Yesterday, my new book arrived on my doorstep.
Its full title is CHARLES, THE ALTERNATIVE PRINCE. AN UNAUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY. I guess that it also clarifies its contents. In case you want to know more, here is the full list of topics:
Foreword by Nick Ross v
1. Why this Book? 1
2. Why this Author? 5
3. Words and Meanings 10
4. How Did It All Start? 13
5. Laurens van der Post 17
6. The British Medical Association 25
7. Talking Health 31
8. Osteopathy 37
9. Chiropractic 43
10. The Foundation of Integrated Health 50
11. Open Letter to The Times 56
12. The Model Hospital 62
13. Integrated Medicine 66
14. The Gerson Therapy 73
15. Herbal Medicine 77
16. The Smallwood Report 82
17. World Health Organisation 90
18. Traditional Chinese Medicine 96
19. The ‘GetWellUK’ Study 100
20. Bravewell 106
21. Duchy Originals Detox Tincture 110
22. Charles’ Letters to Health Politicians 115
23. The College of Medicine and Integrated Health 120
24. The Enemy of Enlightenment 126
25. Harmony 132
26. Antibiotic Overuse 142
27. Ayurvedic Medicine 147
28. Social Prescribing 154
29. Homeopathy 160
30. Final Thoughts 169
End Notes 187
In case you want to know more, here is chapter 1 of my book:
Over the past two decades, I have supported efforts to focus healthcare on the particular needs of the individual patient, employing the best and most appropriate forms of treatment from both orthodox and complementary medicine in a more integrated way.
The Prince of Wales 1997
This is a charmingly British understatement, indeed! Charles has been the most persistent champion of alternative medicine in the UK and perhaps even in the world. Since the early 1980s, he has done everything in his power
- to boost the image of alternative medicine,
- to improve the status of alternative practitioners,
- to make alternative therapies more available to the general public,
- to lobby that it should be paid for by the National Health Service (NHS),
- to ensure the press reported favourably about the subject,
- to influence politicians to provide more support for alternative medicine.
He has fought for these aims on a personal, emotional, political, and societal level. He has used his time, his intuition, his influence, and occasionally his money to achieve his goals. In 2010, he even wrote a book, ‘Harmony’, in which he explains his ideas in some detail (discussed in chapter 25, arguably the central chapter of this biography). Charles has thus become the undisputed champion of the realm of alternative medicine. For that he is admired by alternative practitioners across the globe.
Yet, his relentless efforts are not appreciated by everyone (another British understatement!). There are those who view his interventions as counter-productive distractions from the important and never-ending task to improve modern healthcare. There are those who warn that integrating treatments of dubious validity into our medical routine will render healthcare less efficient. There are those who claim that the Prince’s preoccupation with matters that he is not qualified to fully comprehend is a disservice to public health. And there are those who insist that the role of the heir to the throne does not include interfering with health politics.
- So, are Charles’ ideas new and exciting?
- Or are they obsolete and irrational?
- Has Charles become the saviour of UK healthcare?
- Or has he hindered progress?
- Is he a role model for medical innovators?
- Or the laughing stock of the experts?
- Is he a successful reformer of healthcare?
- Or are his concepts doomed to failure?
Charles appears to evade critical questions of this nature. Relying on his intuition, he unwaveringly pursues and promotes his personal beliefs, regardless of the evidence (Box 1). He believes strongly in his mission and is, as most observers agree, full of good intentions. If he even notices any criticism, it is merely to reaffirm his resolve and redouble his efforts. He is reported to work tirelessly, and one could easily get the impression that he is obsessed with his idea of integrating alternative medicine into conventional healthcare.
I have observed Charles’ efforts around alternative medicine for the last 30 years. Occasionally, I was involved in some of them. For 19 years, I have headed the world’s most productive team of researchers in alternative medicine. This background puts me in a unique position to write this account of Charles’ ‘love affair’ with alternative medicine. It is not just a simple outline of Charles’ views and actions but also a critical analysis of the evidence that does or does not support them. In writing it, I pursue several aims:
- I want to summarise this part of medical history, as it amounts to an important contribution to the recent development of alternative medicine in the UK and beyond.
- I hope to explain how Charles and other enthusiasts of alternative medicine think, what motivates them and what logic they follow.
- I will contrast Charles’ beliefs with the published evidence as it pertains to each of the alternative modalities (treatments and diagnostic methods) he supports.
- I want to stimulate my readers’ ability to think critically about health in general and alternative medicine in particular.
My book will thus provide an opportunity to weigh the arguments for and against alternative medicine. In that way, it might even provide Charles with a substitute for a discussion about his thoughts on alternative medicine which, during almost half a century, he so studiously managed to avoid.
In pursuing these aims there are also issues that I hope to avoid. From the start, I should declare an interest. Charles and I once shared a similar enthusiasm for alternative medicine. But, as new evidence emerged, I changed my mind and he did not. This led to much-publicised tensions and conflicts. Yet it would be too easy to dismiss this book as an act of vengeance. It isn’t. I have tried hard to be objective and dispassionate, setting out Charles’ claims as fairly as I can and comparing them with the most reliable evidence. As much as possible:
- I do not want my personal discords with Charles to get in the way of objectivity.
- I do not want to be unfairly dismissive of Charles and his ambitions.
- I do not want to be disrespectful about anyone’s deeply felt convictions.
- I do not aim to weaken the standing of our royal family.
My book follows Charles’ activities in roughly chronological order. Each time we encounter a new type of alternative medicine, I will try to contrast Charles’ perceptions with the scientific evidence that was available at the time. Most chapters of this book are thus divided into four parts
- A short introduction
- Charles’ views
- An outline of the evidence
- A comment about the consequences
While writing this book, one question occurred to me regularly: Why has nobody so far written a detailed history of Charles’s passion for alternative medicine? Surely, the account of Charles ‘love affair’ with alternative medicine is fascinating, diverse, revealing, and important!
I hope you agree.
The nature of evidence in medicine and science
- Evidence is the body of facts, often created through experiments under controlled conditions, that lead to a given conclusion.
- Evidence must be neutral and give equal weight to data that fail to conform to our expectations.
- Evidence is normally used towards rejecting or supporting a hypothesis.
- In alternative medicine, the most relevant hypotheses often relate to the efficacy of a therapy.
- Such hypotheses are best tested with controlled clinical trials where a group of patients is divided into two subgroups and only one is given the therapy to be tested; subsequently the results of both groups are compared.
- Experience does not amount to evidence and is a poor indicator of efficacy; it can be influenced by several phenomena, e.g. placebo effects, natural history of the condition, regression towards the mean.
- If the results of clinical studies are contradictory, the best available evidence is usually a systematic review of the totality of rigorous trials.
- Systematic reviews are methods to minimise random and selection biases. The most reliable systematic reviews are, according to a broad consensus, those from the Cochrane Collaboration.
In case you want to know even more – and I hope you do – please get yourself a copy.
The Corona Committee (Corona Ausschuss) was founded in Berlin in July 2020 by the lawyers Viviane Fischer, Antonia Fischer, Dr. Reiner Füllmich, and Dr. Justus Hoffmann. Its aim is to provide a “factual analysis” of the coronavirus events and the consequences of the measures taken against them. In live sessions lasting several hours, the committee hears experts from all COVID-affected fields.
In an interview, Dr. Fuellmich said: “The decision to set up a Corona Inquiry Committee came about in the first telephone conversation Viviane Fischer and I ever had. After I had spoken out in the USA via various videos since April 2020 about the fact that the principle ‘audiatur et altera pars’ (hear the other side as well) had been blatantly violated here on the part of the government, I had come back to Germany from the USA because I felt that this was now my place and that I had to stand up here to ensure that our democracy and our constitutional state did not go completely to the dogs. I wanted to organize a symposium on the legal issues surrounding Corona, but I didn’t know any critical lawyers in Germany. I called my old friend Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, whom I knew from the Justice Working Group at Transparency International, and he then referred me to Viviane Fischer.”
The ‘Speerspitze‘, an “anonymous collective of contrarians, Corona deniers, Nazi witches and conspiracy heretics” considers the work of the Corona Committee to be “one of the most important pillars of the fight against the madness to which we have been subjected for the last year and a half and [has] great respect for all the activists, actors, and interviewees of the Committee who publicly denounce with their name and face what is happening.” Numerous further websites have joined in the promotion of the Corona Committee.
However, if you look at the information that the Corona Committee is disseminating, and if you are able to think critically, you are likely to come to very different conclusions:
– There is the expert who warns that the unvaccinated could soon be picked up and put into concentration camps. There is the threat of a “manhunt”, and loving parents might then have to hide their children under the boards of the floor at home to prevent them from being sprayed to death.
– There is the man who claims that Israel’s government is currently carrying out a holocaust on its own population (“You can see that by how many people are dying from the vaccinations”). A guest declares that there are “something like living octopuses” in the vaccine against Corona.
Anyone who takes a look at the many tediously long videos will quickly realize that every Corona denier, vaccination opponent, conspiracy theorist, mask opponent, and lateral thinker, no matter how paranoid, have their say here and spreads their pipe dreams under the guise of evidence-based information with the nodding approval of the lawyers present. Opposition is never raised and there is no trace of ‘audiatur et altera pars’; everyone agrees: worldwide, all governments are hell-bound at smashing everything there is to govern.
For those who are still not fed up, the website of the Corona Committee offers written answers to 31 very specific questions. Here is just one.
QUESTION: IS THE COVID-19 DISEASE SEVERE AND WIDESPREAD?
ANSWER: No, most people have no or only mild flu symptoms. Children and adolescents are extremely rarely affected. Post-mortem examinations by a Hamburg forensic pathologist on over 100 elderly people who died with a positive corona test revealed at least one other serious cause of death in all cases. Other published figures are mostly based on non-transparent attributions and assumptions without excluding other causes. Often, no attention was even paid to other pathogens or previous medication.
For a long time, I have been wondering where the penetratingly vociferous opposition to COVID vaccinations in Germany might come from. After studying the dangerous nonsense that the Corona Committee has been spreading for many months, I wonder a little less.
(texts in German were translated by me)
Compelling evidence has long shown that diagnostic imaging for low back pain does not improve care in the absence of suspicion of serious pathology. However, the effect of imaging use on clinical outcomes has not been investigated in patients presenting to chiropractors. The aim of this study was to determine if diagnostic imaging affects clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care.
A matched observational study using prospective longitudinal observational data with a one-year follow-up was performed in primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Data were collected from November 2016 to December 2019. Participants included low back pain patients presenting for chiropractic care, who were either referred or not referred for diagnostic imaging at their initial visit. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years, had a diagnosis of underlying pathology, or had previously had imaging relevant to their current clinical presentation. Coarsened exact matching was used to match participants referred for diagnostic imaging with participants not referred for diagnostic imaging on baseline variables including participant demographics, pain characteristics, and clinical history. Mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of imaging on back pain intensity and disability at two weeks, three months, and one year, and on global perceived effect and satisfaction with care at two weeks.
A total of 2162 patients were included, and 24.1% of them were referred for imaging. Near perfect balance between matched groups was achieved for baseline variables except for age and leg pain. Participants referred for imaging had slightly higher back pain intensity at two weeks (0.4, 95%CI: 0.1, 0.8) and one year (0.4, 95%CI: 0.0, 0.7), and disability at two weeks (5.7, 95%CI: 1.4, 10.0), but these differences are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. No difference between groups was found for the other outcome measures. Similar results were found when a sensitivity analysis, adjusted for age and leg pain intensity, was performed.
The authors concluded that diagnostic imaging did not result in better clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. These results support that current guideline recommendations against routine imaging apply equally to chiropractic practice.
This study confirms what most experts suspected all along and what many chiropractors vehemently denied for years. One could still argue that the outcomes do not differ much and therefore imaging does not cause any harm. This argument would, however, be wrong. The harm it causes does not affect the immediate clinical outcomes. Needless imaging is costly and increases the cancer risk.
“My father invented a therapy for which there was no disease, my mother caught it and died.”
This type of scurrility makes me laugh. And it reminds me of the missing link in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). We have heard about alternative therapies, alternative diagnostic methods, but what about alternative diseases and conditions? Here are some that SCAM practitioners seem to be oddly fond of:
- – adrenal fatigue
- – chi deficiency
- – yeast overgrowth
- – leaky gut syndrome
- – leaky brain syndrome
- – chronic Lyme disease
- – various food ‘sensitivities’
- – methylation dysfunction
- – spinal subluxation
- – vaccine-induced ‘toxicity’
- – toxin-overload
But surely, these cannot be enough! For the field of SCAM to make progress, we definitely need many more. So, I had a brainstorm and came up with the following suggestions:
- Ataxia: the condition (of many SCAM practitioners, but also others) where patients fail to declare their income to the taxman; usually cured by a short stay in the nick.
- Cardioversion: an insurmountable dislike of conventional clinicians like cardiologists; a self-limiting condition that usually improves after receiving proper medical attention during a serious illness.
- Collagen: a genetic disorder that shows itself through a strong dislike of experts who have been to college; incurable.
- Deepak Chopra Syndrome: a serious neurosis where the patient cannot stop uttering BS; incurable.
- Digitoxin: the unfortunate condition where a spiritual healer sends toxic spirits into the patient via his/her fingers; needs urgent detox.
- Donovan bodies: a psychiatric affliction where patients are compelled to look and sing like Donavan; requires a sound-proof cell.
- Duodenal ulcer: an unfortunate condition where the patient has two denal ulcers at the same time; emergency Reiki is advised.
- Dyspepsia: the pathological preference of Coke over Pepsi; incurable.
- Familial diseases: an umbrella term for all the few conditions that SCAM practitioners actually know about; can improve with reading a few textbooks.
- Free radicals: terrorists on the run; call the police!
- Fungal infection: a rare form of food poisoning where the magic mushrooms were off; needs detox.
- Iridocyclitis: an obsession that afflicts iridologists who cannot stop riding bicycles; incurable.
- Keratosis: the dangerous situation where a patient develops an aversion to his/her carer; change of carer is often needed.
- Murial dyslexia: the inability to be able to read the writing on the wall; incurable.
- Myositis: is always worse than your ositis.
- Osteoblast: an event where, after chiropractic manipulation, a bone breaks with an audible noise; see an orthopedic surgeon.
- Semi-colon: the embarrassing situation where a colonic irrigationist managed to clean out only half of the colon; manageable by changing your therapist.
If you, the reader, can think of more ways to expand the repertoire of SCAM terminology, please feel free to let us all know by posting your ideas below.
I have long cautioned that chiropractic overuse of X-rays is a safety problem. Is this still an issue? A recent paper was aimed at finding out.
The objective of this review was to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of routine or repeat radiographs (in the absence of red flags) of the cervical, thoracic or lumbar spine for the functional or structural evaluation of the spine. Investigate whether functional or structural findings on repeat radiographs are valid markers of clinically meaningful outcomes. The research objectives required that the researchers determine the validity, diagnostic accuracy and reliability of radiographs for the structural and functional evaluation of the spine.
The investigators searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to November 25, 2019. They used rapid review methodology recommended by the World Health Organization. Eligible studies (cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, randomized controlled trials, diagnostic and reliability) were critically appraised. Studies of acceptable quality were included in our synthesis.
Twenty-three papers were critically appraised. No relevant studies assessed the clinical utility of routine or repeat radiographs (in the absence of red flags) of the cervical, thoracic or lumbar spine for the functional or structural evaluation of the spine. No studies investigated whether functional or structural findings on repeat radiographs are valid markers of clinically meaningful outcomes. Nine low risk of bias studies investigated the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 8) of routine or repeat radiographs. These studies provided no evidence of clinical utility.
The authors’ conclusions are clear: We found no evidence that the use of routine or repeat radiographs to assess the function or structure of the spine, in the absence of red flags, improves clinical outcomes and benefits patients. Given the inherent risks of ionizing radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine.
In the paper, the authors provided further valuable information and background:
In the United States in 2010, the rate of spine radiographs within 5 days of presenting to a chiropractor was 204 per 1000 new patients. An analysis of national trends in the United States suggests that the rate of spinal radiography by chiropractors and podiatrists increased by 14.4% between 2003 and 2015. This increase occurred despite the publication of several evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical prediction rules to assist chiropractors in determining the indication for spine radiographs to assist with diagnosing a pathology. Overall, guidelines suggest that radiographs are indicated when signs and symptoms of potentially serious underlying pathology (red flags) are identified through the clinical history and physical examination. However, on its own, an isolated “red flag” may have a high false positive rate for the diagnosis of underlying spinal pathology, such as cancer. For example, the presence of a solitary “red flag” such as age over 50 years may not be sufficient to warrant taking spine radiographs. Therefore, clinicians are encouraged to combine sound clinical judgement and the assessment of red flags when ordering radiographs.
In the absence of “red flags”, the use of spinal radiographs is not recommended. Nevertheless, factions of chiropractors, including the International Chiropractic Association promote the use of routine or repeat radiographs to assess the structure and function of the spine. This practice which dates back to 1910 was initiated when no evidence was available to guide the judicious use of spine radiographs. Historically, these groups of chiropractors have argued that radiographs are helpful to measure postural abnormalities, identify vertebral misalignment or subluxation and guide treatment with spinal manipulative therapy. The belief that radiographs are useful to detect and correct spine structure and function provides the foundation for many chiropractic technique systems that are still in use today. To our knowledge, approximately 23 chiropractic techniques use spine radiography (including full spine radiography) to guide the clinical management of patients. These include the Gonstead, Chiropractic BioPhysics®, Toggle-Recoil, and National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association (NUCCA) techniques. Proponents of these techniques claim that the use of routine and repeat radiographs is supported by scientific evidence and have published a guideline to assist clinicians with the biomechanical assessment of spinal subluxation in chiropractic clinical practice using radiography. However, these claims have not yet been evaluated for their clinical utility, the benefit a patient gains from a test or treatment. This was a particular concern for the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia (CCBC) which regulates the practice of chiropractic in the province of British Columbia, Canada. The mission of the CCBC is to protect the public by regulating British Columbia’s doctors of chiropractic to ensure safe, qualified and ethical delivery of care.
The references from these two paragraphs can be found in the original paper. One reference the authors did not include was my article of 1998 which, at the time, received plenty of angry responses from chiropractors. Here is its conclusion: DATA SUGGEST AN OVERUSE OF RADIOGRAPHY BY THE CHIROPRACTIC PROFESSION. THIS CONSTITUTES A SAFETY PROBLEM THAT DESERVES TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND REQUIRES FURTHER RESEARCH.
Twenty-two years later, do I get the impression that the chiropractic profession might not be the fastest in getting its act together?
On his website, Phillip Hughes – D. Hom (Med), M.A.R.H, describes himself as follows:
In the early 1990’s my life was turned upside-down by a prolapsed disk in my back, putting me in traction in a hospital for 6 weeks! The doctor’s prognosis was poor, leaving me with little hope of full mobility, and no choice but to seek treatment elsewhere.
I decided on Homeopathy, and after treatment I experienced real change in my condition within a month, and was completely well within 3 months. I was so inspired by this I decided to study Homeopathy myself – and in 1994 I enrolled at the Hahnemann College of Homeopathy in London, qualifying in 1998.
After qualifying I set up my first clinic in Waterloo, Liverpool. I also became a senior lecturer at the Hahnemann College of Homeopathy, and founder of the Liverpool branch of the Hahnemann College.
I then moved my clinic to College Road Crosby, when I took up the role of secretary of Homeopathic Medical Association (since resigned). It was during this time that my wife Rosa found a lump in her breast, motivating us again to seek safer and alternative treatments, this time using Thermography. We now run Thermography and Homeopathic clinics side by side.
I had never heard of Mr Hughes until yesterday, when it was reported that he had treated a Sean Walsh, a young musician, for Hodgkin lymphoma that had initially been controlled with chemotherapy, but had later returned. Here is an excerpt from the sad story:
Sean was having scans at a clinic – Medical Thermal Imaging – run by a couple called Philip and Rosa Hughes. Philip Hughes, a homeopath, had previously told Sean’s parents he’d successfully treated Rosa for breast cancer. Dawn [Sean’s girlfriend] went along to Sean’s first appointment. “Phil was just talking all about how damaging chemotherapy is, you know, on the human body… saying, ‘I’ve had lots of people come to my clinic, but by the time I get them, they’re shot with all this chemotherapy, so I can’t help them … And then he was talking all about how you can change your diet, which can reverse cancer. He’d said that Rosa had developed breast cancer. She’d had a lump in her breast, and she decided not to do hospital treatment, and she was going to, you know, reverse the cancer herself. So obviously Sean’s listening to this thinking, ‘Well, if one person’s done it, and then I’m hearing other little stories off them, I can do this’. Sean’s scans did carry a disclaimer, stating that thermography does not see or diagnose cancer and recommending further clinical investigation. But the scan results seemed reassuring – and Sean was convinced his cancer had gone. ‘Medical Thermal Imaging’ describe their scans as “100% safe and radiation-free”.
To find out more about the service the Hughes were offering, a BBC reporter went to the clinic where Sean had his scans, posing as a patient who’d found a lump. They were seen by Rosa Hughes, who had provided scans for Sean. Rosa told our reporter that when she went to the breast clinic to have her lump investigated, she should have an ultrasound rather than a mammogram. This is a transcript of what she said: “Not a mammogram, because you’re going to get radiated, and it’s going to squash… and the amount of women that have had their tumours, the tumour burst, that spreads cancer.”
[The BBC] asked cancer specialist Prof Andrew Wardley, of Manchester’s Christie Hospital, to review the medical claims Rosa Hughes made to our reporter. “That’s preposterous. You don’t burst tumours, they are solid. You do squash the breast down to do a mammogram, it is unpleasant but it’s a short-term thing. You do not spread cancer by doing a mammogram, that’s a complete fallacy.” Rosa and Philip Hughes say they “utterly reject” the allegation that they gave Mr Walsh inappropriate advice. They added they had “consistently made clear” that thermography can only be used alongside other tests, such as MRIs or mammograms.
At first Sean believed he had cured his own cancer. But tragically Sean was wrong. Gradually his health declined, until he was rushed to hospital in Liverpool where medical staff found he had multiple tumours in his stomach and chest. He did eventually receive chemotherapy but it was too late.
Sean died in January 2019.
On Philip Hughes’ website, he advertises his services with the help of several testimonials from happy customers. Here is one of them:
In November 2000, I had an aggressive Sarcoma Tumour removed along with my left lung. Shortly after surgery I was referred to Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield for ‘follow up’ treatments where I was offered both chemotherapy and radiotherapy. At around the same time, I first visited Waterloo Homeopathic Clinic on a friends recommendation. After this initial introduction to Homeopathy I began ti educate myself about my condition and possible treatments. Consequently I considered chemotherapy to be a crude option and decided to refuse it. However, the frightening thought of this aggressive tumour returning encourages me to go ahead with a six week course of radiotherapy as a precaution alongside Homeopathic treatment. Accordingly this holistic approach resulted in my immune system being boosted by Homeopathy and my body prepared for this medical treatment. Leading up to the radiotherapy and during the six weeks of treatments, I took a rang of Homeopathic remedies. Radium Brom, in my opinion, was undoubtedly the input that enabled me to go through an intense course of treatment daily and continue my healthy recovery. I didn’t miss a days work and finished a half marathon only three weeks after completing the radiotherapy. I have since remained in good health and all checks been clear.
I have said it often, but it seems I have to say it again: the homeopathic remedy might be harmless, but the homeopath isn’t!
The BBC documentary provides many more details about Sean and another of Mr Hughes’ patients. It also shows some rare footage from the inside of the Gerson clinic in Mexico where Sean went for a while. Very sad but well worth watching!!!
Bioresonance is an alternative therapeutic and diagnostic method employing a device developed in Germany by the scientology member Franz Morell in 1977. The bioresonance machine was further developed and marketed by Morell’s son in law Erich Rasche and is also known as ‘MORA’ therapy (MOrell + RAsche). Bioresonance is based on the notion that one can diagnose and treat illness with electromagnetic waves and that, via resonance, such waves can influence disease on a cellular level. Bioresonance instruments are akin to the scientologists’ ‘E-meter’ which essentially consists of an electronic circuit measuring skin conductivity.
Until recently, just three studies of bioresonance had been published.
- The first was from Germany and suggested that it is effective for treating GI symptoms. This trial was, however, tiny and its findings are likely to be false-positive.
- The second study is from Turkey and suggested that it works for smoking cessation. It is a ‘pilot study’ that has never been followed by a definitive trial.
- The third trial was a double-blind, parallel group study in children with long-lasting atopic dermatitis. Over a period of 1.5 year, 32 children were randomised to receive conventional inpatient therapy and either a putatively active or a sham (placebo) bioresonance treatment. Short- and long-term outcome within 1 year were assessed by skin symptom scores, sleep and itch scores, blood cell activation markers of allergy, and a questionnaire. The results showed that bioresonance had no effect on the outcome.
Now a most ingenious study can be added to this list. Unfortunately, I was published in German, but bear with me, I will explain below. First the original abstract for those who can read German:
Trotz aller Aufklärungsarbeit wird die Bioresonanz weiter benutzt. Seit einigen Jahren sind modifizierte Geräte auf dem Markt, die auch in Reformhäusern zum Einsatz kamen.
Zwei moderne Bioresonanzgeräte, Bioscan-SWA und Vieva Vital-Analyser, wurden untersucht: Neun freiwillige Probanden (vier Frauen, fünf Männer), zwei männliche Patienten, eine Leiche, jeweils frischer Leberkäse (Fleischbrät) und ein feuchtes Tuch nahmen teil. Unter gleichen oder fingierten Angaben von Namen, Geburtsdatum, Geschlecht, Körpergröße und Gewicht der Probanden beziehungsweise Patienten wurden wiederholt Einzelmessungen und Vergleichsuntersuchungen von Proband/Patient, Leberkäse und feuchtem Tuch durchgeführt (nach den Angaben der Hersteller).
Bestehende Diagnosen schwer erkrankter Patienten wurden nicht erkannt, der Leiche beste Gesundheit neben einer Fülle potenzieller Gesundheitsrisiken attestiert, ebenso wie allen Probanden. Messungen an frischem Leberkäse sowie an einem feuchten Tuch unter verschiedenen Angaben zu Alter, Geschlecht, Körpergröße, Gewicht und Namen führten zu unterschiedlichsten Befunden mit relativen Standardabweichungen bis über 200 %. Andererseits waren Ergebnisse, die unter gleichen Probanden- beziehungsweise Patientendaten am feuchten Tuch und dem Fleischbrät gewonnen wurden, nahezu identisch mit denen, die von den Probanden beziehungsweise Patienten erzielt wurden.
Die Gerätschaften waren nicht imstande, die jeweiligen Testmaterialien zu unterscheiden. Es wird vermutet, dass die Überbrückung der beiden Pole der Untersuchungssonde durch schwach leitende Materialien eine Software aktiviert, die gesundheitsrelevante Befunde erzeugt. Wir empfehlen als einfache Tests für die Validität von Bioresonanzergebnissen den Leberkäse- oder verwandte Tests.
And here is my explanation.
The study tested the diagnostic validity of two different bioresonance machines commercially available in Germany. The tests were carried out on:
- 9 healthy volunteers
- 2 seriously ill patients
- 1 human corpse
- 1 liver pate
- 1 wet towel
The results show that the bioresonance method
- failed to diagnose serious diseases in the patients,
- produced a clean bill of health for the corpse,
- diagnosed a host of health risks in the volunteers,
- produced variable results for the liver pate and the wet towel with standard deviations for repeated tests exceeding 200%,
- generated no real differences between the wet towel and the healthy volunteers.
This study was published in 2019. It would be interesting to monitor whether the sales figures for bioresonance machines will now dwindle. Even though I am an incorrigible optimist, I shall not hold my breath.
Here is an open letter published yesterday, initiated by SENSE ABOUT SCIENCE and signed by many UK scientists and other experts. If you agree with it, you can still add your name to the signatories (see below):
Dear Mr Johnson
We urge you to start publishing the government’s evolving plans for coronavirus testing, and the evidence they are based on.
Testing is key to understanding the risks and to how people can get back to work and normal life. It is what major decisions will be based on, but there are also limits to what it can tell us.
People are frustrated and confused about the scientific and logistical challenges of testing and what the government is doing about it. The internet and media are awash with rumours and the public are valiantly trying to work their way through fragments of information. People in senior positions in healthcare, in government departments, in research and in the related industries are struggling to see whether their input is needed and how to give it.
Why is testing delayed? Is there a shortage of tests? Is there a shortage of chemicals? Do they only work 30% of the time? Will there be tests to see whether someone’s had the virus? Can people test themselves or does it have to be done by a clinic? These are just a handful of the many questions being asked. Scientists and government representatives are trying to answer them but it’s a losing battle with volume and reach.
The UK government’s response to this epidemic started by levelling with people in a clear way about the emerging evidence and transparency on the government’s evolving thinking about that evidence. Of course, continuing to tell people what is happening has become complex and challenging. But that won’t be brought under control by limiting communication to behavioural instructions or by your efforts to clamp down on misinformation. The government cannot clamp down on misinformation without substituting information in its place. Would the government please maintain its commitment to evidence transparency and put its evolving plans and evidence on testing on an open site where the public, experts and government agencies can follow them and to which those who are trying to address confusion can direct people.
Tracey Brown OBE, director, Sense about Science
Carl Heneghan, director, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine
Justine Roberts, CEO, Mumsnet
Emma Friedmann, campaign director, FACSaware
Professor Sarah Harper, The Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, University of Oxford
Mairead MacKenzie, Independent Cancer Patient Voices
Rose Woodward, Founder, Patient & Advocate, Kidney Cancer Support Network
Dr Bu’Hussain Hayee PhD FRCP AGAF, Clinical Lead for Gastroenterology
I.Chisholm-Bunting, School of Nursing and Allied Health
Rachael Jolley, editor in chief, Index on censorship
Caroline Fiennes, director, Giving Evidence
Dr Ritchie Head, director, Ceratium
Tommy Parker, KiActiv
Professor Annette Dolphin FRS, FMedSci, President of British Neuroscience Association
Dr James May, Vice Chair, Healthwatch and GP
Peter Johnson, Patient representative with respiratory conditions
A. P. Dawid, FRS Emeritus Professor of Statistics, University of Cambridge
Stafford Lightman FMedSci FRS, Professor of Medicine, University of Bristol
Dr Christie Peacock CBE PhD FRAgS FRSB Hon DSc, Founder and Chairman, Sidai Africa (Kenya) Ltd
Caroline Richmond, Medical journalist
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky FAcSS, Chair in Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol
Hugh Pennington CBE, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology, University of Aberdeen
Prof. Wendy Bickmore FRS, FRSE, FMedSci, Director: MRC Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh
Benjamin Schuster-Böckler, PhD, Research Group Leader, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
Dr Max Pemberton, Daily Mail columnist and NHS Doctor
Diana Kornbrot, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Psychology, University of Hertfordshire
Professor Patrick Eyers, Chair in Cell Signalling, University of Liverpool
Lelia Duley, Emeritus Professor, University of Nottingham
Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor University of Exeter
Ianis Matsoukas, Biomedical Sciences, University of Bolton
Dr Lorna Gibson, Radiology Registrar, New Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh
Sylvia Schröder, Senior Research Fellow, UCL
Dr Emma Dennett, St George’s University of London.
Ellie Wood, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
Sophie Faulkner, clinical doctoral research fellow / occupational therapist
Dr Maya Hanspal, research assistant, UK Discovery Lab
Dr John Baird, University of Aberdeen
Martin Stamp, managing director, Ionic Information
Saša Jankovic, Journalist
Kate Ravilious, Freelance Science Writer
Charise Johnson, policy advisor
Dr Sophie Millar, University of Nottingham
Bissera Ivanvoa, Research Assistant in Linguistics, The University of Leeds
Baroness Jolly, House of Lords
Dr. Simon Keeling MSc, PhD, RMet, FRMetS, The weather centre
Laurie van Someren, Aleph One Ltd
Prof Chris Kirk, former Hon. Sec. Royal Society of Biology.
Sergio Della Sala, Professor of Human Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Wilber Sabiiti,Senior Research fellow in Medicine, University of St Andrews
Prof. Bob Brecher, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Politics and Ethics, University of Brighton
Dr Sabina Michnowicz, UCL Hazard Centre
David Orme, Research Assistant, Cortex Lab
Rebecca Dewey PhD, Research Fellow in Neuroimaging
Dr Ricky Nathvani, Imperial College London.
Rita F. de Oliveira, Senior lecturer Sport and Exercise Science, London South Bank University
Prof Christopher C French, Head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths, University of London
Kirstie Tew, Lead Scientist, KiActiv®
Dr Ben Martynoga, Freelance writer
Nigel Johnson, Patient representative with respiratory conditions
Dr Mimi Tanimoto – Science Communications Consultant
Till Bruckner, TranspariMED
Lesley-Anne Pearson, The University of Dundee
Sue O’Connell, retired consultant microbiologist, Health Protection Agency
Hao Ni, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, UCL, The Turing Fellow, the Alan Turing Institute
Dr Simon Underdown, FSA, FRSB, Director – Centre for Environment and Society
Matthew A Jay, PhD Student in Legal Epidemiology, University College London
Michael Butcher, Chairman, dataLearning Ltd
Professor Tom Crick, Swansea University
Dr J K Aronson, Consultant Physician and Clinical Pharmacologist, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine
Dr Thomas O’Mahoney, Anglia Ruskin University
Professor Ianis G. Matsoukas PhD (Biomedical Sciences), University of Bolton
Emeritus Professor Nigel Brown, Blackah-Brown Consulting
Danae Dodge, Ask for Evidence Ambassador
Ieuan Hughes, Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital
Mandy Payne, Freelance Medical Editor
Lyssa Gold, University of St Andrews
Please email email@example.com
Wiki states that George Vithoulkas has been described as “the maestro of classical homeopathy” and is “widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist”. Others call him a “contemporary master of homeopathy” or credit him with the revival of the credibility of homeopathy.
A few days ago, THE MAESTRO has given an interview about the coronavirus which, I believe, is too hilarious to miss:
Q. What is your opinion of coronavirus, what homeopathy can do ?
A. Unless we have selected the real symptoms of the different stages of this influenza from the clinicians who are dealing at this moment with the infected cases, we cannot do anything substantial.
We should know the symptomatology of the beginning stages -before the pneumonia- and propose remedies for this stage in order to reduce the victims of going to the second stage. Also we should know the symptomatology of the later stage of pneumonia or diarrhea to propose different remedies for this advanced stage.
But the symptomatology has to be taken by an experienced homeopath in order to be reliable.
I think the best would be to establish contact with the clinicians in order to give us a fist hand information.
To give at random remedies as a prophylaxis and to make people think that they are protected it is irresponsible.
Q. What do you think about those homeopaths who advertise that are treating cancer cases using homeopathic remedies while at the same time the patients are treated with allopathic drugs?
Advertising that cancer cases can be cured by homeopathy in spite of the fact patients are treated with conventional drugs is an unethical act that should be avoided at all costs by any honest homeopath.
The reasons are simple.
A. The homeopathic remedy will act if it is prescribed according to the symptoms of the case. But in such a situation where the patient is under chemotherapy, the symptoms are suppressed by the allopathic drugs. Therefore the prescriptions at best are not prescribed according to the law of similars but are given in an arbitrary way, therefore instead of the similimum, several remedies are prescribed at random. Actually in this way, the case becomes more and more confused and the organism is more and more disorganised.
B. The homeopathic remedy acts on the energy level -on the vital force- inciting the organism to increase its response (initial aggravation) so the two treatments are antagonistic, the one suppresses the defense mechanism, the other strengthens it.
C. Out of such a confusion within the organism, no one can say what actually has happened in such a patient.
Of course each doctor is free to apply any treatment that according to his understanding will benefit the patient, but to claim publicly that homeopathy can cure cancer under such conditions is totally immoral.
Obviously patients will flock around such physicians in the beginning and can make them rich but in the end the disappointments will be for both parties, the doctors and the patients but mostly on the part of doctors.
Q. Perhaps because of the guilt for all the lies and false hopes?
Homeopathy is an amazing therapeutic system, that can make doctors and patients extremely happy but has limits and the doctors should not transgress these boundaries for material gain.
It is a great pity that homeopathy will be reduced to a routine massive therapy with meagre results by those who are advertising polypharmacy with such mongrel practices like the ones with prearranged therapeutic protocols or mixopathy.
If such practices prevail, finally the real classical homeopathy, that can have such amazing results, if it is learned and practiced correctly, will die out amidst an aggressive and competitive society.
So, essentially the great Vithoulkas seems to be saying that treating even the most serious diseases with homeopathy is fine, as long as homeopaths use no treatments other than homeopathy and as long as they do exactly what Vithoulkas proclaims or – even better – Vithoulkas does it himself.
I know, this is very similar to what Hahnemann, the creator of this cult, stated about 200 years ago … but it is nevertheless totally bonkers.
An article in the ‘Long Island Press’ caught my attention. Here are some excerpts:
A simple painless spinal adjustment by a chiropractor could be the latest breakthrough in the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction… Bridge Back to Life, an outpatient addiction treatment program, has teamed up with New York Chiropractic College (NYCC) … to offer the latest breakthrough therapy for substance use disorder. The first-of-a kind partnership, the brainchild of Bridge Back to Life’s medical director Dr. Russell Surasky, brings doctors from NYCC to evaluate and treat the center’s patients undergoing addiction therapy. Several diagnostic tests are performed at the base of the brainstem to determine if a misalignment exists. If present, the practitioners are taught to incorporate gentle painless, corrective spinal adjustments into the patient’s care plan. This treatment reduces stress on the spinal column and limbic system of the brain…
“Safe, painless adjustments to the upper cervical spinal bones can help normalize the brain’s limbic system by helping with the overall circulation of cerebrospinal fluid of the brain… I truly believe that this agreement with the college will serve as a national model for drug rehabilitation centers throughout the country,” says Surasky, who is triple board certified in neurology, addiction medicine, and preventive medicine. “Not only can spinal adjustments reduce the chronic pain issues that may have led patients into drug addiction in the first place, but now we also have evidence that spinal adjustments actually accelerate the healing of the brain from addiction.”
Surasky points to a study done in 2001 in the journal Nature: Molecular Psychiatry, which looked at the impact of spinal manipulations at an inpatient addiction treatment facility in Miami. The study found that chemically dependent patients who received specific spinal adjustments as part of their treatment reported fewer drug cravings and mental health symptoms. Moreover, 100 percent of the study patients who received chiropractic care completed the inpatient program, while about half of those not receiving treatments dropped out prior to completion. Yet no further studies were performed, and the information languished. Surasky began treating patients with the spinal adjustments at his private practice in Great Neck before bringing the treatment to Bridge Back to Life.
Mary W. came to Surasky’s Great Neck office for help with alcohol addiction nearly one year ago. She received monthly Vivitrol shots and had marked success in curbing her cravings and drastically reducing her drinking. But Mary still had one-day “slips” from time to time. She also complained of insomnia and migraine headaches. She recalled an accident in the past, where she hit her head. Dr. Surasky took X-rays of her upper neck and performed a Tytron scan. He said the digital images showed she had misalignments at the C1 vertebral level, likely putting pressure on the lower brainstem area. In addition to Vivitrol shots, Mary started receiving upper cervical adjustments and has remained sober since. Her migraines have dropped from five per month to one or none and she is sleeping better.
Where to start?
There is much to be concerned about in this short article. Let me mention just a few obvious points:
- A treatment that is not backed by solid evidence is hardly a ‘breakthrough’.
- The ‘misalignments’ they are looking for do not exist.
- Spinal manipulation is not as safe as presented here.
- The assumption that it reduces stress on the limbic system is far-fetched.
- To suggest this approach as a ‘national model’, is simply ridiculous.
- The notion that adjustments increase the circulation of the cerebrospinal fluid is not evidence-based.
- What are ‘chronic pain tissues’?
- The claim that spinal manipulation accelerates healing of the brain is not evidence-based.
- The study in Nature Molecular Psychiatry does not seem to exist (I could not find it, if anyone can, please let me know).
- X-ray diagnostics cannot diagnose ‘misalignments’.
- Tytron scans are used mostly by chiropractors are not a reliable diagnostic method.
- Anecdotes are not evidence.
In short: this article reads like an advertisement for chiropractic as a treatment of addictions. As there is no evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulations are effective for this indication, it is hard to think of anything more irresponsible than that.
And here is the question that I often ask myself:
Are there any bogus, profitable, unethical claims that chiropractors would shy away from?