Dr Alok Pareek has been elected as the World President of the International Homeopathic Medical league (LMHI – Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis), the largest, oldest and only association of Medical Homeopaths in the World. He is the first Asian in 4 decades to bring this honour to India. Dr Alok Pareek was elected at the 71st World Congress of the LMHI held in Buenos Aires, Argentina on 23rd August 2016. He was elected unopposed by over 70 member countries. He has been elected for a three year tenure from 2016 to 2019
Dr. Alok Pareek runs a homeopathic hospital together with his father R.S. Pareek in Agra, India with fifty beds, treating around two hundred patients daily. His clinical practice spans thirty years. This extensive experience has given him a wealth of opportunity to carry out and refine homeopathic treatment in a wide range of acute and emergency situations… Dr. Pareek demonstrates that homeopathy has much to offer in acute and emergency settings. He aims to increase the confidence of practitioners, to improve results and encourage them to offer safe and effective treatment in this important field, enabling homeopathy to take its place alongside conventional approaches within mainstream medicine. “As an Emergency Medicine physician who deals with life threatening diseases on a daily basis, I found Dr. Pareek’s homeopathic approach to be full of well-rounded clinical criteria and plenty of wise advice to the homeopathic doctor. I truly hope to be in medicine long enough to see us practice ‘hand in hand’ and enjoy the great benefits of this marvelous ‘scientific marriage’ in my emergency medicine patients.” Gladys H. Lopez M.D., M.P.H. USA Board Certified in Emergency Medicine
These two quotes might give you a fairly good impression of Dr Alok Pareek.
But why do I dedicate an entire post to him?
The reason is that I was alerted to one of his books entitled ‘Cancer is curable with homeopathy’. Even though it is obviously a translation from English, I could not find the original; so you have to bear with me as I translate for you the German abstract copied below:
75 years of homeopathic experience by father and son from India are expressed in this book about the homeopathic cure of cancers. Based on excellently documented cases, it demonstrates how homeopathy is clearly superior to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. We experience how a cure is possible even for such a serious disease as cancer in advanced stages. Dr D. Spinedi (Switzeralnd) estimates the immense experience of the doctors Pareek as ‘essential basic knowledge that should be accessible to all homeopaths’. It is a book that gives courage to both patients and therapists.
Zusammen 75 Jahre homöopathischer Erfahrung von Vater und Sohn Pareek aus Indien mit Tausenden von Patienten finden in diesem Buch ihren Niederschlag in der homöopathischen Heilung von Krebserkrankungen. Anhand exzellent dokumentierter Fallbeispiele wird gezeigt, wie in klassischer Arbeitsweise die Homöopathie der Chemotherapie und der Strahlentherapie deutlich überlegen ist. Wir erleben mit, wie Heilung bei einer so schweren Krankheit wie Krebs auch noch in fortgeschrittenen Stadien durch Homöopathie möglich ist. Dr. D. Spinedi (Schweiz) wertet die immense Erfahrung der Dres. Pareek als “unverzichtbares Grundlagenwissen, das allen Homöopathen zugänglich sein sollte.” Ein Buch, das Patienten wie Therapeuten Mut macht!
It is by Jove not often that I am speechless, but today, that’s exactly what I am.
Samuel Hahnemann invented homeopathy about 200 years ago. His placebos were better than (or not as bad as) the ‘heroic’ medicine of his time which frequently was more dangerous than the disease it aimed to cure. Thus, homeopathy took Germany by storm. When, about 100 years ago, medicine finally became scientific and was able to offer more and more effective treatments, the popularity of homeopathy began to wane. Yet, before its natural demise, during the Third Reich, it received a significant boost from Nazi-greats such as Hess and Himmler. After this nightmare was over, German homeopathy went into another slow decline. But when the New Age movement and the current boom in alternative medicine reached Germany, homeopathy seemed to thrive once again.
In the 1990s evidence-based medicine (EBM) grew into one of the central concepts of medicine. In Germany, however, EBM had a relatively hard time to get established. This might be one of the reasons why homeopathy continued to prosper, despite the arrival of ever clearer evidence that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. While, in the UK, we had an increasingly lively debate about the uselessness of homeopathy, Germany remained the promised land of homeopathy. Sales figures of homeopathics continued to increase steadily and reached a level of about half a billion Euros per annum.
The golden age of German homeopathy had dawned:
- The media, often sponsored by homeopathic interest groups, kept on promoting homeopathy largely unopposed.
- The mighty Carstens Stiftung worked tirelessly to promote it.
- Homeopathy became established in many medical schools.
- Homeopathy was available and often advertised in almost all pharmacies.
- The public was convinced that homeopathy worked.
- The Heilpraktiker adopted homeopathy fully.
- The medical and other conventional healthcare professions embraced it to a large degree.
- The adult education institutes (Volkshochschulen) offered courses.
- Politicians were squarely on the side of homeopathy,
- Health insurances, paid for it.
Of course, there were also some (and always had been) opposing voiced and organisations, such as the GWUP (the German sceptic organisation), for example. But somehow, they remained relatively low-key. When, every now and then, courageous journalists dared to think of a critical take on homeopathy, they had to search far and wide to find a German-speaking expert who was willing or able to tell them the truth: that homeopathy is neither biologically plausible nor evidence-based and therefore an expensive, potentially harmful waste of money that makes a mockery of EBM. During this period, journalists (far too) often asked me for some critical comments. I hardly ever published my research in German, but they nevertheless would find me via my Medline-listed papers. I often felt like a very lone voice in a German desert.
For the German homeopathic industry, I evidently was more than just a lone voice. Unbeknown to me, they clubbed together and financed a PR-man/journalist (at the tune of Euro 30 000/year) to write as many defamatory articles about me as he could muster. First, I was bewildered by his activity, then I tried to communicate with him (only to get mis-quoted), and eventually I ignored his writings. Yet, a German investigative journalist found Fritzsche’s one-sided activities offensive and started investigating. His research and subsequent article disclosed the fact that he was being paid by the homeopathic industry. Once I learn about this scandal, I wrote to some of the financiers directly and asked for an explanation. As a result, they discontinued their sponsorship. Shortly afterwards, Fritzsche committed suicide.
At heart, I have always been an optimist and strongly believe that in medicine the truth, in this case the evidence, will always prevail, no matter what obstacles others might put in its way. Recent developments seem to suggest that I might be right.
In the last few years, several individuals in Germany have, from entirely different angles, taken a fresh look at the evidence on homeopathy and found it to be desperately wanting. Independent of each other, they published articles and books about their research and insights. Here are 5 examples:
In Sachen Homöopathie: Eine Beweisaufnahme, Norbert Aust, 2013
Homöopathie neu gedacht: Was Patienten wirklich hilft, Natalie Grams, 2015
Inevitably, these individuals came into contact with each other and subsequently founded several working-groups to discuss their concerns and coordinate their activities. Thus the INH and the Muensteraner Kreis were born. So, now we have at least three overlapping groups of enthusiastic, multidisciplinary experts who voluntarily work towards informing the German public that paying for homeopathy out of public funds is unethical, nonsensical and not in the interest of progress:
- the GWUP,
- the INH
- and the Muensteraner Kreis.
No wonder then, that the German homeopathic industry and other interested parties got worried. When they realised that (presumably due to the work of these altruistic enthusiasts) the sales figures of homeopathics in Germany had, for the first time since many years, started declining, they panicked.
Their reaction was, as far as I can see, similar to their previous response to criticism: they started a media campaign in an attempt to sway public opinion. And just like before, they have taken to employing PR-people who currently spend their time defaming all individuals voicing criticism of homeopathy in Germany. Their prime targets are those experts who are most exposed to activities of responsibly informing the public about homeopathy via lectures, publications social media, etc. All of us currently receive floods of attack, insults and libellous defamations. As before (innovation does not seem to be a hallmark of homeopathy), these attacks relate to claims that:
- we are incompetent,
- we do not care about the welfare of patients,
- we are habitual liars,
- we are on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry,
- we aim at limiting patient choice,
- we do what we do because we crave the limelight.
So, what is going to happen?
I cannot read tea leaves but am nevertheless sure of a few things:
- The German homeopathy lobby will not easily give up; after all, they have half a billion Euros per year to lose.
- They will not argue on the basis of science or evidence, because they know that neither are in their favour.
- They will fight dirty and try to defame everyone who stands in their way.
- They will use their political influence and their considerable financial power.
AND YET THEY WILL LOSE!
Not because we are so well organised or have great resources – in fact, as far as I can see, we have none – but because, in medicine, the evidence is invincible and will eventually prevail. Progress might be delayed, but it cannot be halted by those who cling to an obsolete dogma.
For years, Margaret McCartney, a GP from Scotland, wrote a weekly column in the BMJ. It was invariably well-worth reading. Recently, she regrettably ended it by publishing her last article entitled A summary of four and a half years of columns in one column. In it, she makes 36 short points. They are all poignant, but the one that made me think most (probably because it is relevant to my work and this blog) reads as follows:
Many people seek to make money from those who don’t understand science. Doctors should call out bollocksology when they see it.
On this blog, I have often discussed people who make money from consumers and patients who are unable to detect the quackery they are being sold. No doubt, the most famous case of me doing this was when, in 2009, I criticised Prince Charles and his ‘Dodgy Originals Detox Tincture’. It made many headlines; the BBC, for instance, reported:
Edzard Ernst, the UK’s first professor of complementary medicine, said the Duchy Originals detox tincture was based on “outright quackery”.
There was no scientific evidence to show that detox products work, he said.
Duchy Originals says the product is a “natural aid to digestion and supports the body’s elimination processes”.
But Professor Ernst of Peninsula Medical School said Prince Charles and his advisers appeared to be deliberately ignoring science, preferring “to rely on ‘make-believe’ and superstition”.
He added: “Prince Charles thus financially exploits a gullible public in a time of financial hardship.”
Marketed as Duchy Herbals’ Detox Tincture, the artichoke and dandelion mix is described as “a food supplement to help eliminate toxins and aid digestion”.
At the time, I got a right blocking from my dean, Prof John Tooke, for my audacity. As far as I could see, there was almost no support from the UK medical profession. Since then, the exploitation of the public by quacks has not diminished; on the contrary, I have the feeling that it is thriving. And are doctors calling out bollocksology left right and centre? No, they are not!
Of course, some do occasionally raise their voices (and some do it even regularly). But mostly, it is the group of non-medical sceptics who open their mouths and try their best to prevent harm. Yet, I wholly agree with my friend Margret: doctors have a responsibility and must do more.
And why don’t they?
I think, there are several reasons for their inactivity:
- doctors are frightfully busy,
- doctors often don’t know how much bollocksology is out there,
- doctors don’t (want to) see how dangerous much of this bollocksology is,
- doctors fail to realise that it would be their ethical responsibility to speak out against bollocksology,
- some doctors do not seem to understand science either,
- some doctors are active bollocksologists themselves,
- some doctors simply don’t care.
This clearly is a depressing state of affairs! But, at the same time, it also is a cheerful occasion for me to thank all those doctors who are the laudable exceptions, who do care, who do think critically, who see their ethical responsibility, and who do something about the never-ending flood of bollocksology endangering their patients’ health and wealth.
On this blog, I have ad nauseam discussed the fact that many SCAM-practitioners are advising their patients against vaccinations, e. g.:
- Andrew Wakefield, Donald Trump, SCAM, and the anti-vaccination cult
- More on vaccination scepticism, and the plea for a no-fault vaccination injury compensation scheme
- Naturopaths’ counselling against vaccinations could be criminally negligent
- HOMEOPATHS AGAINST VACCINATION: “The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone”
- Governments take action to prevent vaccination-rates from falling
- Use of alternative medicine is associated with low vaccination rates
- Integrative medicine physicians tend to harbour anti-vaccination views
- Vaccination: chiropractors “espouse views which aren’t evidence based”
- Faith-healing as an alternative to vaccination?
- Recommending homeoprophylaxis is unethical, irresponsible and possibly even criminal
- Chiropractors are undermining public health
- CAM use is risk factor for the failure to immunise children
- Let’s be blunt: homeopathy is bogus – but homeoprophylaxis is worse, much worse!
- Are mothers being taught by homeopaths to become anti-vaxers?
- Some naturopaths are clearly a danger to public health
The reason why I mention this subject yet again is the alarming news reported in numerous places (for instance in this article) that measles outbreaks are now being reported from most parts of the world.
The number of cases in Europe is at a record high of more than 41,000, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned. Halfway through the year, 2018 is already the worst year on record for measles in Europe in a decade. So far, at least 37 patients have died of the infection in 2018.
“Following the decade’s lowest number of cases in 2016, we are seeing a dramatic increase in infections and extended outbreaks,” Dr. Zsuzsanna Jakab, WHO Regional Director for Europe, said in a statement. “Seven countries in the region have seen over 1,000 infections in children and adults this year (France, Georgia, Greece, Italy, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine).”
In the U.S., where measles were thought to be eradicated, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported 107 measles cases as of the middle of July this year. “This partial setback demonstrates that every person who is not immune remains vulnerable no matter where they live, and every country must keep pushing to increase coverage and close immunity gaps,” WHO’s Dr. Nedret Emiroglu said. 95 percent of the population must have received at least two doses of measles vaccine to achive herd immunity and prevent outbreaks. Some parts of Europe have reached that target, while others are even below 70 percent.
And why are many parts below the 95% threshold?
Ask your local SCAM-provider, I suggest.
Vis a vis the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, why are there so many clinicians (doctors as well as lay practitioners) who still believe that homeopathy is working? And why are there so many patients who still believe that homeopathy is working?
These are questions that puzzle me quite a bit.
Of course, there is no simple, single answer; there are probably dozens. But one reason must be that there are only three possible outcomes after homeopathic treatments, all of which are favourable for homeopathy (at least in the interpretation of proponents of homeopathy). Seen in this light, there simply is no better therapy!
Let me explain:
If a patient consults a homeopath who prescribes a highly diluted homeopathic remedy, she might subsequently:
- get better,
- get worse,
- or experience no change at all.
Analysing these three possibilities, we quickly see that, from the point of view of a convinced homeopath, all are a proof for homeopathy’s effectiveness, and none suggests that the scientific evidence is correct in claiming that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos.
In this situation, it is easy to assume that the remedy was the cause for the clinical improvement. Most clinicians of any discipline fall into this trap, and most patients follow them willingly. Yet, we all know that a temporal relationship is not the same as a causal one (the crowing of a cock before dawn is not the cause of the sun rising). Of course, it is conceivable that the treatment was the cause, but there are several other possibilities as well; just think of the placebo effect, regression towards the mean, and the natural history of the disease. In our case, these non-specific effects are most certainly the cause of our patient’s improvement.
Most clinicians in this situation would start wondering whether they have employed the correct therapy for this patient’s condition – not so the homeopath! He would triumphantly exclaim: “excellent, you are experiencing a ‘homeopathic aggravation’. This is a sure sign that I have given you the optimal remedy. Things will get better soon.” A homeopathic aggravation occurs, according to homeopathic logic, because homeopathy follows the ‘like cures like’ principle. The homeopath prescribes the remedy that would normally cause the symptoms from which his patient is suffering. This means it must also cause these symptoms in every patient. Usually these aggravations are not strong enough to be noticed, but when they are, it is interpreted by homeopaths as a triumph of homeopathy.
In this situation, the homeopath has several options. He can claim “but without my remedy you would be much worse by now. The fact that you are not, shows how very effective homeopathy really is. A more humble homeopaths might explain that the optimal remedy is not always easy to find straight away, and he would therefore proceed in prescribing another one. In both cases, the patient is kept paying for more and homeopathy is presented as an effective therapy.
These three scenarios clearly show that there is no conceivable outcome where any homeopathy-fan would need to consider that scientists are correct in stating that homeopathy is ineffective. And this is one of the reasons why the myth of homeopathy’s effectiveness persists.
Hold on … the patient might be dead!
Yes, that is a rather unfortunate situation for any clinician – except for a homeopath, of course. He would simply point out that the patient must have forgotten to take her medicine. A conventional practitioner might get in trouble, if he tried that excuse; one could easily measure blood levels of the prescribed drug and verify the claim. Not so in homeopathy! Because they contain not a single active molecule, homeopathic remedies are undetectable!
We can easily see that there is no better treatment than homeopathy – at least for the homeopath!
Doctor Jens Wurster is no stranger to this blog; previously I discussed his claim that he has treated more than 1000 cancer patients homeopathically and we could even cure or considerably ameliorate the quality of life for several years in some, advanced and metastasizing cases. So far, his claims were based not on evidence published in peer-reviewed journals (I cannot find a single Medline-listed paper by this man); but now Wurster has published an article in a German Journal (Wurster J. Zusatznutzen der Homöopathie … Deutsche Zeitschrift für Onkologie 2018; 50: 85–91; not Medline-listed, I am afraid). The paper is in German, but it has an English abstract; here it is:
All over the world, oncology patients receive homeopathic treatment concomitant to conventional treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation treatment, in order to reduce the side effects of these therapies. It has been shown that cancer patients, who are receiving homeopathic treatment in addition to conventional therapies, have a higher quality of life and a longer survival rate. Studies in cancer cell research have shown the direct effects of highly potentized homeopathic medicines on tumor cell lines. Tumor inhibiting properties of homeopathic medicines have been proven in vivo as well as in vitro. Research projects into complementary medicine (CAMbrella) and research into personalized immunotherapies as well as additive homeopathy open the door to the future of integrative oncology.
In the article, Wurster states that he has 20 years of experience in treating cancer with homeopathy as an add-on to conventional care, and that he can confirm homeopathy’s effectiveness. He claims that ‘very many’ patients have thus benefitted by experiencing less side-effects of conventional treatments. And he offers two case-reports to illustrate this.[Nach 20 Jahren klinischer Erfahrung in der Clinica St. Croce im Tessin mit der Behandlung onkologischer Patienten mithilfe der Homöopathie können wir deutlich den Zusatznutzen der Homöopathie in der Onkologie bestätigen . So gelang es unserem Ärzteteam in den zurückliegenden Jahren bei sehr vielen Patienten, durch gezielten Einsatz homöopathischer Mittel die Nebenwirkungen von Chemotherapien oder Bestrahlungen erfolgreich zu reduzieren . Wie dabei Schulmedizin und Homöopathie in der Praxis zusammenwirken, zeigt folgendes Beispiel. ( Wurster J. Die homöopathische Behandlung und Heilung von Krebs und metastasierten Tumoren. Norderstedt: Books on Demand; 2015)]
The two case-reports lack detail and are less than convincing, in my view. Both patients have had conventional therapies and Wurster claims that his homeopathic remedies reduced their side-effects. There is no way of verifying this claim, and the improvements might have occurred also without homeopathy.
In the discussion section of his paper, Wurster then elaborates that oncologists throughout Europe are now realising the potential of homeopathy. In support he mentions paediatric oncologists in Klagenfurt who managed to spare pain-killers by giving homeopathics. Similarly, at the Inselspital in Bern, they are offering homeopathic consultations to complement conventional treatments.[Inzwischen haben auch einige Onkologen erkannt, wie eine gezielt eingesetzte homöopathische Behandlung die Nebenwirkungen von Chemotherapien oder Bestrahlungen reduzieren kann. Wir arbeiten inzwischen mit einigen Onkologen aus ganz Europa zusammen, die den Zusatznutzen der Homöopathie in der Onkologie erlebt haben. In der Kinderonkologie in Klagenfurt beispielsweise konnten mithilfe der Homöopathie Schmerzmittel bei den Kindern eingespart werden. Auch am Inselspital Bern werden zusätzliche homöopathische Konsile in der Kinderonkologie angeboten, um die konventionelle Behandlung begleiten zu können .]
At this point, Wurster inserts his reference number 8. As several of his references are either books or websites, this reference to an article in a top journal seems interesting. Here is its abstract:
Though complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are frequently used by children and adolescents with cancer, there is little information on how and why they use it. This study examined prevalence and methods of CAM, the therapists who applied it, reasons for and against using CAM and its perceived effectiveness. Parent-perceived communication was also evaluated. Parents were asked if medical staff provided information on CAM to patients, if parents reported use of CAM to physicians, and what attitude they thought physicians had toward CAM.
All childhood cancer patients treated at the University Children‘s Hospital Bern between 2002-2011 were retrospectively surveyed about their use of CAM.
Data was collected from 133 patients (response rate: 52%). Of those, 53% had used CAM (mostly classical homeopathy) and 25% of patients received information about CAM from medical staff. Those diagnosed more recently were more likely to be informed about CAM options. The most frequent reason for choosing CAM was that parents thought it would improve the patient’s general condition. The most frequent reason for not using CAM was lack of information. Of those who used CAM, 87% perceived positive effects.
Since many pediatric oncology patients use CAM, patients’ needs should be addressed by open communication between families, treating oncologists and CAM therapists, which will allow parents to make informed and safe choices about using CAM.
Any hope that this paper might back up the statements made by Wurster is thus disappointed.
Altogether, this Wurster-paper contains no reliable evidence. The only clinical trial it seems to rely on is the one by Prof Frass which we have discussed previously here and here. The Frass-study is odd in several ways and, before we can take its results seriously, we need to see an independent replication of its findings. In this context, it is noteworthy that my own 2006 systematic review concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care. In view of all this, I feel that the new Wurster-paper provides no reliable evidence and no reason to change my now somewhat dated conclusion of 2006. Moreover, I would insist that those who claim otherwise are unethical and behave irresponsible.
And finally, I need to reiterate what I stated in my previous post: the Wurster-paper indicates that something is amiss with medical publishing. How can it be that, in 2018, the ‘Deutsche Zeitschrift für Onkologie’ (or any other medical journal for that matter) can be so bar of critical thinking to publish such dangerously misleading nonsense? The editors of this journal (Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Arndt Büssing, Witten/Herdecke; Dr. med. Peter Holzhauer, Bad Trissl und München) and its editorial board members (L. Auerbach, Wien; C. Bahne Bahnson, Kiel; J. Büntzel, Nordhausen; B. Freimüller-Kreutzer, Heidelberg; H.R. Maurer, Berlin; A. Mayr, Starnberg; R. Moss, New York; T. Ostermann, Witten/Herdecke; K. Prasad, Denver; G. Pulverer, Köln; H. Renner, Nürnberg; C.P. Siegers, Lübeck; W. Schmidt, Greifswald; G. Uhlenbruck, Köln; B. Wolf, München; K.S. Zänker, Witten/Herdecke) should ask themselves whether they are taking their moral obligations seriously enough, or whether their behaviour is not a violation of their most fundamental ethical duties.
In our book ‘MORE HARM THAN GOOD‘ we allude to such problems as follows: …Spurious results are frequently paraded by CAM advocates in support of implausible treatments… the more poorly conceived and executed a research project is, the more likely it is to produce false-positive results. These results then may lead to repetitive cycles of unproductive work to explain what was found—often to simply disprove the erroneous results. This is an unfortunate feature of various ﬁelds of scientiﬁc research, but it has particularly serious implications in medical research. Moreover, researchers who practice and behave as advocates of CAM may unintentionally or deliberately distort or exaggerate weak ﬁndings. Invalid CAM research claims tend not to be put to rest; instead they are repeatedly recycled…
…The CAM practitioner who promotes untruths has either failed to enlighten themselves as to the facts—this being a central requirement of professional ethics— or has chosen to deliberately deceive patients. Either of these reasons for promulgating falsehoods amounts to a serious breach in terms of virtue ethics. According to almost all forms of ethical theory, the truth-violating nature of CAM renders it immoral in both theory and practice.
The damage that can result from such violations of medical ethics is not merely a matter for the ‘ivory towers of academia’, it can virtually be a matter of life and death.
The two German authors start their article (it is in German but has an English abstract to which I refer here) by claiming that “homeopathy is steadily gaining in sympathy in the population.” This is a very odd statement, considering that the sales figures in Germany and elsewhere have, in fact, been declining. Any homeopathy-paper with such an opening is naturally of interest to me.
As I read on, I find further surprises: “the possible effectiveness and the modes of action are currently not scientifically elucidated.” These are two big assumptions which happen to be both untrue:
- The effectiveness of homeopathy has now been tested in about 500 clinical trials, and the totality of the reliable evidence from these studies fails to show that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are more than placebos.
- The mode of action of homeopathy isn’t “not scientifically elucidated“, but the relevant science tells us that there cannot be a mode of action that is in line with the laws of nature as we understand them today.
And the surprises keep on coming: “there is a whole series of positive evidence for the effects of homeopathic remedies for mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety disorders and addiction.” This statement is not in keeping with the results of a systematic review (which, by the way was authored by ardent homeopaths); here is the abstract:
To systematically review placebo-controlled randomized trials of homeopathy for psychiatric conditions.
Eligible studies were identified using the following databases from database inception to April 2010: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Hom-Inform, Cochrane CENTRAL, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grantee publications database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Gray literature was also searched using Google, Google Scholar, the European Committee for Homeopathy, inquiries with homeopathic experts and manufacturers, and the bibliographic lists of included published studies and reviews. Search terms were as follows: (homeopath* or homoeopath*) and (placebo or sham) and (anxiety or panic or phobia or post-traumatic stress or PTSD or obsessive-compulsive disorder or fear or depress* or dysthym* or attention deficit hyperactivity or premenstrual syndrome or premenstrual disorder or premenstrual dysphoric disorder or traumatic brain injury or fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalitis or insomnia or sleep disturbance). Searches included only English-language literature that reported randomized controlled trials in humans.
Trials were included if they met 7 criteria and were assessed for possible bias using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 50 guidelines. Overall assessments were made using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation procedure. Identified studies were grouped into anxiety or stress, sleep or circadian rhythm complaints, premenstrual problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, mild traumatic brain injury, and functional somatic syndromes.
Twenty-five eligible studies were identified from an initial pool of 1,431. Study quality according to SIGN 50 criteria varied, with 6 assessed as good, 9 as fair, and 10 as poor. Outcome was unrelated to SIGN quality. Effect size could be calculated in 16 studies, and number needed to treat, in 10 studies. Efficacy was found for the functional somatic syndromes group (fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome), but not for anxiety or stress. For other disorders, homeopathy produced mixed effects. No placebo-controlled studies of depression were identified. Meaningful safety data were lacking in the reports, but the superficial findings suggested good tolerability of homeopathy. A funnel plot in 13 studies did not support publication bias (χ(2)(1) = 1.923, P = .166).
The database on studies of homeopathy and placebo in psychiatry is very limited, but results do not preclude the possibility of some benefit.
And specifically for depression, another review (also by proponents of homeopathy) is available; here is its abstract:
To systematically review the research evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for the treatment of depression and depressive disorders.
A comprehensive search of major biomedical databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library was conducted. Specialist complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) databases including AMED, CISCOM and Hom-Inform were also searched. Additionally, efforts were made to identify unpublished and ongoing research using relevant sources and experts in the field. Relevant research was categorised by study type and appraised according to study design. Clinical commentaries were obtained for studies reporting clinical outcomes.
Only two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. One of these, a feasibility study, demonstrated problems with recruitment of patients in primary care. Several uncontrolled and observational studies have reported positive results including high levels of patient satisfaction but because of the lack of a control group, it is difficult to assess the extent to which any response is due to specific effects of homeopathy. Single-case reports/studies were the most frequently encountered clinical study type. We also found surveys, but no relevant qualitative research studies were located.: Adverse effects reported appear limited to ‘remedy reactions’ (‘aggravations’) including temporary worsening of symptoms, symptom shifts and reappearance of old symptoms. These remedy reactions were generally transient but in one study, aggravation of symptoms caused withdrawal of the treatment in one patient.
A comprehensive search for published and unpublished studies has demonstrated that the evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy in depression is limited due to lack of clinical trials of high quality. Further research is required, and should include well-designed controlled studies with sufficient numbers of participants. Qualitative studies aimed at overcoming recruitment and other problems should precede further RCTs. Methodological options include the incorporation of preference arms or uncontrolled observational studies. The highly individualised nature of much homeopathic treatment and the specificity of response may require innovative methods of analysis of individual treatment response.
Back to the new article I started discussing above. Its authors make a vague attempt at being reasonable: “It is clear that homoeopathic remedies can only be used as an add-on and not alone.” I find this statement slightly puzzling. If (as the authors assume) homeopathy is effective for mental disorders, why not on its own? Can a therapy that must not be used as a sole treatment be called effective?
The authors continue with another caveat: “These remedies belong in the hands of physicians experienced in homeopathic and psychiatric psychopharmacology.” That’s actually quite funny! As the average homeopath has no experience in psychiatric psychopharmacology, they must not use homeopathy for mental conditions. I would agree with the conclusion but not with the reason given for it.
And now to the ‘grand finale’, the conclusion: “It would be advisable to at least try out homeopathy for the well-being of the patient not only in the case of very mild disorders but also in severe chronic cases, since due to the generally good tolerability, no avoidable disadvantage should result.” That sort of conclusion makes me almost speechless. The evidence fails to show that it works, yet it is ADVISABLE to use it in severe chronic cases!
Such articles suggest to me that homeopathy is a cult where logic and reason are irrelevant and need to be supressed. They also indicate that something is amiss with medical publishing. How can it be that, in 2018, ‘Der Nervenarzt’ (or any other medical journal for that matter) can be so bar of critical thinking to publish such dangerously misleading nonsense? ‘Der Nervenarzt‘, by the way, claims to be an internationally recognized journal addressing neurologists and psychiatrists working in clinical or practical environments. Essential findings and current information from neurology, psychiatry as well as neuropathology, neurosurgery up to psychotherapy are presented.
“The wishes of a patient do not over-rule medical knowledge!” (Patientenwunsch steht nicht über medizinischem Wissen)
This was one brave conclusion drawn in a discussion about homeopathy during a recent German radio programme. Specifically, the discussion was about the pros and cons of a leading paediatric hospital of the Ludwig Maximilian Universitaet (LMU) Munich offering homeopathy to its patients (they also run a course in homeopathy which we discussed previously).
The wishes of a patient does not over-rule medical knowledge!
This sentence made me think.
Is it correct?
An interesting question with ethical dimensions!
The short answer is NO, I believe..
Patients can always refuse to have a given therapy, if they so wish. Or they might opt for one evidence-based therapy instead of another. And in certain circumstances such wishes may well be completely against the current best medical knowledge.
But this is probably where the dominance of the patient’s wishes over medical knowledge ends — at least, if we only consider wishes paid for by the public purse (otherwise, anyone can, of course, buy almost any rubbish).
And that was not what the above-mentioned discussion was about. It focussed on the arguments by the LMU to justify their offer of homeopathy to sick children. Essentially, they seem to say:
- We believe in evidence-based medicine (EBM) and are fully dedicated to its principles.
- We know that homeopathy is not evidence-based.
- Yet, many of the parents want us to use homeopathy in the treatment of their kids.
- And the wish of a patient over-rules the medical evidence.
This is, of course, a flawed argument. One cannot subscribe to EBM and, at the same time, administer overt nonsensical, disproven treatments. A patient’s wish does not render a nonsensical treatment evidence-based. If one would follow the LMU logic, one would have to use any idiotic therapy … and could still pride oneself to follow EBM practice. In England, we call this ‘having the cake and eat it’; once you eat the cake, it’s gone and you cannot have it any longer.
What follows is simple: the decision makers at the LMU have been found out with (homeopathically potentised) egg on their faces (for some reason they had this homeopathy enclave for years, it is well-established and, I suspect, even better protected by some people of influence). They quickly tried to find a way out of their dilemma. Unfortunately, they did not think hard enough; the solution to bank on patient choice turns out to be a non-solution.
I therefore suggest they get in line with the role of a University hospital, with today’s medical thinking and medical ethics. This would mean re-considering their homeopathy course as well as their inclusion of homeopathy in publicly-funded routine care.
Is homeopathy effective for specific conditions? The FACULTY OF HOMEOPATHY (FoH, the professional organisation of UK doctor homeopaths) say YES. In support of this bold statement, they cite a total of 35 systematic reviews of homeopathy with a focus on specific clinical areas. “Nine of these 35 reviews presented conclusions that were positive for homeopathy”, they claim. Here they are:
Allergies and upper respiratory tract infections 8,9
Childhood diarrhoea 10
Post-operative ileus 11
Rheumatic diseases 12
Seasonal allergic rhinitis (hay fever) 13–15
And here are the references (I took the liberty of adding my comments in blod):
8. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, Ammon K, et al. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin, 2006; 13 Suppl 2: 19–29.
This is the infamous ‘Swiss report‘ which, nowadays, only homeopaths take seriously.
9. Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Pontarollo F, et al. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies – Part 1. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM, 2006; 3: 293–301.
This is not a systematic review as it lacks any critical assessment of the primary data and includes observational studies and even case series.
10. Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 2003; 22: 229–234.
This is a meta-analysis by Jennifer Jacobs (who recently featured on this blog) of 3 studies by Jennifer Jacobs; hardly convincing I’d say.
11. Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E. Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 1997; 25: 628–633.
This is my own paper! It concluded that “several caveats preclude a definitive judgment.”
12. Jonas WB, Linde K, Ramirez G. Homeopathy and rheumatic disease. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, 2000; 26: 117–123.
This is not a systematic review; here is the (unabridged) abstract:
Despite a growing interest in uncovering the basic mechanisms of arthritis, medical treatment remains symptomatic. Current medical treatments do not consistently halt the long-term progression of these diseases, and surgery may still be needed to restore mechanical function in large joints. Patients with rheumatic syndromes often seek alternative therapies, with homeopathy being one of the most frequent. Homeopathy is one of the most frequently used complementary therapies worldwide.
13. Wiesenauer M, Lüdtke R. A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca. Forschende Komplementärmedizin und Klassische Naturheilkunde, 1996; 3: 230–236.
This is a meta-analysis by Wiesenauer of trials conducted by Wiesenauer.
My own, more recent analysis of these data arrived at a considerably less favourable conclusion: “… three of the four currently available placebo-controlled RCTs of homeopathic Galphimia glauca (GG) suggest this therapy is an effective symptomatic treatment for hay fever. There are, however, important caveats. Most essentially, independent replication would be required before GG can be considered for the routine treatment of hay fever. (Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies September 2011 16(3))
14. Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, et al. Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 2000; 321: 471–476.
15. Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Pontarollo F, et al. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies – Part 2. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM, 2006; 3: 397–409.
This is not a systematic review as it lacks any critical assessment of the primary data and includes observational studies and even case series.
16. Schneider B, Klein P, Weiser M. Treatment of vertigo with a homeopathic complex remedy compared with usual treatments: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Arzneimittelforschung, 2005; 55: 23–29.
This is a meta-analysis of 2 (!) RCTs and 2 observational studies of ‘Vertigoheel’, a preparation which is not a homeopathic but a homotoxicologic remedy (it does not follow the ‘like cures like’ assumption of homeopathy) . Moreover, this product contains pharmacologically active substances (and nobody doubts that active substances can have effects).
So, positive evidence from 9 systematic reviews in 6 specific clinical areas?
I let you answer this question.
My previous post was about the question whether lay-homeopaths can practise homeopathy without breaking their code of ethics. The answer was NO, because they lack most of the skills needed to obtain informed consent.
What about doctor homeopaths?
Can they practice homeopathy ethically?
Doctors are, of course, also obliged to follow their ethical code, and that means they too must obtain informed consent from their patients before starting a therapy. This is, for instance, what the UK General Medical Council tells their members:
You must give patients the information they want or need about:
- the diagnosis and prognosis
- any uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigations
- options for treating or managing the condition, including the option not to treat
- the purpose of any proposed investigation or treatment and what it will involve
- the potential benefits, risks and burdens, and the likelihood of success, for each option; this should include information, if available, about whether the benefits or risks are affected by which organisation or doctor is chosen to provide care
- whether a proposed investigation or treatment is part of a research programme or is an innovative treatment designed specifically for their benefit4
- the people who will be mainly responsible for and involved in their care, what their roles are, and to what extent students may be involved
- their right to refuse to take part in teaching or research
- their right to seek a second opinion
- any bills they will have to pay
- any conflicts of interest that you, or your organisation, may have
- any treatments that you believe have greater potential benefit for the patient than those you or your organisation can offer.
You should explore these matters with patients, listen to their concerns, ask for and respect their views, and encourage them to ask questions.
You should check whether patients have understood the information they have been given, and whether or not they would like more information before making a decision. You must make it clear that they can change their mind about a decision.
Following the 8 points from my previous post (I am trying to apply the same criteria to both types of homeopaths), a medical homeopath might tell her patient (whose stomach pain turns out to be caused, let’s assume, by a stomach ulcer) roughly this:
- The tests show that you are suffering from stomach ulcer.
- The natural history of this condition is usually benign, but it needs effective treatment; if not, the problem would become serious.
- Conventional medicine has several effective therapeutic options.
- I nevertheless propose to treat you with a homeopathic remedy.
- There is no good evidence that it will work beyond a placebo effect.
- The remedy is harmless, but not giving you an effective treatment might cause considerable harm.
- The cost of the consultation is £80, and the remedy will cost you around £15.
- I suggest you come again in a week or two; perhaps we need quite a few consultations altogether.
Again, as with the lay-homeopath from my previous post, any sensible patient would walk away without accepting the treatment. This means that our doctor homeopath can only practice homeopathy, if she does not inform her patient about points 5 and 6. In other words, doctors who practice homeopathy cannot obtain adequately informed consent. We have recently seen a real case of this happening and ending in the death of the patient.
Of course, the homeopath might send her patient to a specialist; or she might decide to administer a conventional therapy herself. Either way, she would not be practising homeopathy.
The dilemma is real, yet it is rarely considered. Here is a short passage from our book where we discuss the ethics of alternative medicine in full detail:
Genuine informed consent is unattainable for most CAM modalities. This presents a serious and intractable ethical problem for CAM practitioners. Attempts to square this circle by watering down or redeﬁning the criteria for informed consent are ethically indefensible. The concept of informed consent and its centrality in medical ethics therefore renders most CAM practice unacceptable. Conventional healthcare subscribes to the ethical principle ‘no consent, no treatment’; we are not aware of the existence of any good reasons to excuse CAM from this dictum.
As I said, the ethical practice of homeopathy is a practical impossibility.
Or do you think I got this wrong?