I have previously reported that a Canadian naturopath, Jason Klop, is under investigation for selling fecal Microbiota transplants to treat autistic children. Now, there is a new twist in this story.
On Twitter, J.N. Stea summarized it nicely:
This naturopath is fighting a judge so that he can charge parents about $15,000 to give his nephew’s poop to children as a treatment for autism. His lawyer argues that he should be allowed to since naturopathy isn’t scientific anyway.
Klop’s lawyer defends the naturopath against an investigation into his business of selling fecal microbiota transplants to families of autistic children. The College of Naturopathic Physicians (CoN) had banned Klop for selling, advertising, and manufacturing pills made from human feces claiming that Klop has been engaging in conduct not acceptable for a naturopathic physician. Klop’s lawyer, Jason Gratl, argued this was difficult to prove in a field that has a few restrictions and some ambiguous boundaries.
“What does it take to be a naturopath and do something that is not appropriate in a field so wide-ranging and open to interpretation?” the lawyer, Gratl, asked the court suggesting that the lack of scientific evidence supporting the use of fecal Microbiota Transplants (FMT) to treat autism is not necessarily relevant in this instance.
“Naturopaths can rely on science in certain aspects, but they are not bound to science,” Gratl said. He explained that naturopathic practices could be based on anecdotes and historical knowledge. Later, he pointed out that the field also includes homeopathy, which, some believe, involves magical thinking. It is definitely not scientific in its core.” After describing the case as a “tragedy”, Gratl called the allegations against his client “entirely unverfounded and scurrilous.”
I suspect it is nothing new to most readers, yet I find it gratifying to hear from a lawyer that naturopathy
- is not science,
- relies on anecdote instead of evidence,
- and involves magical thinking.
I do think, however, that despite all this, naturopaths should not be allowed to do any odd nonsense that comes to their minds and fills their bank accounts quickly.
A study by an international team of researchers estimated the proportion of healthcare interventions tested within Cochrane Reviews that are effective according to high-quality evidence.
They selected a random sample of 2428 (35%) of all Cochrane Reviews published between 1 January 2008 and 5 March 2021 and extracted data about interventions within these reviews that were compared with placebo, or no treatment, and whose outcome quality was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). They then calculated the proportion of interventions whose effectiveness was based on high-quality evidence according to GRADE, had statistically significant positive effects and were judged as beneficial by the review authors. They also calculated the proportion of interventions that suggested harm.
Of 1567 eligible interventions, 87 (5.6%) had high-quality evidence on first-listed primary outcomes, positive, statistically significant results, and were rated by review authors as beneficial. Harms were measured for 577 (36.8%) interventions, 127 of which (8.1%) had statistically significant evidence of harm. Our dependence on the reliability of Cochrane author assessments (including their GRADE assessments) was a potential limitation of our study.
The authors drew the following conclusions: While many healthcare interventions may be beneficial, very few have high-quality evidence to support their effectiveness and safety. This problem can be remedied by high-quality studies in priority areas. These studies should measure harms more frequently and more rigorously. Practitioners and the public should be aware that many frequently used interventions are not supported by high-quality evidence.
Proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are fond of the ‘strawman’ fallacy; meaning they like to present a picture of conventional medicine that is overtly negative in order for SCAM to appear more convincing (Prince Charles, for instance, uses this trick every single time he speaks about SCAM). Therefore I am amazed that this paper has not been exploited in that way by them. I was expecting headlines such as
Evidence-based medicine is not supported by evidence
Less than 6% of all conventional treatments are supported by sound evidence.
Why did they not have a field day with this new paper then?
As the article is behind a paywall, it took me a while to get the full paper (thanks Paul). Now that I have read it, I think I understand the reason.
In the article, the authors provide figures for specific types of treatments. Let me show you some of the percentages of interventions that met the primary outcome (high quality, statistically significant effect, and authors interpret as effective):
- pharmacological 73.8%
- surgical 4.6%
- exercise 5.8%
- diet 1.2%
- alternative 0.0%
- manual therapies 0.0%
So, maybe the headlines should not be any of the above but:
No good evidence to support SCAM?
SCAM is destroying the evidence base of medicine.
If you have been following my blog for a while, you probably know the answer to this question. A recent article published in JAMA re-emphasizes it in an exemplary fashion:
According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, 52% of surveyed US adults reported using at least 1 dietary supplement in the prior 30 days and 31% reported using a multivitamin-mineral supplement. The most commonly cited reason for using supplements is for overall health and wellness and to fill nutrient gaps in the diet. Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death and combined account for approximately half of all deaths in the US annually. Inflammation and oxidative stress have been shown to have a role in both cardiovascular disease and cancer, and dietary supplements may have anti-inflammatory and antioxidative effects.
Objective To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on the efficacy of supplementation with single nutrients, functionally related nutrient pairs, or multivitamins for reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality in the general adult population, as well as the harms of supplementation.
Population Community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults.
Evidence Assessment The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of beta carotene supplementation outweigh the benefits for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. The USPSTF also concludes with moderate certainty that there is no net benefit of supplementation with vitamin E for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of supplementation with multivitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. Evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of supplementation with single or paired nutrients (other than beta carotene and vitamin E) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. Evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.
Recommendation The USPSTF recommends against the use of beta carotene or vitamin E supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the use of multivitamin supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the use of single- or paired-nutrient supplements (other than beta carotene and vitamin E) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement)
The report also elaborates on potential harms:
For many of the vitamins and nutrients reviewed, there was little evidence of serious harms. However, an important harm of increased lung cancer incidence was reported with the use of beta carotene by persons who smoke tobacco or have occupational exposure to asbestos.
Excessive doses of vitamin supplements can cause several known adverse effects; for example, moderate doses of vitamin A supplements may reduce bone mineral density, and high doses may be hepatotoxic or teratogenic. Vitamin D has potential harms, such as a risk of hypercalcemia and kidney stones, when given at high doses. The potential for harm from other supplements at high doses should be carefully considered.
There is nothing new here, of course. I (and others) have been trying to get these points across for many years. But it is nevertheless most gratifying to see the message repeated by a top journal such as JAMA. I hope JAMA is more successful than I was in changing the behavior of the often all too gullible public!
Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms of patients with advanced cancer. While there is some evidence for acupuncture point stimulation in the treatment of these symptoms for patients having anticancer treatment, there is little for when they are not related to such treatment.
This study aimed to determine whether acupressure at the pericardium 6 sites can help treat nausea and vomiting suffered by palliative care patients with advanced cancer. The researchers conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial-active versus placebo acupressure wristbands. In-patients with advanced cancer in two specialist palliative care units who fitted either or both of the following criteria were approached: nausea that was at least of moderate severity; vomiting daily on average for the prior 3 days.
A total of 57 patients were randomized to have either active or placebo acupressure wristbands. There was no difference in any of the outcome measures between the two groups:
- change from the baseline number of vomits;
- Visual Analogue Scale for ‘did acupressure wristbands help you to feel better?’;
- the total number of doses of antiemetic medication;
- the need for escalation of antiemetics.
The authors concluded that, in contrast to a previously published feasibility study, active acupressure wristbands were no better than placebo for specialist palliative care in patients with advanced cancer and nausea and vomiting.
When the research into acupuncture for nausea and vomiting began some 20 years ago, the evidence turned out to be encouraging. Later, as the studies became more and more rigorous, many trials failed to confirm the initial findings. Today, the totality of the evidence is far less convincing than it seemed years ago.
This is a phenomenon that can be observed not just in acupuncture research but in many types of treatment:
- Initially, over-enthusiastic researchers become victims of their own optimism.
- These investigators are less into testing hypotheses than into confirming their own wishful thinking.
- Thus, several positive trials emerge.
- These, however, turn out to be methodologically flawed.
- Eventually, the subject might be picked up by real scientists who truly test hypotheses.
- More and more negative studies thus emerge.
- Depending on how many flawed studies were initially published and how critical the authors of systematic reviews are, it can take years until the totality of the evidence depicts the true picture which discloses the initial findings as false-positive.
The message is, I think, clear: poor quality studies have the potential to mislead us for many years. Eventually, however, the self-cleansing ability of science should generate the truth about the value of any treatment. In other words:
poor-quality science is not just useless, it causes long-term harm
critical thinking prevents harm
In a previous post, I reported about the ‘biggest ever’, ‘history-making’ conference on integrative medicine. It turns out that it was opened by none other than Prince Charles. Here is what the EXPRESS reported about his opening speech:
Opening the conference, Charles said:
“I know a few people have seen this integrated approach as being in some way opposed to modern medicine. It isn’t. But we need to combine this with a personal approach that also takes account of our beliefs, hopes, culture and history. It builds upon the abilities of our minds and bodies to heal, and to live healthy lives by improving diet and lifestyle.”
Dr. Michael Dixon, Chair of the College of Medicine, said:
“Medicine, as we know it, is no longer affordable or sustainable. Nor is it able to curb the increase in obesity, mental health problems and most long-term diseases. A new medical mindset is needed, which goes to the heart of true healthcare. The advantages and possibilities of social prescription are limitless. An adjustment to the system now will provide a long-term, sustainable solution for the NHS to meet the ever-increasing demand for funding and healthcare professionals.”
Charles very kindly acknowledges that not everyone is convinced about his concept of integrated/integrative medicine. Good point your royal highness! But I fear Charles did not quite understand our objections. In a nutshell: it is not possible to cure the many ills of conventional medicine by adding unproven and disproven therapies to it. In fact, it distracts from our duty to constantly improve conventional medicine. And pretending it is all about diet and lifestyle is simply not true (see below). Moreover, it is disingenuous to pretend that diet and lifestyle do not belong to conventional healthcare.
Dr. Dixon’s concern about the affordability of medicine is, of course, justified. But the notion that “the advantages and possibilities of social prescription are limitless” is a case of severe proctophasia, and so is Dixon’s platitude about ‘adjusting the system’. His promotion of treatments like Acupuncture, Alexander Technique, Aromatherapy, Herbal Medicine, Homeopathy, Hypnotherapy, Massage, Naturopathy, Reflexology, Reiki, Tai Chi, Yoga Therapy will not adjust anything, it will only make healthcare less efficient.
I do not doubt for a minute that doctors are prescribing too many drugs and that we could save huge amounts by reminding patients that they are responsible for their own health while teaching them how to improve it without pills. This is what we learn in medical school! All we need to do is remind everyone concerned. In fact, Charles and his advisor, Michael, could be most helpful in achieving this – but not by promoting a weird branch of healthcare (integrative/integrated medicine or whatever other names they choose to give it) that can only distract from the important task at hand.
Today, a 3-day conference is starting on ‘INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE’ (IM) in London. Dr. Michael Dixon, claims that it is going to be the biggest such conference ever and said that it ‘will make history’. Dixon is an advisor to Prince Charles, chair of the College of Medicine and Integrated Health (CoMIH, of which Charles is a patron), and joint-chair of the congress. The other co-chair is Elizabeth Thompson. Both have been the subject of several previous posts on this blog.
Dixon advertised the conference by commenting: “I am seeing amongst by younger colleagues, the newly trained GPs, that they have a new attitude towards healthcare. They are not interested in whether something is viewed as conventional, complementary, functional or lifestyle, they are just looking at what works for their patients. Through this conference, we aim to capture that sense of hope, open-mindedness, and patient-centred care”. I believe that this ‘history-making’ event is a good occasion to yet again review the concept of IM.
The term IM sounds appealing, yet it is also confusing and misleading. The confusion starts with the fact that our American friends call it integrative medicine, while we in the UK normally call it integrated medicine, and it ends with different people understanding different things by IM. In conventional healthcare, for instance, people use the term to mean the integration of social and medical care. In the bizarre world of alternative medicine, IM is currently used to signify the parallel use of alternative and conventional therapies on an equal footing.
Today, there are many different definitions of the latter version of IM. Prince Charles, one of the world’s most ardent supporter of IM, used to simply call it ‘the best of both worlds’. A recent, more detailed definition is a ‘healing-oriented medicine that takes account of the whole person, including all aspects of lifestyle. It emphasizes the therapeutic relationship between practitioner and patient, is informed by evidence, and makes use of all appropriate therapies’. This seems to imply that conventional medicine is not healing-orientated, does not account for the whole person, excludes aspects of lifestyle, neglects the therapeutic relationship, is not informed by evidence, and does not employ all appropriate therapies. This, I would argue is a bonanza of strawman fallacies, i.e. the misrepresentation of an opponent’s qualities with a view of defeating him more easily and making one’s own position look superior. Perhaps this is unsurprising – after all, Dixon has been once named ‘a pyromaniac in a field of (integrative) strawmen’.
Perhaps definitions are too theoretical and it is more productive to look at what IM stands for in real life. If you surf the Internet, you can find thousands of clinics that carry the name IM. It will take you just minutes to discover that there is not a single alternative therapy, however ridiculous, that they don’t offer. What is more, there is evidence to show that doctors who are into IM are also often against public health measures such as vaccinations.
The UK ‘Integrated Medicine Alliance’, a grouping within the CoMIH, offers information sheets on all of the following treatments: Acupuncture, Alexander Technique, Aromatherapy, Herbal Medicine, Homeopathy, Hypnotherapy, Massage, ,Naturopathy, Reflexology, Reiki, Tai Chi, Yoga Therapy. The one on homeopathy, for example, tells us that “homeopathy … can be used for almost any condition either alone or in a complementary manner.” Compare this to what the NHS says about it: “homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos (dummy treatments)”.
This evidently grates with the politically correct definition above: IM is not well-informed about the evidence, and it does use inappropriate treatments. In fact, it is little more than a clumsy attempt to smuggle unproven and disproven alternative therapies into the mainstream of healthcare. It does render medicine not better but will inevitably make it worse, and this is surely not in the best interest of vulnerable patients who, I would argue, have a right to be treated with the most effective therapies currently available.
The conference can perhaps be characterized best by having a look at its sponsors. ‘Gold sponsor’ is WELEDA, and amongst the many further funders of the meeting are several other manufacturers of mistletoe medications for cancer. I just hope that the speakers at this meeting – Dixon has managed to persuade several reputable UK contributors – do not feel too embarrassed when they pass their exhibitions.
I came across an interesting case report recently published in an Austrian magazine. Here is my translation for non-German speakers:
A 42-year-old woman from Vienna has suffered from endometriosis since the age of 13. But it was only 8 years later that she found out what made the first two days of her menstruation so unbearable. She was not allowed to take painkillers to help herself during all that time. Her parents listened to medical “gurus” who distrusted conventional medicine.
“I grew up in a household where almost all illnesses were treated with homeopathy,” she wrote on Twitter. That’s exactly what became the IT expert’s undoing. In a recent interview, she looked back bitterly: “All infections and illnesses were treated with Bach flower remedies or homeopathics. Only in case of accidents or broken bones did my parents drive me to the hospital.” Her father suffered from an auto-immune disease. Because conventional medicine could not help him, he tried alternative approaches. “My parents slowly drifted more and more into this scene. At some point, they stopped listening to ‘normal’ doctors. It went downhill from there.”
As a girl, the Viennese had little chance of standing up to her parents’ “whisperers,” as she calls their esoteric advice. “When I got my period, I was in the worst pain. I fainted every month, even falling off my chair when I did it, once even at school. I vomited until I was so exhausted that I fell asleep.”
She begged her family to finally be allowed to consult a gynecologist. But he didn’t take the teenager seriously at the time and simply wanted to prescribe her the pill without a thorough examination. “I then went to my parents’ homeopathic ‘pill pusher’, who gave me homeopathics against my complaints. I wasn’t allowed to take painkillers because they ‘damage the liver’.” The guru persuaded the young woman that her health problems were her fault. “He said I just didn’t accept myself as a woman and that’s why I was in pain. I thought for a long time that I was just not strong and good enough.”
It wasn’t until she was already in her early 20s that her then-boyfriend took her to a gynecologist who finally took her condition seriously. “The ultrasound showed that I had quite a few cysts in my abdomen.” The diagnosis was also finally certain: she was now officially suffering from endometriosis. She was given the right medicine, and most of the endometriotic growths regressed. But a cyst had wrapped itself tightly around her right ovary, damaging it irrevocably over the years. It had died. “Homeopathy cost me my ovary,” the Viennese woman laments.
The fact that she nevertheless was able to become the mother of two children is thanks to her other ovary, which fortunately remained intact. But the feeling of having been treated wrongly, or not treated at all, for such a long time makes her angry. “I don’t blame my parents today. They have apologized and found their own way out of the gurus’ world of thought and out of the scene,” she emphasizes. “But I blame the people who pretend to be able to cure the majority of all diseases with homeopathy. Yet most of the time they can’t even find the right diagnosis and just give patients some stuff that has no side effects.” She now calls for an end to homeopathy.
How many times have I said it?
His remedy might be risk-free, but the homeopath certainly isn’t!
Prof. Fabricio Benedetti is one of the world’s leading experts in the study of placebo effects. I have mentioned his excellent work before, for instance, here where he cautioned that quackery has today one more weapon on its side, which is paradoxically represented by the hard science–supported placebo mechanisms. Now he has expressed his concerns even more clearly in an article entitled “Alternative and natural medicine quackery is on the rise. Here’s why the placebo effect is part of the problem”. Here are a few excerpts from this excellent paper:
For several decades now, many scientists, including me, have been working hard to reveal the full power and scope of the placebo effect — the amazing ability of a simple sugar pill or other non-pharmaceutical “fake intervention” to improve someone’s quality of life. This research has been crucial to giving scientific credibility to a powerful psychological effect. But the advances of science have also backfired, spawning an alternative industry that preys on the vulnerable…
All this means that some alternative medicines can indeed have positive outcomes for patients, though not necessarily through the mechanisms that the therapy’s inventors supposed, but rather through a placebo effect. This holds true for treatments ranging from strange talismans to acupuncture — studies have shown that pain relief is about the same for patients receiving true acupuncture with needles, for example, as for those receiving sham acupuncture with trick needles.
The scientific advances in understanding placebo are fascinating. But one unfortunate outcome of all this work is that profit-seeking companies and individuals now have a new weapon: It is no longer necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of their proposed therapies; it is enough to assert that these work because of the placebo effect. I receive myriad eccentric proposals for new therapies, ranging from talismans and concoctions to mascots and weird rituals. Their inventors claim that these are capable of inducing substantial health benefits and often seek my endorsement. These proposals have stepped up sharply in recent years. Sadly, the science of the placebo effect is fueling this new breed of pseudoscience…
So, if a salesperson says: “This concoction (or ritual or talisman) will reduce your pain,” it is not necessarily a lie, as the placebo effect may indeed stimulate pain-relieving circuits in the brain. But anyone could truthfully use these words, within limits.
These marketers often overstate the size of the possible response, claim to provide a “cure” rather than pain relief or incorrectly suggest that only their own expensive products will have this effect. Even worse, they may present the products as an alternative to more effective traditional medications for serious conditions such as cancer. In other words, they prey on the vulnerable by making undeliverable promises, purportedly backed by the science of placebo.
Even if taking a placebo can reduce symptoms such as pain, this isn’t always the best course of action. An apparently trivial pain may, for example, be the first sign of something far more serious. Treating the pain alone may prevent diagnosis by a physician or delay important medical treatments…
…Education, communication and honesty are the best friends of medical practice. Patients and health care professionals deserve to know what placebos can and cannot do.
The research and medical communities must be more transparent about the efficacy of many conventional pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, by acknowledging that some of them are useful whereas some others are not. Many over-the-counter products have doubtful efficacy, for example. Honesty will boost patients’ trust and confidence in medicine, which are the best antidotes to quackery.
BRAVO PROF BENEDETTI!
I know only too well that some readers will interpret this post as pompous and self-congratulatory, but I nevertheless feel like telling my readers that I have become a member of the ACADEMIA EUROPAEA. In case you don’t know what this is, Wikipedia provides the following information:
Membership of the Academia Europaea (MAE) is an award conferred by the Academia Europaea to individuals that have demonstrated “sustained academic excellence”. Membership is by invitation only by existing MAE only and judged during a peer review selection process. Members are entitled to use the post-nominal letters MAE.
New members are announced annually, every year since 1988. For a more complete list see Category:Members of Academia Europaea.. Some Members of the Academia Europaea have received very prestigious awards, medals and prizes, such as:
- The Nobel Prize e.g. Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard (1995, Physiology), Arvid Carlsson (2000, Physiology or Medicine), Paul Nurse (2001, Physiology or Medicine), Tim Hunt (2001, Physiology or Medicine), Kurt Wüthrich (2002, Chemistry), John Sulston (2002, Physiology or Medicine), Sydney Brenner 2002, Physiology or Medicine, Aaron Ciechanover (2004, Chemistry), Roy J. Glauber (2005, Physics), Roger D. Kornberg (2006, Chemistry), Gerhard Ertl (2007, Chemistry), Richard Tol (2007, shared winner of the Nobel Peace Prize), Harald zur Hausen (2008, Physiology or Medicine), Luc Montagnier (2008, Physiology or Medicine), Robert G. Edwards (2010, Physiology or Medicine), John B. Gurdon (2012, Physiology or Medicine), Rita Levi-Montalcini (1986, Physiology)
- The Wolf Prize, e.g. Simon Donaldson (2020), Alexander Beilinson (2018), Peter Zoller (2013), Alain Aspect (2010), Anton Zeilinger (2010), Axel Ullrich (2010), David Baulcombe (2010), Howard Cedar (2008), Albert Fert (2006/2007), Alexander Levitzki (2005), Sergei P. Novikov (2005), Alexander Varshavsky (2001), Saharon Shelah (2001), Vladimir I. Arnold (2001).
- The Turing Award, e.g. Joseph Sifakis (2007), Adi Shamir (2002).
- The Fields Medal, e.g. Martin Hairer (2014), Elon Lindenstrauss (2010), Stanislav Smirnov (2010), Cédric Villani (2010), Wendelin Werner (2006), Timothy Gowers (1998), Maxim Kontsevich (1998), Jean Bourgain (1994), Pierre-Louis Lions (1994), Simon Donaldson (1986), Enrico Bombieri (1974), Sergei P. Novikov (1970), Michael Atiyah (1966).
- The Lasker Award, e.g. Roy Calne (2012), David Weatherall (2010), John Gurdon (2009), David Baulcombe (2008), Alec Jeffreys (2005), Pierre Chambon (2004), Robert Edwards (2001), Sydney Brenner (2000), Aaron Ciechanover (2000), Alexander Varshavsky (2000).
- The Abel Prize, e.g. Andrew Wiles (2016), Endre Szemerédi (2012), Mikhail Leonidovich Gromov (2009), Jacques Tits (2008), Lennart Carleson (2006), Michael Atiyah (2004).
- The Gödel Prize, e.g. Christos H. Papadimitriou (2012), Johan Hastad (2011, 1994), Alexander Razborov (2007), Noga Alon (2005), László Lovász (2001), Moshe Vardi (2000), Pierre Wolper (2000).
The Academia Europaea was founded in 1988, on the initiative of the UK’s Royal Society and other National Academies in Europe. It is a `Not for Profit’ Charity registered in the UK. The Academia Europaea is the only Academy with individual members from the Council of Europe states and from other nations across the world. Currently, there are some 5000 members who cover the full range of academic disciplines.
The objectives of the Academia Europaea are the advancement and propagation of excellence in scholarship in the humanities, law, the economic, social, and political sciences, mathematics, medicine, and all branches of natural and technological sciences anywhere in the world for the public benefit and for the advancement of the education of the public of all ages.
The Academy organizes meetings and workshops, provides scientific and scholarly advice, and publishes the international journal the ‘European Review’ and is associated with Biology Direct. It operates regional knowledge hubs out of Barcelona, Bergen, Budapest, Cardiff, Munich, Tbilisi, and Wroclaw, hosted by Universities and National academies.
I am both proud and thankful that I have been honored in this way.
I have been sent a press release dated 26/5/2022 that might interest some of my readers. As it is in German, I took the liberty of translating it:
The 126th German Medical Congress today in Bremen deleted the additional designation of homeopathy from the further education regulations for doctors (MWBO). The request brought by Bremen delegates was decided by the physician parliament with a large majority.
The Bremen delegates justified their request with the fact that 13 of 17 state medical associations have already deleted the additional designation of homeopathy from their further education regulations. The further education regulation is to create uniform rules for the post-graduate training of doctors. However, there is no longer any question of uniformity if 13 state medical associations do not follow the MWBO.
In the debate, Dr. Johannes Grundmann once again pointed out that it is not a matter of prohibiting people from using homeopathic remedies. “However, it is the task of the medical associations to define and check verifiable learning objectives,” Grundmann said to great applause.
In September 2020, the Bremen Medical Association had become the first such chamber in Germany to remove homeopathy from its education regulations. The complaint of a Bremen physician against it had subsequently been rejected in two instances. Most recently, the Bremen health insurance was the first to terminate three selective contracts for the remuneration of homeopathic services.
I feel that this is a nice victory of reason over unreason. I might even go as far as assuming that our petition of 2021 might have helped a little to bring it about:
Dear President Dr Reinhardt,
Dear Ms Lundershausen,
Dear Ms Johna,
We, the undersigned doctors, would like to draw your attention to the insistence of individual state medical associations on preserving “homeopathy” as a component of continuing medical education. We hope that you, by virtue of your office, will ensure a nationwide regulation so that this form of sham treatment , as has already happened in other European countries, can no longer call itself part of medicine.
We justify our request by the following facts:
- After the landmark vote in Bremen in September 2019 to remove “homeopathy” from the medical training regulations, 10 other state medical associations have so far followed Bremen’s example. For reasons of credibility and transparency, it would be desirable if the main features of the training content taught were not coordinated locally in the future, but centrally and uniformly across the country so that there is no “training tourism”. Because changes to a state’s own regulations of postgraduate training are only binding for the examination committee of the respective state, this does not affect national regulations but is reduced to only a symbolic character without sufficient effects on the portfolio of medical education nationwide.
- Medicine always works through the combination of a specifically effective part and non-specific placebo effects. By insisting on a pseudo-medical methodology – as is “homeopathy” represents in our opinion – patients are deprived of the specific effective part and often unnecessarily deprived of therapy appropriate to the indication. Tragically, it happens again and again that the “therapeutic window of opportunity” for an appropriate therapy is missed, tumors can grow to inoperable size, etc.
- Due to the insistence of individual state medical associations on the “homeopathic doctrine of healing” as part of the medical profession, we are increasingly exposed to the blanket accusation that, by tolerating this doctrine, we are supporting and promoting ways of thinking and world views that are detached from science. This is a dangerous situation, which in times of a pandemic manifests itself in misguided aggression reflected not just in vaccination skepticism and vaccination refusal, but also in unacceptable personal attacks and assaults on vaccinating colleagues in private practice.
Dr. med. Dent. Hans-Werner Bertelsen
Prof. Dr. med. Edzard Ernst
George A. Rausche
The first reported reactions from politicians are positive, while those of homeopaths are predictably the opposite:
German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) expressly welcomed the delegates’ decision, writing via Twitter. “Good medicine stands on the ground of science. For homeopathy, there is no place there. In such a question, one must show one’s colors.”
Paula Piechotta, a Green Party member of parliament, was equally pleased. “… it is good when in times of Fake Facts and right-wing conspiracy theories clarity is provided where clarity is needed. Thank you Ärztetag,” she tweeted.
Michaela Geiger, chairwoman of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians, noted the decision “with astonishment.” Homeopathy has a high acceptance among the population, she claimed.