Cervical radiculopathy is a common condition that is usually due to compression or injury to a nerve root by a herniated disc or other degenerative changes of the upper spine. The C5 to T1 levels are the most commonly affected. In such cases local and radiating pains, often with neurological deficits, are the most prominent symptoms. Treatment of this condition is often difficult.
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention on disability, pain, function, quality of life, and psychological impact in adults with cervical radiculopathy (CR).
MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to June 15, 2022, to identify studies that were randomized clinical trials, had at least one conservative treatment arm, and diagnosed participants with CR through confirmatory clinical examination and/or diagnostic tests. Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
Of the 2561 records identified, 59 trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 4108 participants). Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively. The results show very-low certainty evidence supporting the use of
- cervical manipulation,
- low-level laser therapy
for pain and disability in the immediate to short-term, and thoracic manipulation and low-level laser therapy for improvements in cervical range of motion in the immediate term.
There is low to very-low certainty evidence for multimodal interventions, providing inconclusive evidence for pain, disability, and range of motion. There is inconclusive evidence for pain reduction after conservative management compared with surgery, rated as very-low certainty.
The authors concluded that there is a lack of high-quality evidence, limiting our ability to make any meaningful conclusions. As the number of people with CR is expected to increase, there is an urgent need for future research to help address these gaps.
The fact that we cannot offer a truly effective therapy for CR has long been known – except, of course, to chiropractors, acupuncturists, osteopaths, and other SCAM providers who offer their services as though they are a sure solution. Sometimes, their treatments seem to work; but this could be just because the symptoms of CR can improve spontaneously, unrelated to any intervention.
The question thus arises what should these often badly suffering patients do if spontaneous remission does not occur? As an answer, let me quote from another recent systematic review of the subject: The 6 included studies that had low risk of bias, providing high-quality evidence for the surgical efficacy of Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy. The evidence indicates that surgical treatment is better than conservative treatment … and superior to conservative treatment in less than one year.
I have been informed by the publisher, that my book has been published yesterday. This is about two months earlier than it was announced on Amazon. It is in German – yes, I have started writing in German again. But not to worry, I translated the preface for you:
Anyone who falls ill in Germany and therefore needs professional assistance has the choice, either to consult a doctor or a non-medical practitioner (Heilpraktiker).
– The doctor has studied and is licensed to practice medicine; the Heilpraktiker is state-recognized and has passed an official medical examination.
– The doctor is usually in a hurry, while the Heilpraktiker takes his time and empathizes with his patient.
– The doctor usually prescribes a drug burdened with side effects, while the Heilpraktiker prefers the gentle methods of alternative medicine.
So who should the sick person turn to? Heilpraktiker or doctor? Many people are confused by the existence of these parallel medical worlds. Quite a few finally decide in favor of the supposedly natural, empathetic, time-tested medicine of the Heilpraktiker. The state recognition gives them the necessary confidence to be in good hands there. The far-reaching freedoms the Heilpraktiker has by law, as well as the coverage of costs by many health insurances, are conducive to further strengthening this trust. “We Heilpraktiker are recognized and respected in politics and society,” writes Elvira Bierbach self-confidently, the publisher of a standard textbook for Heilpraktiker.
The first consultation of our model patient with the Heilpraktiker of his choice is promising. The Heilpraktiker responds to the patient with understanding, usually takes a whole hour for the initial consultation, gives explanations that seem plausible, is determined to get to the root of the problem, promises to stimulate the patient’s self-healing powers naturally, and invokes a colossal body of experience. It almost seems as if our patient’s decision to consult a Heilpraktiker was correct.
However, I have quite significant reservations about this. Heilpraktiker are perhaps recognized in politics and society, but from a medical, scientific, or ethical perspective, they are highly problematic. In this book, I will show in detail and with facts why.
The claim of government recognition undoubtedly gives the appearance that Heilpraktiker are adequately trained and medically competent. In reality, there is no regulated training, and the competence is not high. The official medical examination, which all Heilpraktiker must pass is nothing more than a test to ensure that there is no danger to the general public. The ideas of many Heilpraktiker regarding the function of the human body are often in stark contradiction with the known facts. The majority of Heilpraktiker-typical diagnostics is pure nonsense. The conditions that they diagnose are often based on little more than naive wishful thinking. The treatments that Heilpraktiker use are either disproven or not proven to be effective.
There is no question in my mind that Heilpraktiker are a danger to anyone who is seriously ill. And even if Heilpraktiker do not cause obvious harm, they almost never offer what is optimally possible. In my opinion, patients have the right to receive the most effective treatment for their condition. Consumers should not be misled about health-related issues. Only those who are well-informed will make the right decisions about their health.
My book provides this information in plain language and without mincing words. It is intended to save you from a dangerous misconception of the Heilpraktiker profession. Medical parallel worlds with the radically divergent quality standard – doctor/Heilpraktiker – are not in the interest of the patient and are simply unacceptable for an enlightened society.
‘Agoro’ is a German (all texts are my translations from German) website that claims this:
“We specialize in alternative methods of treatment from the field of natural medicine. Our mission is to ensure that the ancient wisdom of our grandparents and ancestors is not forgotten.”
Unsurprisingly, this subject interests me. In particular, I was fascinated by an article entitled
Nux vomica Globuli in der Homöopathie
Nux Vomica in homeopathy
Nux vomica is (after arnica) amongst the most popular remedies in homeopathy. Therefore, we should all be keen to learn all about it.
Here is the translation of this article:
Nux vomica is one of the homeopathic remedies that you can get in all pharmacies. It can help you with various diseases, such as stomach pain. You can also use this homeopathic remedy for nausea and heartburn. You can buy it in the city pharmacies, but you can also make it easy for yourself and use the online pharmacy for globules. Here you will be well advised on the dosage of homeopathic remedies. Similarly, you can also contact the homeopath or naturopath for good advice.
Nux vomica is a remedy derived from the medicinal plant nux vomica. You can use the homeopathic remedy in the potencies D6 and D12. In some cases, it can be recommended to you also in C6, C12, or C30.
You can use the homeopathic remedy in many ways, including for constipation or exhaustion. You will find out which dosage you can take if you consult a professional. In this way, you will be recommended the appropriate potency to experience help from it.
It is crucial that you always seek advice before taking the remedy. As already mentioned, you can use several contact points for this. Whether it is the pharmacy, the naturopath, or the homeopath. In addition, there are many family doctors who now also use homeopathy and could recommend you the appropriate dosage. The consultation is important in any case because the homeopathy must be adapted to your complaints. Otherwise, the remedy will not work or will not work properly.
If you want to use the remedy for yourself, you always need patience. Homeopathic remedies need a little time to work, that is their only disadvantage. How long this always depends on the person and the remedy. Sometimes it takes only a few hours, sometimes a few days or weeks. You can also get advice on this.
Indications for nux vomica
Stomach and intestinal problems
You can use the remedy for you in case of abdominal pain, mild biliousness, and various stomach and intestinal problems. The remedy can also be of great help for nausea, flatulence, nausea, and constipation.
Headaches and migraines
The remedy Nux vomica can help you if you suffer from headaches that are located just above the eye. It can also help you with migraines. Even with a hangover, the remedy could help.
If you suffer from autumn depression or are often easily frustrated, you can use the remedy.
Yes, I do get easily frustrated with texts like this!
But I doubt that nux vomica can help me with this or any other problem.
Some might say that doubting is not good enough, evidence is needed!
I agree but was unable to find sound evidence to show that homeopathic nux vomica was better than a placebo for any condition (in case any of our regular defenders of homeopathy know more, please let me know). On the contrary, I only found studies that suggested its ineffectiveness. Here is an example:
In a monocenter prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was investigated on children with adenoid vegetations justifying an operation. Patients were treated with either homeopathic remedies such as Nux vomica D200, Okoubaka D3, Tuberculinum D200, Barium jodatum D4 and Barium jodatum D6 or with placebo. The duration of the study for each patient was 3 months. Examination of the ears using a microscope, rhinoscopy, stomatoscopy and pharyngoscopy, as well as tympanometry and audiometry were performed after 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Out of a total of 97 children studied between the ages of 4 to 10 years 82 could be analyzed. At the end of the study no operation was required in 70.7% of the placebo-treated children and in 78.1% of the children treated with homeopathic preparations. These results show no statistical significance.
So, where does that leave us in relation to the “ancient wisdom of our grandparents and ancestors“? I fear, that this story shows yet again that, when it comes to homeopathy, the scrutiny of ancient wisdom quickly turns it into old bullshit.
The ‘keto diet’ is a currently popular high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet; it limits the intake of glucose which results in the production of ketones by the liver and their uptake as an alternative energy source by the brain. It is said to be an effective treatment for intractable epilepsy. In addition, it is being promoted as a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for a wide range of conditions, including:
- weight loss,
- cognitive and memory enhancement,
- type II diabetes,
- neurological and psychiatric disorders.
Now, it has been reported that the ‘keto diet’ may be linked to higher levels of cholesterol and double the risk of cardiovascular events. In the study, researchers defined a low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) diet as 45% of total daily calories coming from fat and 25% coming from carbohydrates. The study, which has so far not been peer-reviewed, was presented Sunday at the American College of Cardiology’s Annual Scientific Session Together With the World Congress of Cardiology.
“Our study rationale came from the fact that we would see patients in our cardiovascular prevention clinic with severe hypercholesterolemia following this diet,” said Dr. Iulia Iatan from the Healthy Heart Program Prevention Clinic, St. Paul’s Hospital, and University of British Columbia’s Centre for Heart Lung Innovation in Vancouver, Canada, during a presentation at the session. “This led us to wonder about the relationship between these low-carb, high-fat diets, lipid levels, and cardiovascular disease. And so, despite this, there’s limited data on this relationship.”
The researchers compared the diets of 305 people eating an LCHF diet with about 1,200 people eating a standard diet, using health information from the United Kingdom database UK Biobank, which followed people for at least a decade. They found that people on the LCHF diet had higher levels of low-density lipoprotein and apolipoprotein B. Apolipoprotein B is a protein that coats LDL cholesterol proteins and can predict heart disease better than elevated levels of LDL cholesterol can. The researchers also noticed that the LCHF diet participants’ total fat intake was higher in saturated fat and had double the consumption of animal sources (33%) compared to those in the control group (16%). “After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up – and after adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and smoking – people on an LCHF diet had more than two times higher risk of having several major cardiovascular events, such as blockages in the arteries that needed to be opened with stenting procedures, heart attack, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease.” Their press release also cautioned that their study “can only show an association between the diet and an increased risk for major cardiac events, not a causal relationship,” because it was an observational study, but their findings are worth further investigation, “especially when approximately 1 in 5 Americans report being on a low-carb, keto-like or full keto diet.”
I have to say that I find these findings not in the slightest bit surprising and would fully expect the relationship to be causal. The current craze for this diet is concerning and we need to warn consumers that they might be doing themselves considerable harm.
Other authors have recently pointed out that, within the first 6-12 months of initiating the keto diet, transient decreases in blood pressure, triglycerides, and glycosylated hemoglobin, as well as increases in HDL and weight loss may be observed. However, the aforementioned effects are generally not seen after 12 months of therapy. Despite the diet’s favorable effect on HDL-C, the concomitant increases in LDL-C and very-low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) may lead to increased cardiovascular risks. And another team of researchers has warned that “given often-temporary improvements, unfavorable effects on dietary intake, and inadequate data demonstrating long-term safety, for most individuals, the risks of ketogenic diets may outweigh the benefits.”
I had all but forgotten about these trials until a comment by ‘Mojo’ (thanks Mojo!) reminded me of this article in the JRSM by M.E. Dean. It reviewed these early trials of homeopathy back in 2006. Here are the crucial excerpts:
The homeopath in both trials was a Dr Herrmann, who received a 1-year contract in February 1829 to test homeopathy with the Russian military.3 The first study took place at the Military Hospital in the market town of Tulzyn, in the province of Podolya, Ukraine.4 At the end of 3 months, 164 patients had been admitted, 123 pronounced cured, 18 were convalescing, 18 still sick, and six had died. The homeopathic ward received many gravely ill patients, and the small number of deaths was shown at autopsy to be due to advanced gross pathologies. The results were interesting enough for the Russian government to order Herrmann to the Regional Military Hospital at St Petersburg to take part in a larger trial, supervised by a Dr Gigler. Patients were admitted to an experimental homeopathic ward, for treatment by Herrmann, and comparisons were made with the success rate in the allopathic wards, as happened in Tulzyn. The novelty was Gigler’s inclusion of a ‘no treatment’ ward where patients were not subject to conventional drugging and bleeding, or homeopathic dosing. The untreated patients benefited from baths, tisanes, good nutrition and rest, but also:
‘During this period, the patients were additionally subjects of an innocent deception. In order to deflect the suspicion that they were not being given any medicine, they were prescribed pills made of white breadcrumbs or cocoa, lactose powder or salep infusions, as happened in the homeopathic ward.’3 (page 415)
The ‘no treatment’ patients, in fact, did better than those in both the allopathic and homeopathic wards. The trial had important implications not just for homeopathy but also for the excessive allopathic drugging and bleeding that was prevalent. As a result of the report, homeopathy was banned in Russia for some years, although allopathy was not.
… A well-known opponent of homeopathy, Carl von Seidlitz, witnessed the St Petersburg trial and wrote a hostile report.5 He then conducted a homeopathic drug test in February 1834 at the Naval Hospital in the same city in which healthy nursing staff received homeopathically-prepared vegetable charcoal or placebo in a single-blind cross-over design.6 Within a few months, Armand Trousseau and colleagues were giving placebo pills to their Parisian patients; perhaps in the belief that they were testing homeopathy, and fully aware they were testing a placebo response.7,8 A placebo-controlled homeopathic proving took place in Nuremberg in 1835 and even included a primitive form of random assignment—identical vials of active and placebo treatment were shuffled before distribution.9 Around the same time in England, Sir John Forbes treated a diarrhoea outbreak after dividing his patients into two groups: half received allopathic ‘treatment as usual’ and half got bread pills. He saw no difference in outcome, and when he reported the experiment in 1846 he added that the placebos could just as easily have been homeopathic tablets.10 In 1861, a French doctor gave placebo pills to patients with neurotic symptoms, and his attitude is representative: he called the placebo ‘orthodox homeopathy’, because, as he said, ‘Bread pills or globules of Aconitum 30c or 40c amount to the same thing’.11
A recent article in ‘The Lancet Regional Health‘ emphasized the “need for reimagining India’s health system and the importance of an inclusive approach for Universal Health Coverage” by employing traditional medicine, including homeopathy. This prompted a response by Siddhesh Zadey that I consider worthy of reproducing here in abbreviated form:
… Since the first trial conducted in 1835 that questioned homeopathy’s efficacy, multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other studies compiled in several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that there is no reliable and clinically significant effect of non-individualized or individualized homeopathic treatments across disease conditions ranging from irritable bowel syndrome in adults to acute respiratory tract infections in children when compared to placebo or other treatments. Even reviews that support homeopathy’s efficacy consistently caution about low quality of evidence and raise questions on its clinical use. The most recent analysis of reporting bias in homeopathic trials depicted problematic trial conduction practices that further obscure reliability and validity of evidence. Homeopathic treatments have also been linked to aggravations and non-fatal and fatal adverse events.
The Lancet has previously published on another kind of harm that uptake of homeopathy encourages in India: delay to evidence-based clinical care that can lead to fatality. Authors have pointed out that evidence for some of the alternative systems of medicine may not come from RCTs. I agree that more appropriate study designs and analytical techniques are needed for carefully studying individualized treatment paradigms. However, the need for agreement on some consistent form of evidence synthesis and empirical testing across diverse disciplines cannot be discounted. Several other disciplines including psychology, economics, community health, implementation science, and public policy have adopted RCTs and related study designs and have passed the empirical tests of efficacy. Moreover, the ideas around mechanism of action in case of homeopathy still remain controversial and lack evidence after over a century. On the contrary, biochemical, molecular, and physiological mechanistic evidence supporting allopathic treatments has grown abundantly in the same period.
Owing to lack of evidence on its efficacy and safety, the World Health Organization had previously warned against the use of homeopathic treatments for severe diseases. Additionally, multiple countries, including Germany where the practice originated, have initiated mechanisms that discourage uptake of homeopathy while others are considering banning it. Homeopathy doesn’t work, could be harmful, and is not a part of Indian traditional medicine. While we should welcome pluralistic approaches towards UHC, we need to drop homeopathy.
(for references, see original text)
Yes, in the name of progress and in the interest of patients, “we need to drop homeopathy” (not just in India but everywhere). I quite agree!
This review investigated the characteristics, hotspots, and frontiers of global scientific output in acupuncture research for chronic pain over the past decade. the authors retrieved publications on acupuncture for chronic pain published from 2011 to 2022 from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-expanded) of the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). The co-occurrence relationships of journals/countries/institutions/authors/keywords were performed using VOSviewer V6.1.2, and CiteSpace V1.6.18 analyzed the clustering and burst analysis of keywords and co-cited references.
A total of 1616 articles were retrieved. The results showed that:
- the number of annual publications on acupuncture for chronic pain has increased over time;
- the main types of literature are original articles (1091 articles, 67.5 %) and review articles (351 articles, 21.7 %);
- China had the most publications (598 articles, 37 %), with Beijing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (93 articles, 5.8 %);
- Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ranked first (169 articles, 10.45 %) as the most prolific affiliate and journal, respectively;
- Liang FR was the most productive author (43 articles);
- the article published by Vickers Andrew J in 2012 had the highest number of citations (625 citations).
Recently, “acupuncture” and “pain” appeared most frequently. The hot topics in acupuncture for chronic pain based on keywords clustering analysis were experimental design, hot diseases, interventions, and mechanism studies. According to burst analysis, the main research frontiers were functional connectivity (FC), depression, and risk.
The authors concluded that this study provides an in-depth perspective on acupuncture for chronic pain studies, revealing pivotal points, research hotspots, and research trends. Valuable ideas are provided for future research activities.
I might disagree with the authors’ conclusion and would argue that they have demonstrated that:
- the acupuncture literature is dominated by China, which is concerning because we know that 1) these studies are of poor quality, 2) never report negative findings, and 3) are often fabricated;
- the articles tend to be published in journals that are more than a little suspect.
As we have seen recently, the reliable evidence that acupuncture remains effective is wafer-thin. Therefore, I feel that we are currently being misled by a flurry of rubbish publications that have one main aim: to distract from the fact that acupuncture might be nonsense.
This happens with such a regularity that I have decided to write about it; in fact, I shall do that in the form of an ‘open letter‘ to all concerned.
A person or group of persons compose a complaint about my work in which they allege that I am engaged in a decade-long vendetta specifically against their particular form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). This letter is sent to me, or to a publisher of my articles/books, or to my peers at the university, or to anyone else they consider appropriate. Such interventions can at times be quite entertaining or even hilariously funny, but if they occur too often, they are also mildly irritating and wasteful. Foremost, they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding that might be worth clearing up with this …
Dear advocate of the specific SCAM in question,
Dear professional organization of the specific SCAM in question,
I am sorry that my lecture/article/blog post/book/interview caused concern and led you to feel that I am running a long-term campaign or vendetta against the specific SCAM that you advocate. This letter is to assure you that your feeling is entirely erroneous: I am in no way targeting your specific SCAM.
If you have a look at my most recent book, for instance, you will see that, in it, I discuss a total of 202 different forms of SCAM and that – with good reason – I am highly critical of the vast majority of these methods. Imagine what it would mean to run a vendetta or campaign against all of these specific SCAMs. I would need a sizable team of co-workers involving lawyers, researchers, administrators, etc. to manage the task. I would also need plenty of funds to support the campaign, and I would most likely have more legal cases going than I have hair on my head.
The truth is that, since my retirement ~10 years ago, I do my research with no assistance whatsoever, I get no financial support or compensation for my work, and I am in contact with lawyers only when they ask me to serve as an expert witness. There simply is no evidence for the campaign that you feel does exist and you evidently misjudge my motives for criticizing your specific SCAM.
My aim is not to defame your specific SCAM or SCAM in general. I have no reason to do this. My aim is simply to inform the public responsibly and to prevent vulnerable people from getting harmed or ripped off. As I have studied the subject systematically for three decades, I feel I am competent, entitles, and duty-bound to try and do this.
I sincerely hope you are able to see the difference: you seem to think that I am destructively out to get you or your SCAM, while in truth I am constructively doing what responsible healthcare professionals (should) do.
Now that this misunderstanding has been cleared up, I thank you for reconsidering your position and stopping to claim things about me that are not true.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) combined with Western medicine (WM) in comparison with WM in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure for patients with primary hypertension (PHTN).
Various literature searches located a total of 29 studies that included 2623 patients. The results showed that the clinical effectiveness in the treatment of hypertension with CHM+WM was considerably higher than that with WM alone, clinical effective (RR 1.23, 95% CI [1.17, 1.30], P < 0.00001), and markedly effective (ME) in the patients (RR 1.66, 95% CI [1.52, 1.80], and P < 0.00001). Random effect in SBP (MD 7.91 mmHg,[6.00, 983], P < 0.00001) and DBP (MD 5.46 mmHg, [3.88, 6.43], P < 0.00001), a subgroup analysis was carried out based on the type of intervention, duration of treatment, and CHM formulas that showed significance. Furthermore, no severe side effects were reported, and no patients stopped treatment or withdrawal due to any severe adverse events.
The authors concluded that compared to WM alone, the therapeutic effectiveness of CHM combined with WM is significantly improved in the treatment of hypertension. Additionally, CHM with WM may safely and efficiently lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in individuals with PHTN. However, rigorous randomized controlled trials with a large sample, high quality, long duration of treatment, and follow-up are recommended to strengthen this clinical evidence.
The authors can boast of an impressive list of affiliations:
- 1Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, 150040, Heilongjiang, China; School of Pharmacy, Lebanese International University, 18644, Sana’a, Yemen.
- 2Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, 150040, Heilongjiang, China.
- 3Key Laboratory of Chinese Materia Medica, Ministry of Education of Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, 150040, Heilongjiang, China.
- 4Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao Binhai University, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
- 5Department of Respiratory Diseases, Shandong Second Provincial General Hospital, Shandong University, Shandong, China.
- 6Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, 150040, Heilongjiang, China. Electronic address: [email protected]
Impressive in the sense of being impressively prone to bias, particularly knowing that ~80% of Chinese research findings have been shown to be fabricated and considering that Chinese authors as good as never publish anything negative about TCM.
But perhaps you still believe that the results reported here are 100% true? In this case, I might even agree with you. The reason is that the authors demonstrate in exemplary fashion what I have been saying so often before:
Blood pressure is one of the many endpoints that are highly prone to placebo effects. Therefore, even the addition of an ineffective CHM to WM would lower blood pressure more effectively than WM alone.
But there is a third way of explaining the findings of this review: some herbal remedies might actually have a hypotensive effect. The trouble is that this review does come not even close to telling us which.
Guest post by Hans-Werner Bertelsen
As a self-confessed Asterix fan, I made a proposal to the Bremen Medical Association in 2019 that it should no longer orient itself towards the mainstream in the area of further training, but rather towards Klein-Bonum. The board found my proposal very good and unanimously deleted “homeopathy” from the postgraduate training regulations at the next board meeting. The media echo was tremendous. Words of “dam bursting” and “revolution” did the rounds. The “domino effect” was also often quoted in this context, because in the following years, many other German state medical associations followed the Bremen example and removed “homeopathy” from their further training regulations: Saxony-Anhalt, North Rhine, Schleswig-Holstein, Baden-Württemberg, Hamburg, Hesse, Brandenburg, Berlin, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, Saarland, and Bavaria.
Following the principle of logical plausibility, according to which it makes no sense to support dubious therapies that are not in one’s own training portfolio, but are still reimbursed by many health insurance funds, by convenient billing modalities, the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Bremen (KVHB) drew a line under the matter and terminated corresponding contracts on my advice. With the termination of the criticized selective contracts, the small federal state of Bremen thus set new standards in 2021. Since the termination, doctors can no longer conveniently provide “homeopathic services” online but have to bill their patients for their services.
But that was not all: the drumbeat of terminated billing contracts had not yet died down in the ears of the “homeopaths”, when only 3 months later, at the meeting of the Federal Medical Association, the next one followed: After a delegate from Bremen (do you want to know if this was a coincidence?) had submitted a motion for the deletion of “homeopathy” from the Model Continuing Medical Education Ordinance (MWBO), this was carried out after a democratic vote at the medical congress in Bremen. The Federal Medical Association thus officially declares this type of sham therapy to be no longer up-to-date, dispensable, and unworthy of further training.
In view of the vote democratically given by the Board, it seems bizarre that the Bavarian Medical Association, despite its own decision to remove “homeopathy” from the WBO, now invokes prolongations because of “transitional periods” in order to be able to continue offering courses in “homeopathy”. Contracts in this regard are to be considered secondary and no longer current. Therefore, the justification given by the ÄND proves to be flimsy and not stringent. The protection of patients from dangerous sham therapies in the case of the omission of indication-appropriate therapies saves lives and thus clearly represents the higher legal interest. Calls for “transitional periods” are redundant and negligently endanger the health of many people. On top of that, an unnecessary extension is a disrespect to the decision made by its own members in the democratic process.
But I remain optimistic that logical plausibility – free of backlogs (!) – will prevail in Bavaria as well. The vote has proven that there is a majority for this and that this majority will not be dominated by money or self-deception.