routine homeopathy in which all patients received the same remedy [5]); almost half did not describe the experience and training of the practitioners. Forty percent of all studies did not report on safety; 79 percent of observational studies did not. Regarding model validity, which is essential for replicability and interpretability, fewer than two-thirds of the reviewed studies were consistent with homeopathic principles…
Recommendations
Drawing from the outcomes of our homeopathic clinical research literature review and the deliberations of our expert panel, we and the panelists developed the following six recommendations:
1. Funders, researchers, and journal editors and reviewers should require authors to follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and guidelines specific to reporting homeopathic studies, such as the Reporting Data on Homeopathic Treatments (RedHot) criteria for trials, and develop guidelines, as needed. In addition, training institutions should include training on the early use and reference to these guidelines in homeopathic research curricula.
2. All homeopathic studies should proactively monitor and report on adverse events as recommended in CONSORT and several other guidelines for the study of homeopathy [6].
3. Organizations with credibility and acceptability within the homeopathic research community [7] should identify methodological exemplar studies and make them known to researchers, so that these studies can be used to guide future research.
4. Training and support for homeopathic researchers should be increased, and where possible, research teams examining homeopathy should include experienced medical researchers who have an excellent track record for high-quality research. [7]
5. Funders and researchers should consider studies determining the validity of the Critical Appraisal Tool for Homeopathic Intervention Studies (CATHIS) tool as a quality measure for studies of homeopathy.
6. An organization with credibility and acceptability within the homeopathic research community [7] should assemble representative panels of stakeholders to obtain agreement about a small number of areas of focus for future research, with each area reflecting a specific population, treatment or prevention of a condition, and type of homeopathy in a particular country. These stakeholder panels could also address such research quality issues as determining the level of quality sufficient for making clinical decisions and setting policy guidelines, weighting the relative importance of different aspects of external and model validity, and establishing how to describe homeopathic practice [8]…
Conclusion
The goal of this project was to develop recommendations for the future of homeopathic research to ensure higher-quality evidence on the most relevant uses of homeopathy [9]. We accomplished this goal through a review of recent homeopathic clinical research literature, input from an expert panel, and a synthesis of results from both. We found that the state of homeopathic research could be greatly improved in terms of internal, external, and model validity. Strict adherence to reporting guidelines, with attention to quality criteria during study design, would likely result in most of the needed improvement. However, there is also a need for the homeopathic community to decide where to focus future research in terms of conditions, populations, and types of homeopathy studied. These focus areas could take many forms and should align with the community’s research goals. An appropriate focus (or set of focuses) should also balance answering questions to improve homeopathic treatment with the requirements for coverage by payers and desired inclusion in the broader health care system. [10]
We are grateful for the important feedback from members of our expert panel:
- Iris Bell, M.D., Ph.D., University of Arizona College of Medicine (Retired) and Sonoran University of Health
Sciences; - Dan Cherkin, Ph.D., Osher Center for Integrative Health, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington;
- Roger Chou, M.D., Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology and Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University;
- Katharina Gaertner, MBBS, Research Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke;
- Klaus Linde, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Coordinator, Technische Universität München, Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research;
- Alexander Tournier, Ph.D., Homeopathy Research Institute and Institute of Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University of Bern;
- Esther van der Werf, M.Sc., Ph.D., Clinical Research Lead, Homeopathy Research Institute, and Honorary Senior Lecturer, Primary
Care Infection, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol; - Harald Walach, Ph.D., CHS Institute. [11]
The project’s steering committee: Wayne B. Jonas, M.D., President, Healing Works Foundation [11]; and Jennifer Jacobs, M.D., M.P.H., Clinical Assistant Professor, Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health [11].
_______________________________
- The fundamentally important question whether more research of homeopathy is required was studiously ignored.
- Not exactly an organisation that is known to be impartial.
- After reading the entire document, I found very little critical input.
- I am not sure what “gaps in research quality” are; do they mean deficits?
- I think that’s normally called ‘clinical homeopathy’.
- Failure to do so is not merely a little lapse but a violation of research ethics!
- They do not exist.
- This is not realistic.
- There is a wide consensus that “relevant uses of homeopathy” do not exist.
- The crucial question was avoided, whether it is ethical to waste money and effort on researching something that, by a general consensus, is nonsense.
- Member of our ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME!
My final comment: imagine the ‘Flat Earth Society’ convenes an expert panel to decide about the shape of our planet …
This study aimed to determine the effects of Reiki on pain and biochemical parameters in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. This investigation was designed as a “single-blind, repeated measures, randomized prospective controlled study”. It was conducted between August 2022 and April 2023 with patients who underwent autologous bone marrow transplantation (BMT).
- In the Reiki group (n = 21), Reiki therapy was applied directly to the energy centers for 30 min on the 0th and 1st day of BMT, and from a distance for 30 min on the 2nd day.
- No intervention was performed on the control group (n = 21).
Data were collected using the Personal Information Form, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and biochemical parameters. Pain and biochemical parameters were evaluated on days 0, 1, 2, and 10 before the Reiki application.
There were no statistically significant differences in pain scores between the groups before the intervention (p > .005). The Reiki group showed a significant improvement in the mean VAS score compared with the control group on days 1 and 2 (p = .002; p < .001, respectively). The measurement of procalcitonin showed a decrease in the Reiki group and an increase in the control group (p = .026, p = .001, p < .001, respectively). Although the Reiki group had better absolute neutrophil, thrombocyte, and C-reactive protein values than the control group, no significant difference was observed between the groups (p > .05).
The authors concluded that Reiki is effective for pain control and enhancing the immune system response.
For the following reasons, I beg to differ:
- The patients of the verum group were fully aware of receiving the therapy; thus they were expecting/hoping to benefit from it.
- The patients of the control group received no therapy; thus they were disappointed which may have influenced thie VAS ratings.
- The procalcitonin levels are of doubtful relevance; they changed only within the group which, in a controlled clinical trial that is supposed to compare groups is meaningless and most likely a chance finding.
- The only people who could have been blinded in this ‘single blind’ study were the evaluators of the results (even though the authors state that “patients were blinded to the group assignments”) which is meaningless if patients and therapists are not blinded.
Because of all this, I feel that the conclusions should be re-written:
Reiki is known to cause a placebo effect which most likely caused the observed outcomes.
‘DOC Check’ just published an interesting article. Allow me to translate some passages for you:
In 2023, the German Federal Insititute for Drugs and Devices (BfArM) stated: ‘To date no homeopathic medicinal product has been authorised by the BfArM based on a study submitted by the applicant.’ So why are homeopathic medicines still covered by statutory health insurance? Jörg Windeler, then head of IQWiG (the German equivalent of NICE), gave an indication in 2019: ‘It is simply a way of attracting customers. Homeopathy is popular, and customers are more likely to go to the health insurance fund that pays for homeopathy.’ This laissez-faire attitude is expensive. And not just in terms of the cost of medicines.
If you delve a little deeper into the world of homeopathic medicine, further grey areas emerge. They concern the doctors’ fees that are charged as part of the therapy.
In Germany, the normal billing of fees by doctors follows strict rules. To rule out fraud, they are subject to a plausibility check by the health insurance. Among other things, the time profiles are checked to ensure that the practitioner is billing the number of examinations correctly. There are also fee budgets. If these are exceeded, doctors will only receive a pro rata payment for their services.
Doctors have different possibilities for homeopathic services. One popular version is the billing option that the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhÄ) offers its members. In this case, the plausibility checks of the insurance are not carried out. Furthermore, the services are extra-budgetary. This is possible because the DZVhÄ has concluded selective contracts via its own management company, MGL Managementgesellschaft für Gesundheitsleistungen mbH.
Access to participation in these selective contracts is gained via a ‘homeopathy diploma’, which is awarded by the DZVhÄ after 6 weeks of training. Trainee homeopaths have to fork out around 3,000 Euros to obtain this document – but the expense is well worth it. Once a doctor has obtained the homeopathy diploma, he/she participates in the selective contract. Subsequently, the health insurance pay fixed fees beyond the hotly contested pot. Only a few rules have to be adhered to: a time frame of at least 60 minutes for an initial homeopathic history and at least 30 minutes for a follow-up session. There is no evidence that these time limits are strictly monitored.
This uniquely lax construction in the German healthcare system is a potential gateway for abuse and fee fraud. It is easy to cheat on the time used for medical histories without a plausibility check. A practitioner can even conduct the initial homeopathic history and the ‘conventional medical’ consultation in parallel. The conventional medical service could then be billed via the health insurance, the homeopathic service again via the DZVhÄ route.
We asked the DZVhÄ in an editorial enquiry whether they were aware of this problem and how they ensure that everything is carried out correctly. The association remained silent – a tactic they have been using for years. The DZVhÄ only get vocal when they suspect attacks on their business model.
It would be interesting to know the volume of fees billed in Germany via the DZVhÄ’s selective contracts. Unfortunately, these figures are difficult to determine. A homeopath receives 97 Euros for the initial consultation. If each of the approximately 7,000 members of the DZVhÄ took an initial medical history on 200 working days per year, this would translate into a fee volume of more than 130 million Euros per year. This does not include follow-up sessions and so-called ‘repertorisations’. In other words, 200 million Euros could quickly be spent of doctors’ fees. Admittedly, these figures are speculative. However, the DZVhÄ could easily clarify the matter – if only they wanted to do so.
German health politicians ignore these hidden costs of homeopathy. They like to point to the notion that ‘only’ around 22 million Euros are spend on homeopathics.
__________________________
It would be a mistake, I think, to assume that financial reasons provide the only motivations for German doctors to use homeopathy. There are, in my experience, several others:
- Some occasionally use homeopathy as a placebo for patients where they feel a placebo is the best solution.
- Some use homeopathy for patients want it.
- Some use homeopathy because they are not fully aware of what it is.
- Some use homeopathy because they are ill-informed about the evidence.
Very few German doctors who I know have ever used it because they are convinced that it is effective.
After all these years, some homeopaths still manage to make me (almost) speechless. Here is the abstract of an article (Ravi Raghul.G, Shivaprasad J. Overuse Injuries in Children: A Homoeopathic Approach. Indian J Integr Med. 2024; Online First.) that achieved this rare feast of incompetence:
The increasing participation of children in organized competitive sports has led to a rise in overuse injuries, posing risks of limb deformity and impairment. This article explores the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications of HOMOEOPATHY in addressing overuse injuries in children. Overuse injuries result from repetitive strain on musculoskeletal structures, particularly prevalent during periods of physical growth and immaturity. Common injuries include stress fractures, traction apophysitis, and chronic physeal damage. In the Indian context, lack of awareness and inappropriate self-treatment exacerbate these injuries. Recognition of warning signs, such as persistent soreness, is crucial for early intervention. Rehabilitative approaches involve rest, gradual strengthening, and attention to flexibility. HOMOEOPATHY offers personalized remedies targeting specific musculoskeletal entities, aiding in recovery and preventing recurrence. Remedies such as Rhus Toxicodendron, Ruta, and Bryonia address tendon and joint issues, while Arnica montana and Symphytum officinale target trauma-related injuries. Individualized homeopathic treatment, alongside appropriate rehabilitation regimens, facilitates faster recovery from overuse injuries in children.
As this does not provide any concrete insights into how to treat overuse injuries of kids, let me also show you the ‘results’ section of this paper:
Arnica Montana
Indications: Arnica is one of the most used homeopathic remedies for injuries. It is particularly effective for muscle soreness, bruising, and inflammation resulting from overexertion and trauma. Athletes often use Arnica to reduce pain and swelling associated with overuse injuries [6].
Rhus Toxicodendron
Indications: This remedy is beneficial for conditions characterized by stiffness and pain that improve with movement and worsen with rest. Rhus tox is particularly suitable for tendinitis and bursitis where the affected area feels better after initial movement but stiffens up after periods of inactivity [7].
Ruta graveolens
Indications: Ruta is indicated for injuries involving tendons and ligaments. It is particularly useful for conditions like tendinitis and sprains where there is a sensation of bruising and lameness. This remedy is also effective in promoting the healing of bones and connective tissues [8].
Bryonia alba
Indications: Bryonia is suitable for conditions where pain is aggravated by movement and relieved by rest. It is particularly helpful for joint and muscle pain that worsens with the slightest movement [9].
Symphytum officinale
Indications: Known as “knitbone” Symphytum is particularly effective for promoting the healing of fractures and bone injuries. It is also used for periosteal injuries where the covering of the bone is affected [10].
As in this section the authors (from Dept. of Homoeopathic Paediatrics, and Father Muller Homoeopathic Medical College, Mangaluru, India) do also not provide any real evidence, let’s have a look at their references 6 – 10:
6. Tveiten D, Bruset S. Effect of Arnica montana in marathon runners. Homeopathy. 2003; 92(4):187-189.
7. Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002; 54(6):577-582.
8. Oberbaum M, Schreiber R, Rosenthal C, et al. Homeopathic treatment in emergency medicine. A case series. Homeopathy.
2003; 92(1):44-47.
9. Bell IR, Schwartz GE, Boyer NN, et al. Advances in integrative nanomedicine for improving infectious disease treatment in
public health. Eur J Integr Med. 2013; 5(1):39-56.
10. Vickers AJ, Fisher P, Smith C, et al. Homeopathic Arnica 30X is ineffective in preventing pain after tooth extraction. Br J Clin
Pharmacol. 1998; 45(4):532-535.
I happen to know all of these papers well (particularly the one I authored myself!). And I can assure you that none of them backs up the notion that the listed homeopathic remedies are effective for overuse injuries of children.
So, what is this paper?
- Scientific misconduct?
- Fraud?
- Sloppy research?
- Pseudo-sciene?
- Wishful thinking?
- Stupidity?
- Or just normal behaviour of pseudo-researchers in homeopathy?
I let you decide.
Osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK) is a chronic degenerative musculoskeletal disorder that strongly affects the elderly population and decreases their quality of life. Pain, stiffness, and restricted knee movements are the major characteristic features of OAK. There are no studies available on the effect of the liver 7 (LR 7) acupuncture point on pain and range of motion. This study therefore tested the effectiveness of the LR 7 acupuncture point on pain and range of motion in chronic OAK patients.
Thirty-five subjects aged between 40 and 65 years were recruited from Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College, Chennai. Participants were included in the study after they fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The duration of acupuncture was 20 minutes (5 days/week) for 2 weeks. Baseline and post-intervention assessments were performed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the degree of knee flexion and extension was measured using a goniometer.
Pre- and post-trial outcomes were compared using paired t-tests. LR 7 acupuncture reduced the WOMAC score from 49 to 30 (p < 0.001), indicating that pain was alleviated. Treatment increased the range of knee flexion from 110 to 115 degrees and reduced knee extension (p < 0.01) from 16 to 9 degrees (p < 0.001). These findings indicate that acupuncture treatment improved the range of knee movement.
The authors concluded that the present study showed that 10 sessions of LR 7 acupuncture for people with OAK significantly reduced pain and increased range of motion. We conclude that LR 7 acupuncture is an adjuvant therapy for alleviating pain and managing OAK.
On several levels, this is a shocking paper:
- There already are many controlled clinical trials of acupuncture for OAK; thus there is no reason whatsoever to conduct and publish a trial that is methodolagically inferior to this body of evidence.
- The conclusions are incorrect; as the study had no control group, it is impossible to establish causaality between the treatment and the outcome. The pain reduction might have been caused by phenomena that are unrelated to acupuncture, e.g. placebo effect, regression towards the mean, social desirability.
- The authors state that they are “grateful to principal and faculities of government of yoga and naturopathy medical college and hospital for their support”. This means that they were misguided by a governmental medical college and hospital in planning and running a study that is a waste of resources and thus arguably unethical.
Research of this nature is dangerous:
- It undermines the trust people put in science.
- It makes a laughing stock of more serious attempts to test the value of acupuncture.
- It misuses the cooperation of patients who give their time and good will to advance our knowledge.
- It wasts precious resources.
- It is an incentive for others to do similarly nonsensical pseudo-science.
- It misleads patients and carers into believing in quackery.
The only valid conclusion that can be drawn from this paper is, I think, this:
The people involed in planning, conducting, supporting and publishing this study have little understanding of clinical research and should receive adequate education and training before they are allowed to continue.
Acute encephalitis syndrome is a health burden to a populous country like India. It is characterized by a sudden onset of fever, altered sensorium with or without seizures, irritability, abnormal behaviour, or unconsciousness. This study aims to augment further evidence on the effects of add-on homeopathic treatment in reducing mortality and morbidity in children.
This comparative retrospective study included children hospitalized with acute encephalitis syndrome between July 2016 to December 2016. The researchers compared the parameters of children for whom decisions on Glasgow Outcome scale and Liverpool outcome score aided by add-on homeopathy against those of children from the same year when the add-on homeopathy was not used. All the children were on conventional supportive care and treatment tailored to each child. We also counted the days until the resumption of oral feeding and the length of hospital stay.
Ordinal regression analysis on analyses on 622 children (IH +CSC=329; IMP only=293) was done. Odds of a shift towards increased recovery were superior in the homeopathy-added group than in the IMP group without adjustment (crude OR 2·30, 95% CI 1·66 to 3·20; p=0·0001) and with adjustment (adjusted OR 3.38, 95% CI 2·38 to 4.81; p=0·0001). There was 14.8% less mortality and 17.4% more recovery in the add-on homeopathy group compared to CSC alone. Individualized homeopathic remedies commonly used were: Belladonna (n =238), Stramonium (n =17), Opium (n = 14), Sulphur (n=11) and Hyoscyamus niger (n = 7).
The authors concluded that this retrospective cohort study advocates for add-on homoeopathy in children suffering acute encephalitis which can produce notable improvements in terms of mortality and morbidity. Further studies in different settings are warranted.
If responsible physicians come across such an unexpected and implausible finding, instead of publishing it unchecked, they must properly test the hypothesis in a rigorous trial. As it stands, the results are meaningless and might even do untold harm, if some doctors drew the conclusion that homeopathy saves lives in acute encephalitis.
The most likely explanation for the reported outcomes is that there was considerable selection bias in recruiting patients to this study. The less severely ill patients might thus have ended up in the homeopathy group. The plausibility for the outcomes being due to the homeopathic treatment is virtually zero.
So, why did the authors of this paper publish such utterly unreliable findings and did not even include a hint of critical thinking? I think their affiliations might go some way in answering this question:
- Ramesh Prasad, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy,BRD Medical College and Hospital, GorakhpurAlok Upadhyay, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) BRD Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Vinod Kumar Maurya, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) BRD Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Preeti Verma, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Shashi Arya, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Supriya Singh, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
- Purnima Shukla, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) BRD Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- AK Gupta, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) BRD Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Arvind Kumar, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
- Praveen Oberai, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
- Raj K Manchanda, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, New Delhi
And why did they take all of 8 years to publish this nonsense?
Search me!
The Canadian Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) has announced that it will launch Canada’s first bachelor’s degree in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Greenlit by the B.C. government to fill what it calls rising demand in the labour market, the new program marks a major step in Canadian recognition of TCM. However, skeptics of TCM and other so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) remain wary of movement in this direction.
TCM is regulated in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, with more than 7,000 licensed practitioners working in these provinces.
John Yang has worked for nearly a decade toward KPU’s bachelor’s degree, which will welcome its inaugural cohort starting September 2025. As chair of KPU’s TCM program, he hopes the new offering will boost its acceptance and encourage more integration with the Canadian health-care system. “The degree program can let the public [feel] more confident that we can train highly qualified TCM practitioners. Then there will be more mainstream public acceptance,” he said. “Currently we are not there yet, but I hope in the future there’s an integrated model.”
The degree will add topic areas like herbology and more advanced TCM approaches to the current diploma’s acupuncture-focused study, as well as courses in health sciences, arts and humanities, ethics and working with conventional health practitioners, says Sharmen Lee, dean of the B.C. school’s faculty of health. “You’re getting a much broader, deeper education that allows you to develop additional competencies, such as being able to critically think, to evaluate and participate in research, and all of those other things that a university-based education can provide.” Lee believes future graduates will be able to work alongside with biomedical professionals, with some becoming researchers as well — able to pursue post-grad studies abroad. “They start to understand the fundamentals of conducting research, of reviewing published studies and then … to critically analyze what that means so that they can apply that to their practice,” Lee said. “It’s going to help to elevate the practice of traditional Chinese medicine … in our province.”
With the World Health Organization (WHO) encouraging governments toward integrating traditional and complementary medicine into their health-care systems, there’s a need for researchers to develop strong evidence to guide policy-makers, says Nadine Ijaz, an assistant professor at Carleton University in Ottawa and president of the International Society for Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine Research. “Most Canadians at some point in their lifetime are using some form of what we call traditional and complementary medicine: that might be acupuncture, chiropractic, massage therapy, vitamins, yoga … people who are participating in Indigenous healing ceremonies within their own communities,” she said. “How are governments to make good determinations about what to include? What is rigorous? What is safe? What is effective and what is cost effective, in addition to what is culturally appropriate?”
More research and scientific inquiry is a good thing, but it depends on the type of research, says Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator for the McGill Office of Science and Society and co-host of the health and medicine podcast Body of Evidence. Jarry said many studies on SCAM are low quality: too few participants, too short in duration, lacking follow-up or a proper control group. It’s an issue that plagues research on conventional therapies too, he acknowledged. “I’m all for doing research on things that are plausible enough that they could realistically have a benefit, but then you have to also do very good, rigorous studies. Otherwise you’re just creating noise in the research literature.”
Ijaz and a group of colleagues around the globe are working toward determining strong research parameters without forcing alternative approaches “into a box where they don’t fit.” For instance, a randomized controlled trial is the gold standard of research in biomedicine and excellent for studying pharmaceutical drugs and their effects, because participants in the control group get a placebo, perhaps a sugar pill, that means they can’t tell if they’re being treated with medication or not. But it doesn’t work for studying acupuncture treatment, chiropractic or even psychotherapy, Ijaz pointed out. “If you’re getting an acupuncture treatment, you usually know that you’re getting a treatment…. It’s a little bit challenging to develop a placebo control for for those approaches,” said Ijaz. “When we apply that particular gold standard to researching all therapeutic approaches … it sort of privileges the issue in favour of pharmaceutical drugs immediately.”
“A randomized controlled trial is the gold standard of research in biomedicine and excellent for studying pharmaceutical drugs … but it doesn’t work for studying acupuncture treatment, chiropractic or even psychotherapy.” When I hear nonsensical drivel like this, I know what to think of a university course led or influenced by people who believe this stuff. They should themselves go on a course of research methodology for beginners rather that try brainwashing naive students into believing falsehoods.
