FOUR QUESTIONS TO DC + CRITICAL CHIRO (CC):
1) what does the law say about informed consent for Australian chiros?
2) what info exactly do you have to provide?
3) who monitors it?
4) what published evidence do we have about compliance?
CC then posted this reply:
Here we go again you demand evidence while providing little if any for your own assumptions (poor case studies do not count. The pleural of anecdote does not equal evidence whether it’s from chiro’s or you).
We have been over this many times over many years, I cite research/provide links yet you still find it challenging to take it onboard. It is human nature to feel obligated once making a public statement to defend it no matter how much evidence is sent your way. So not surprising.
“1) what does the law say about informed consent for Australian chiros?”
It is all freely available on the national regulators website (as you know and as I have referenced in the past):
Some research by chiropractors on this topic (cited many times in the past):
Risk Management for Chiropractors and Osteopaths. Informed consent
A Common Law Requirement (2004):
Quick advanced PubMed with filters set to “Chiropractic” AND “Informed consent”.
Not rocket science
Latest paper that you wrote an ill informed blog on and the comments were not going as you expected (So I expected you to double down like Donald Trump with a new blog within days. Your getting predictable).
This paper questions the legal implications of vertebral subluxations with high powered legal input and is a broadside by evidence based chiropractors against vitalistic chiropractors. You respond a snide fantasy informed consent dialogue when you should be supporting the authors:
“2) what info exactly do you have to provide?”
“4) what published evidence do we have about compliance?”
We have discussed this as well. It is a common law requirement for every profession and is checked upon re-registration by AHPRA every year and by the professional indemnity insurers every year. No informed consent, no registration and no professional indemnity insurance.
Checked AHPRA’s panel decisions and went back 5 YEARS and found ONE decision relating to informed consent:
“3) who monitors it?”
Another of your tired old arguments that we have discussed many times over the years.
In the UK there is the “‘Chiropractic Reporting and Learning System’ (CRLS)” but this is set up by the association representing chiropractors and not the registration board that advocates for patients. Right idea and step in the right direction, wrong organization.
Here years ago there was a trial of an adverse event reporting system in a Melbourne emergency department systematically collected relevant AE information on all professions which was sent to the relevant board for investigation.
It was supported by doctors and chiropractors while physio’s were not involved. A doctor involved told me it was killed off by ER doctors who “snivelled” about the extra paperwork.
There is no AE reporting system for physio’s, chiro’s, osteo’s, GP’s in private practice etc.
Over the years you have harped on and on about this topic as if it is a failing purely of the chiropractic profession when we have supported initiatives for its implementation.
You have also kept up with the research even commenting on an chiropractic researcher on AE’s Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde (who you highly regard) yet ignored until you could take issue with two sentences written in a blog then you wrote this hatchet blog:
So you are asking for evidence yet willfully ignore an author who “I have always thought highly of Charlotte’s work”.
Stop the cynical cherry picked blogs and start supporting the researchers and reformers otherwise you are just someone standing on the sidelines blindly throwing grenades. You do not care who you hit or the damage you do to the chiropractors leading the reform you demand yet consistently fail to support.
I thought the tone of this response was oddly aggressive and found that CC had failed to understand some of my questions. Yet the link to the chiro’s code of conduct https://www.chiropracticboard.gov.au/Codes-guidelines/Code-of-conduct.aspx was useful. This is what it says about informed consent:
- the chiro suggests a manipulation of the neck;
- this often involves forcing a spinal joint beyond its physiological range of motion;
- the treatment will be short but needs repeating several times during the coming weeks;
- the expected benefits are a reduction of pain and improvement of motion;
- the total cost of the treatment series will be xy;
- there are many other treatment options for neck pain;
- most of these have a better risk/benefit profile than neck manipulation;
- having no treatment for neck pain at all is likely to lead to full resolution of the problem over time.
Apart from any doubts that chiropractors would actually comply with these requirements, the question remains: is the listed information sufficient? Does it outline a truly a fully informed consent? I think that essential aspects of informed consent are missing.
- The code does not explicidly require an explanation about the possible harms of spinal manipulation (i.e. 50% of all patients will suffer mild to moderate adverse effects lasting 2-3 days, and occasionally patients will have a stroke of which some have died).
- Moreover, the code mentions EXPECTED benefits, but not benefits supported by evidence. Chiros may well EXPECT their treatment to work, but what does the evidence show? As often discussed on this blog, the evidence is negative or very week, depending how you want to interpret it. The code does not require a chiro to inform his patients about this fact.
So, the way I see it, the code does not expressedly demand the chiro to explain his patient that the treatment he is being asked to consent to is
- not supported by sound evidence for effectiveness,
- nor that the treatment is burdened with significant risks.
And what about the other questions listed above? An Australian chiropractor who will remain anonymous gave me the following answers:
Yet, Australian chiropractors claim that they abide by the ethical imperative of informed consent. Are they taking the Mickey?
Perhaps not. Perhaps they are merely trying to make sure they do not lose the majority of their clientele. As I already pointed out in my previous post, fully informed consent would make most chiropractic patients turn round and run a mile.
I was alerted to an outstanding article by an unusual author, a law firm, on the subject of chiropractic. Allow me to quote a few passages from it (without changing a word or adding a comment):
When Katie May passed away suddenly from a stroke at just 34 years old, it was initially ruled an accident. After further investigation, a coroner determined the stroke that claimed the model and single mother’s life was caused by injuries sustained during neck manipulation by a chiropractor. And Ms. May is not the first to be affected by this seemingly harmless procedure…
What health issues can be caused by chiropractic manipulation?
Chiropractors typically use their hands to apply pressure to joints, aiming to help alleviate pain and improve body function. This is referred to as a chiropractic adjustment.
Adjustments are commonly performed for neck and/or back pain. Although the Mayo Clinic says the risk of a serious complication is relatively small, these complications can include:
- A herniated disk, or worsening of an existing herniated disk
- Compression of nerves in the lower spinal column
- Stroke, which can result in paralysis or death
The last item on this list is particularly concerning.
Patients who receive neck manipulation are at risk for a stroke caused by vertebral artery dissection. Located in the neck, the vertebral arteries supply blood to the brain and can be torn by stretching and sudden force applied during a neck adjustment.
How could a chiropractor be responsible for a patient’s injury?
Although the risk of being seriously injured by a chiropractor is low, tragic accidents can and do happen. If you or a loved one believe you have been the victim of medical malpractice, please contact an experienced personal injury attorney.
Explaining how an injury or medical error occurred will help your attorney determine the potential liability of a chiropractor and any other involved parties. A chiropractor’s liability could fall into a legal category such as:
- Failure to Diagnose a Medical Condition – The chiropractor breaches a duty of care to their patients by failing to diagnose an underlying medical condition. This could occur when a patient reveals or exhibits symptoms of a severe issue, such as a stroke, and is not referred for appropriate medical attention.
- Lack of Informed Consent – A patient is treated without being properly informed of the potential risks or side effects, and experiences an injury from that treatment.
- Negligent Manipulation – The patient’s body is adjusted by the chiropractor in such a way that it causes a new injury or worsens an existing injury. This could also include manipulation of a patient who is pregnant and goes into premature labor.
- Chiropractic Induced Injury – A patient suffers injury, permanent irreversible damage such as paralysis or wrongful death as the direct result of a chiropractic manipulation.
To find out whether or not you may have a case, please discuss your concerns with a qualified personal injury attorney.
What should I do if I think I have been injured by chiropractic manipulation?
A personal injury attorney can help recover compensation for victims of medical malpractice, including those who have experienced a chiropractic injury. Surviving loved ones can also pursue their case after a family member’s wrongful death.
An attorney will help you collect documents, photos and other items pertaining to your case – but staying organized early in the process will be helpful. Try to preserve important documents, such as:
- Photographs before and after treatment
- Medical records and medical bills
- Receipts, appointment confirmations and other paperwork from your chiropractor
There is a time limit to file a medical malpractice lawsuit, referred to as a statute of limitations…
Coffee enemas consist of the administration of warm coffee via the rectum into a patient’s intestines. They are popular, not least because they cause profuse bowel movements and thus lead to immediate relief of constipation and therefore to short-lasting weight loss.
Coffee enemas are promoted for detox under the erroneous assumption that that the content of our colon is toxic, an obsolete theory known as ‘autointoxication’. Other notions assume that coffee enemas have beneficial antioxidant effects or stimulate the liver. Supporters of coffee enemas also claim they are effective treatments for:
- boosting immunity
- increasing energy
- preventing yeast overgrowth
- treating autoimmune diseases
- excreting parasites from the digestive tract
- removing heavy metals from the body
- alleviating depression
- treating cancer
Coffee enemas can cause adverse reactions some of which can be severe and have even caused fatalities:
- electrolyte imbalances
- rectal burns
- bowel perforation
This new systematic review was conducted to investigate the safety and effectiveness of self-administered coffee enema and to provide evidence about its benefits and risks.
Relevant studies were retrieved from multiple electronic literature searches. Considering self-administered coffee enema being used in a various indication, study population was not restricted. Any types of published studies that included outcomes of effectiveness or safety of self-administered coffee enema with or without comparators were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Data on biomedical indications, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse events were collected. Descriptive analyses were planned because diverse health conditions and outcome variables did not allow for quantitative synthesis.
Nine case reports that describe adverse events were identified and included in the analysis. The reported problems included:
- rectal perforation, peritonitis,
- rectal burn,
- cardiorespitatory arrest, followed by death,
- hepatic failure, followed by death,
- vomiting, dyspnoea, followed by death.
No study reporting on the effectiveness of coffee enema was found.
The authors concluded that, based on the evidences reviewed, this systematic review does not recommend coffee enema self-administration as a SCAM modality that can be adopted as a mean of self-care, given the unsolved issues on its safety and insufficient evidence with regard to the effectiveness.
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is full of truly barmy ideas, but coffee enems are amongst the worst. They are disgusting, uncomfortable, useless and risky. I am posting this article with the sincere hope that nobody reading it will ever consider using such nonsense.
2750 signatories from 44 countries have signed it [I was number 11] and today is its official launch. I am delighted to present to you the full text of the English version:
Let’s be clear: pseudoscience kills. And they are being used with total impunity thanks to European
laws that protect them.
They kill thousands of people, with names and families. People such as Francesco Bonifaz, a 7-yearold boy whose doctor prescribed homeopathy instead of antibiotics. He died in Italy . People like Mario Rodríguez, who was 21 years old and was told to use vitamins to treat his cancer. He died in Spain . People like Jacqueline Alderslade, a 55-year-old woman whose homeopath told her to stop taking her asthma medication. She died in Ireland . People like Cameron Ayres, a 6-month-old baby, whose parents did not want to give their child “scientific medicine”. He died in England . People like Victoria Waymouth, a 57-year-old woman who was prescribed a homeopathic medication to treat her heart problem. She died in France . People like Sofia Balyaykina, a 25-year-old woman, who had a cancer that was curable with chemotherapy but was recommended an “alternative treatment”, a mosquito bite treatment. She died in Russia . People like Erling Møllehave, a 71-year-old man whose acupuncturist pierced and damaged his lung with a needle. He died in Denmark . People like Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert, a 40-year-old-woman whose therapist recommended the German NewMedicine to treat her breast cancer. She died in Germany . People like Sylvia Millecam, a 45-year-old woman whose New Age healer promised to cure her cancer. She died in the Netherlands .
European directive 2001/83/CE has made –and still makes— possible the daily deception of thousands of hundreds of European citizens . Influential lobbyists have been given the opportunity to redefine what a medicine is, and now they are selling sugar to sick people and making them believe it can cure them or improve their health. This has caused deaths and will continue to do so until Europe admits an undeniable truth: scientific knowledge cannot yield to economic interests, especially when it means deceiving patients and violating their rights.
Europe is facing very serious problems regarding public health. Overmedication, multi-resistant bacteria and the financial issues of the public systems are already grave enough, without the additional problem of gurus, fake doctors or even qualified doctors claiming they can cure any disease by manipulating chakras, making people eat sugar or using “quantic frequencies”. Europe must not only stop the promotion of homeopathy but also actively fight to eradicate public health scams. More than 150 pseudo-therapies have been identified as being in use throughout Europe. Thousands of citizens lives depend on this being prevented. In fact, according to a recent research, 25.9 % of Europeans have used pseudo-therapies last year. In other words, 192 million patients have been deceived .
Some believe there is a conflict between freedom of choice for a treatment and the removal of pseudo-therapies, but this is not true. According to article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person has a right to medical care. Lying to patients in order to sell them useless products that could kill them breaks their right to correct information about their health. This way, even if a citizen has a right to refuse medical treatment when he or she is properly informed, it is also true that nobody has the right to lie to obtain profit at the expense of someone else’s life. Only in a world in which lying to a sick person would be considered ethical, could homeopathy —or any other pseudo-therapy— be allowed to continue to be sold to citizens.
Effective treatments being replaced by false ones is not the only danger of pseudo-therapies. Obvious delays in therapeutic care occur when a person gets false products instead of medication at the early stages of a disease. Many times, it is then too late by the time they get treated with proper medicine. Moreover, several of these practices have serious effects on their own and may cause damage or even death because of their side effects.
Many pseudo-therapists argue that “the other medicine” comes with side effects as well, which is indeed true. However, the difference resides in that pseudo-therapies cannot cure a disease or improve your health, and because of that patients assume risks in exchange of promises that are a scam, according to the full weight of the scientific evidence available. Lying to a sick person is not another type of medicine, it is simply lying to a sick person.
Every country has to face the pseudo-therapies issue in its own ways. Yet it is not acceptable that European laws protect the distortion of scientific facts so that thousands of citizens can be deceived or even lead to their deaths.
We, the signatories of this manifest, therefore declare that:
1. Scientific knowledge is incompatible with what pseudo-therapies postulate, as in the case
2. European laws that protect homeopathy are not acceptable in a scientific and technological
society that respects the right of the patients not to be deceived.
3. Homeopathy is the best known pseudo-therapy, but it is not the only one nor the most
dangerous one. Others, such as acupuncture, reiki, German New Medicine, iridology,
biomagnetism, orthomolecular therapy and many more, are gaining ground and causing
4. Measures must be taken to stop pseudo-therapies, since they are harmful and result in
thousands of people being adversely affected.
5. Europe needs to work towards creating legislation that will help stop this problem.
Europe being concerned about the misinformation phenomena but at the same time protecting one the most dangerous types of it, health misinformation, is just not coherent. This is why the people signing this manifesto urge the governments of European countries to end a problem in which the name of science is being used falsely and which has already cost too many lives.
 Homeopathy boy died of encephalitis. Redazione ANSA, 2017.
 Grieving dad sues over ‘cure cancer with vitamins’ therapy, The local. Emma Anderson, 2016.
 Asthmatic ‘told to give up drugs’. The Irish News, 2001.
 Homeopaths warn of further tragèdies. BBC News, 2000.
 Alternative cure doctor suspended. BBC News, 2007.
 Футболист рассказал трагичную историю жены. Она умерла от рака в 25 лет. Sport24, 2018.
 Mand døde efter akupunktur – enke vil nu lægge sag an mod behandleren, TV2, 2018.
http://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2018-01-23-mand-doede-efter-akupunktur-enke-vil-nu-laegge-sag-an-modbehandleren  The price of refusing science-based medical and surgical therapy in breast càncer, Science Blogs, 2012.
 Psychic ‘misled actress to hopeless cancer death’. Expatica. 2004.
 Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001.
 Use of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe: Health-related and sociodemographic
determinants. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. Laura M. Kemppainen et al. 2018.
Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have limited treatment options. Alongside conventional anticancer treatment, additive homeopathy might help to alleviate side effects of conventional therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate whether additive homeopathy might influence quality of life (QoL) and survival in NSCLC patients.
In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-arm, multi-centre, phase III study, the researchers evaluated the possible effects of additive homeopathic treatment compared to placebo in patients with stage IV NSCLC, with respect to QoL in the two randomized groups and survival time in all three groups. Treated patients visited the university teaching hospital every 9 weeks: 150 patients with stage IV NSCLC were included in the study.
- 51 patients received individualized homeopathic remedies plus conventional treatments,
- 47 received placebo plus conventional treatments,
- 52 control patients without any homeopathic treatment were treated with conventional therapies and observed for survival only.
For groups 1 and 2, the study was double-blind. The constituents of the different homeopathic remedies were mainly of plant, mineral, or animal origin. The remedies were manufactured by stepwise dilution and succussion, thereby preparing stable GMP grade formulations.
QoL as well as functional and symptom scales showed significant improvement in the homeopathy group when compared with placebo after 9 and 18 weeks of homeopathic treatment (p < .001). Median survival time was significantly longer in the homeopathy group (435 days) versus placebo (257 days; p = .010) as well as versus control (228 days; p < .001). Survival rate in the homeopathy group differed significantly from placebo (p = .020) and from control (p < .001).
The authors concluded that QoL improved significantly in the homeopathy group compared with placebo. In addition, survival was significantly longer in the homeopathy group versus placebo and control. A higher QoL might have contributed to the prolonged survival. The study suggests that homeopathy positively influences not only QoL but also survival. Further studies including other tumour entities are warranted.
First of all, let me thank my friend Dana Ullman for alerting me to this new and interesting study. I have read what seems to be the full paper several times and have to admit that it puzzles me (and perhaps this version is just some type of pre-publication paper). Firstly, there seems to be no methods section (the abstract is followed by several tables and a discussion), and I am left guessing much of the details. Secondly, the paper raises several questions in my mind:
- What is the purpose of group 3? The authors call it a control group and state it allows assessing the real homeopathic effect on the homeopathic cohort as the real effect will be the natural historical effect minus the placebo effect and the homeopathic effect. Does that make sense?
- Was the study under-powered? From my reading of the text, the answer seems to be yes.
- What is the full list of conventional treatments the patients received, and did they differ between the 3 groups?
- If I understand it correctly, the study patients did not receive immuno-oncological therapy. Does that fact not render the study unethical?
- What homeopathic potencies were prescribed in group 1? The paper says: The constituents of the different homeopathic remedies were mainly of plant, mineral, or animal origin. This is unlikely, as most homeopathic remedies contain nothing.
- The authors seem to have used individualised homeopathy according to Hahnemann’s instructions. Did Hahnemann not strictly forbid combining his approach with other types of treatment?
- How well respected is THE ONCLOLOGIST, the journal that published the paper?
- Was the article peer-reviewed? If so, by whom?
- Was the placebo indistinguishable from the verum?
- Was the success of patient-blinding checked?
- Have similar findings regarding survival been reported previously? The authors call this finding ‘unexpected’; I find it more than that; it is baffling.
- Should we accept such surprising findings, or would it be more prudent to wait until independent replications are available?
- The first author of this trial is Prof Frass who has featured on this blog several times before (see for instance here, here, here, here and here). Frass has published several studies of homeopathy and invariably manages to produce positive results. Am I the only one to find this odd?
I would be most grateful, if the readers of this blog could assist me in finding answers to some of the above questions.
Several strands of evidence have indicated that vitamin D supplementation might be helpful for COVID-19 infections. Now we also have a study testing whether it works.
Spanish researchers evaluated the effect of calcifediol treatment on Intensive Care Unit Admission and Mortality rate among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in a randomized, double blind clinical trial. A total of 76 consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and clinical picture of acute respiratory infection (confirmed by a radiographic pattern of viral pneumonia and by a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR with CURB65 severity scale) were included. All patients received as best available therapy the same standard care. This consisted of a combination of:
- hydroxychloroquine (400 mg every 12 h on the first day, and 200 mg every 12 h for the following 5 days),
- azithromycin (500 mg orally for 5 days.
Eligible patients were allocated at a 2 calcifediol : 1 no calcifediol ratio through electronic randomization on the day of admission to take oral calcifediol (0.532 mg), or not. Patients in the calcifediol group continued with oral calcifediol (0.266 mg) on day 3 and 7, and then weekly until discharge or ICU admission. Outcomes of effectiveness included rate of ICU admission and deaths.
Of the 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50 %). Univariate Risk Estimate Odds Ratio for ICU in patients with Calcifediol treatment versus without Calcifediol treatment: 0.02 (95 %CI 0.002-0.17). Multivariate Risk Estimate Odds Ratio for ICU in patients with Calcifediol treatment vs Without Calcifediol treatment ICU (adjusting by Hypertension and T2DM): 0.03 (95 %CI: 0.003-0.25). Of the patients treated with calcifediol, none died, and all were discharged, without complications. The 13 patients not treated with calcifediol, who were not admitted to the ICU, were discharged. Of the 13 patients admitted to the ICU, two died and the remaining 11 were discharged.
The authors concluded as follows:
Our pilot study demonstrated that administration of calcifediol may improve the clinical outcome of subjects requiring hospitalization for COVID-19. Whether that would also apply to patients with an earlier stage of the disease and whether baseline vitamin D status modifies these results is unknown. Therefore, a multicenter randomized controlled trial using calcifediol, properly matched (Prevention and Treatment With Calcifediol of COVID-19 Induced Acute Respiratory Syndrome (COVIDIOL)), in 15 Spanish hospitals, funded by Clinical Research Program at COVID-19 “Progreso y Salud” Foundation and Foundation for Biomedical Research of Córdoba (FIBICO), Spain, (registered as NCT04366908 in NIH Trialnet database) will be carried out with the number of patients recalculated from the data provided by this study.
An interesting perspective of the new COVIDIOL trial with the recently available information, could be to evaluate calcifediol associated to dexamethasone or other corticoid vs. dexamethasone or other corticosteroid, since dexamethasone, which has potent anti-inflammatory actions, has recently been shown to reduce mortality in hospitalized patients on Covid-19 who are on respiratory assistance; so that treatment guidelines have been updated to recommend the use of glucocorticoids (including dexametasone), now proposed as the best available treatment in many hospitals around the world.
It is undeniable that this trial has several important limitations (and its authors are very honest to point them out). However, it is equally undeniable, in my view, that it is an important contribution to our current knowledge.
Prof. Shailendra Ramchandra Vishampayan is the 1st author of the paper we discussed yesterday. He was kind enough to repeatedly join us in the comments section, and I was therefore keen to learn more about him. On his website, he says about himself that he is a renowned academician and famous homeopath, enriched with decades of ideal experiences and quality services. He is registered medical practitioner (M.D), performs all the duties of registered medical practitioner following the law of land in India. Globally he is considered as homeopath and known as “Dr.V”. He is a registered member of Society of Homeopaths (overseas).
Dr. V, is a practicing homeopath with clinical experience of over 20 years. In course of his years of practice he had successfully helped more than 250 happy families globally, with various kinds of cases like thyroid, immune compromised, epilepsy, endocrine disorders, paediatric, gynaecological disorders addictions, psychiatric disorder, children with special needs, pets and plants.
He is famous for his path breaking concept and novel idea of creating an organization called ‘Folk Homeopathy ‘, which is dedicated to professional enrichment of homeopathic practitioners helping them to improve their clinical acumen with spot on prescription.
His practical approach in solving cases has earned him accolades and fame throughout the globe.
Dr. V is the author of ‘Kinder Garten Materia Medica’ a reference book for beginners widely used by homeopathic students in India. It is a book with unique combination of pictorial and pneumonic.
He is a Professor (PG) at D.Y.Patil Homeopathy Medical College (Pune). He has a teaching experience of over 16 years in teaching UG and PG. He has drawn large number of followers through webinars which is accessible throughout the globe. He has given more than 50 international seminar ,workshops and webinars in countries like USA, Ireland, Malaysia, with presentations on Homeopathic approach to female hormonal imbalance cases at OMICS Conference of Alternative Medicine, presentation on Psychiatric cases at Asian Homeopathic League. And various presentation at University of Cyberjaya, Malaysia, California Homeopathic Medical society, San Diego and also at Corte Madera, 98th FOH Congress, Liverpool and Kinvara Co Galway, Ireland.
And on the same site, we also learn that ‘Dr V’ is particularly adept at treating diabetes:
India is now considered as the diabetes capital of the world. Approximately 8.7 percent of Indians between the age of 20 to 70 years are diabetic. This translates to approximately 62.5 million diabetics living in India, according to estimates by the World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) The economic burden of managing this disease is also substantial since this is a combination of cost of treatment and loss of productivity in such a high number of diabetics. Diabetes can affect multiple organ systems resulting in a wide range of serious issues in patients. Many of these complications in a diabetic do not have any specific treatment with conventional medicines. However, an indication of the popularity of homeopathy amongst diabetics is that the doctors at our clinic treat approximately two hundred cases of diabetes or diabetes related issues every day. We have, in fact, developed specific diabetes management protocols for patients based on the experience of thousands of cases we have seen over four decades.
This is interesting, I thought, and conducted a few Medline searches to see whether there is any evidence to show that homeopathy is an effective therapy for diabetes. I am afraid, I found no papers of ‘Dr V’ to suggest such an effect. But what I did find was certainly fascinating.
Last year, Italian diabetologists published an review entitled ‘Alternative treatment or alternative to treatment? A systematic review of randomized trials on homeopathic preparations for diabetes and obesity‘. Here is what they reported:
The searches failed to retrieve any trial comparing homeopathic remedies with placebo or any active drug for the treatment of either diabetes or obesity.
These authors commented that
… if homeopathy is used as an alternative to available and effective treatments, the consequences can be catastrophic, particularly in some conditions such as insulin-requiring diabetes. In conclusion, there is no scientific evidence on efficacy and no demonstration of safety of homeopathy in diabetes and obesity…
‘Dr V’ will probably point out that he is a fully qualified doctor and uses homeopathy merely as an adjunct to conventional anti-diabetic treatments; thus he kills nobody.
I certainly hope this is so! But, even in this case, I must still ask: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HOMEOPATHY IS AN EFFECTIVE ADJUNCT TO CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE?
On this blog, I have discussed the adverse events (AEs) of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) with some regularity, and we have seen that ~ 50% of patients who receive SMT from a chiropractor experience some kind of AE. In addition there are many serious complications. In my book, I discuss, apart from the better-known vascular accidents followed by a stroke or death, the following:
- atlantoaxial dislocation,
- cauda equina syndrome,
- cervical radiculopathy,
- diaphragmatic paralysis,
- disrupted fracture healing,
- dural sleeve injury,
- haemorrhagic cysts,
- muscle abscess,
- muscle abscess,
- neurologic compromise,
- oesophageal rupture
- soft tissue trauma,
- spinal cord injury,
- vertebral disc herniation,
- vertebral fracture,
- central retinal artery occlusion,
- Wallenberg syndrome,
- loss of vision,
- Horner’s syndrome.
Considering this long list, we currently have far too little reliable information. A recent publication offers further information on this important topic.
The aim of this study was to identify beliefs, perceptions and practices of chiropractors and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and potential strategies to mitigate them. Clinicians and patients from two chiropractic teaching clinics were invited to respond to an 11-question survey exploring their beliefs, perceptions and practices regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them.
A total of 39 clinicians (67% response rate) and 203 patients (82.9% response rate) completed the survey. The results show that:
- 97% of the chiropractors believed benign AEs occur.
- 82% reported their own patients have experienced an AE.
- 55% of the patients reported experiencing benign AEs post-SMT, with the most common symptoms being pain/soreness, headache and stiffness.
- 61.5% of the chiropractors reported trying a mitigation strategy with their patients.
- Yet only 21.2% of patients perceived their clinicians had tried any mitigation strategy.
- Chiropractors perceived that patient education is most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by soft tissue therapy and/or icing after SMT.
- Patients perceived stretching was most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by education and/or massage
The authors concluded that this is the first study comparing beliefs, perceptions and practices from clinicians and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them. This study provides an important step towards identifying the best strategies to improve patient safety and improve quality of care.
The question that I have often asked before, and I am bound to ask again after seeing such results, is this:
If there were a drug that causes temporary pain/soreness, headache and stiffness in 55% of all patients (plus an unknown frequency of a long list of serious complications), while being of uncertain benefit, do you think it would still be on the market?
My new book has just been published. Allow me to try and whet your appetite by showing you the book’s introduction:
“There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking.” These words of Fontanarosa and Lundberg were published 22 years ago. Today, they are as relevant as ever, particularly to the type of healthcare I often call ‘so-called alternative medicine’ (SCAM), and they certainly are relevant to chiropractic.
Invented more than 120 years ago by the magnetic healer DD Palmer, chiropractic has had a colourful history. It has now grown into one of the most popular of all SCAMs. Its general acceptance might give the impression that chiropractic, the art of adjusting by hand all subluxations of the three hundred articulations of the human skeletal frame, is solidly based on evidence. It is therefore easy to forget that a plethora of fundamental questions about chiropractic remain unanswered.
I wrote this book because I feel that the amount of misinformation on chiropractic is scandalous and demands a critical evaluation of the evidence. The book deals with many questions that consumers often ask:
- How well-established is chiropractic?
- What treatments do chiropractors use?
- What conditions do they treat?
- What claims do they make?
- Are their assumptions reasonable?
- Are chiropractic spinal manipulations effective?
- Are these manipulations safe?
- Do chiropractors behave professionally and ethically?
Am I up to this task, and can you trust my assessments? These are justified questions; let me try to answer them by giving you a brief summary of my professional background.
I grew up in Germany where SCAM is hugely popular. I studied medicine and, as a young doctor, was enthusiastic about SCAM. After several years in basic research, I returned to clinical medicine, became professor of rehabilitation medicine first in Hanover, Germany, and then in Vienna, Austria. In 1993, I was appointed as Chair in Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter. In this capacity, I built up a multidisciplinary team of scientists conducting research into all sorts of SCAM with one focus on chiropractic. I retired in 2012 and am now an emeritus professor. I have published many peer-reviewed articles on the subject, and I have no conflicts of interest. If my long career has taught me anything, it is this: in the best interest of consumers and patients, we must insist on sound evidence; not opinion, not wishful thinking; evidence.
In critically assessing the issues related to chiropractic, I am guided by the most reliable and up-to-date scientific evidence. The conclusions I reach often suggest that chiropractic is not what it is often cracked up to be. Hundreds of books have been published that disagree. If you are in doubt who to trust, the promoter or the critic of chiropractic, I suggest you ask yourself a simple question: who is more likely to provide impartial information, the chiropractor who makes a living by his trade, or the academic who has researched the subject for the last 30 years?
This book offers an easy to understand, concise and dependable evaluation of chiropractic. It enables you to make up your own mind. I want you to take therapeutic decisions that are reasonable and based on solid evidence. My book should empower you to do just that.
When chiropractors try to play medical doctors, their patients are in danger. When they try to play epidemiologists, we might all be in danger. Already in April 2020, the Australian ‘Patrons of Chiropractic Science’ issued a press release on COVID 19 stating:
Good function of the body’s joints, particularly within the spine, may improve neurological function, which is important for an effective natural immune system. Treatment by a qualified and experienced chiropractor offers one of the most effective methods to improve and maintain good spinal joint function. The chiropractic profession attends to many patients, and like all other health workers, the profession truly cares for the welfare of every individual.
Now they have gone further. Their press release of 18/8/2020 states amongst other things:
- Approximately 1.5% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 may die; all people with a compromised immune system, that being the aged or those suffering a co-morbidity;
- 98.5% of those infected with the COVID-19 virus suffer either no symptoms, mild symptoms or treatable symptoms no worse than seasonal influenza;
- COVID-19 positive test numbers are largely irrelevant, as 98.5% of those testing positive will simply develop natural immunity and recover as the virus moves through the population. Recent studies by the UK based Centre for Evidence Based Medicine confirms increased COVID testing is the primary reason for increased case numbers, which have little relationship to mortality. The focus on case numbers is again designed to engender public fear and compliance;
Patrons of Chiropractic Science demands that the Victorian Government and its senior health officials cease distorting facts, stop blaming Victorian non-compliance for the increased positive testing numbers, and assume full responsibility for the aged care deaths and the current economic damage.
Simple facts: it is critical and more effective to isolate and protect the high-risk groups, effectively quarantine return travellers, but cease the illogical isolation of the vast majority of the population who are not at risk as the virus naturally circulates, and allow them to recommence working to save many businesses and initiate economic recovery.
Implying that regular chiropractic manipulations improve immunity or protect people from the corona virus is bad enough. But the new press release is worse:
- It is not true that only people with impaired immune systems, of old age, or affected by other diseases die of COVID 19.
- It is not true that all of the 98.5% who do not die have treatable symptoms not worse than a flu; an undefined percentage of the survivors suffer from very severe and sometimes long-lasting conditions.
- It is not true that 98.5% of those testing positive will simply develop natural immunity and recover; many will not recover completely, and the question whether mildly affected individuals develop immunity and for how long is as yet unanswered.
- It is not true that COVID testing results are unrelated to mortality; the figures need, of course, careful interpretation; the percentage of positive tests per number of tests done, for instance, should be independent of the frequency of testing.
- It is not true that the vast majority of the population are not at risk, if the virus were to circulate naturally.
All this looks to me as though the ‘Patrons of Chiropractic Science’ are in urgent need of learning some science. Meanwhile, it would be most helpful, if they could keep quiet.