Alternative medicine is an odd term (but it is probably as good or bad as any other term for it). It describes a wide range of treatments (and diagnostic techniques which I exclude from this discussion) that have hardly anything in common.
And that means there are a few common denominators. Here are 7 of them:
- The treatments have a long history and have thus stood the ‘test of time’.
- The treatments enjoy a lot of support.
- The treatments are natural and therefore safe.
- The treatments are holistic.
- The treatments tackle the root causes of the problem.
- The treatments are being suppressed by the establishment.
- The treatments are inexpensive and therefore value for money.
One only has to scratch the surface to discover that these common denominators of alternative medicine turn out to be unmitigated nonsense.
Let me explain:
The treatments have a long history and have thus stood the ‘test of time’.
It is true that most alternative therapies have a long history; but what does that really mean? In my view, it signals but one thing: when these therapies were invented, people had no idea how our body functions; they mostly had speculations, superstitions and myths. It follows, I think, that the treatments in question are built on speculations, superstitions and myths.
This might be a bit too harsh, I admit. But one thing is absolutely sure: a long history of usage is no proof of efficacy.
The treatments enjoy a lot of support.
Again, this is true. Alternative treatments are supported by many patients who swear by them, by thousands of clinicians who employ them as well as by royalty and other celebrities who make the headlines with them.
Such support is usually based on experience or belief. Neither are evidence; quite the opposite, remember: the three most dangerous words in medicine are ‘IN MY EXPERIENCE’. To be clear, experience and belief can fool us profoundly, and science is a tool to prevent us being misled by them.
The treatments are natural and therefore safe.
Here we have two fallacies moulded into one. Firstly, not all alternative therapies are natural; secondly, none is entirely safe.
There is nothing natural about diluting the Berlin Wall and selling it as a homeopathic remedy. There is nothing natural about forcing a spinal joint beyond its physiological range of motion and calling it spinal manipulation. There is nothing natural about sticking needles into the skin and claiming this re-balances our vital energies.
Acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine, etc. are burdened with their fair share of adverse effects. But the real danger of alternative medicine is the harm done by neglecting effective therapies. Anyone who decides to forfeit conventional treatments for a serious condition, and uses alternative therapies instead, runs the risk of shortening their lives.
The treatments are holistic.
Alternative therapists try very hard to sell their treatments as holistic. This sounds good and must be an excellent marketing gimmick. Alas, it is not true.
There is nothing less holistic than seeing subluxations, yin/yang imbalances, auto-intoxications, energy blockages, etc. as the cause of all illness. Holism is at the heart of all good healthcare; the attempt by alternative practitioners to hijack it is merely a transparent attempt to boost their business.
The treatments tackle the root causes of the problem.
Alternative therapists claim that they can identify the root causes of all conditions and thus treat them more effectively than conventional clinicians who merely treat their symptoms. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conventional medicine has been so spectacularly successful not least because we always aim at identifying the cause that underlie a symptom and, whenever possible, treat that cause (often in addition to treating symptoms). Alternative practitioners may well delude themselves that energy imbalances, subluxations, chi-blockages etc. are root causes, but there simply is no evidence to support their deluded claims.
The treatments are being suppressed by the establishment.
The feeling of paranoia seems endemic in alternative medicine. Many practitioners are so affected by it that they believe everyone who doubts their implausible notions and misconceptions is out to get them. Big Pharma’ or whoever else they feel prosecuted by are more likely to smile at such wild conspiracy theories than to fear for their profit margins. And whenever ‘Big Pharma’ does smell a fast buck, they do not hesitate to jump on the alternative band-waggon joining them in ripping off the public by flogging dubious supplements, homeopathics, essential oils, vitamins, flower remedies, detox-remedies, etc.
The treatments are inexpensive and therefore value for money.
It is probably true that the average cost of a homeopathic remedy, an acupuncture treatment or an aromatherapy session costs less than the average conventional treatment. However, to conclude from it that alternative therapies are value for money is wrong. To be of real value, a treatment needs to generate more good than harm; but very few alternative treatments fulfil this criterion. To use a blunt analogy, if someone offers you a used car, it may well be inexpensive – if, however, it does not run and is beyond repair, it cannot be value for money.
As I already stated: alternative medicine is so diverse that its various branches are almost entirely unrelated, and the few common denominators of alternative medicine that do exist are unmitigated nonsense.
It is no secret to regular readers of this blog that chiropractic’s effectiveness is unproven for every condition it is currently being promoted for – perhaps with two exceptions: neck pain and back pain. Here we have some encouraging data, but also lots of negative evidence. A new US study falls into the latter category; I am sure chiropractors will not like it, but it does deserve a mention.
This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. It was designed as a prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls.
Using retrospective electronic health record data, the researchers developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. The main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care.
Both groups’ (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group. Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072).
The authors concluded by stating this: we found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.
This comes from some of the most-renowned experts in back pain research, and it is certainly an elaborate piece of investigation. Yet, I find the conclusions unreasonable.
Essentially, the authors found that chiropractic has no clinical or economical advantage over other approaches currently used for neck and back pain. So, they say that it a ‘viable option’.
I find this odd and cannot quite follow the logic. In my view, it lacks critical thinking and an attempt to produce progress. If it is true that all treatments were similarly (in)effective – which I can well believe – we still should identify those that have the least potential for harm. That could be exercise, massage therapy or some other modality – but I don’t think it would be chiropractic care.
Elder C, DeBar L, Ritenbaugh C, Dickerson J, Vollmer WM, Deyo RA, Johnson ES, Haas M.
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Jun 25. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4539-y. [Epub ahead of print]
I have often pointed out that, in contrast to ‘rational phytotherapy’, traditional herbalism of various types (e. g. Western, Chinese, Kampo, etc.) – characterised by the prescription of an individualised mixture of herbs by a herbalist – is likely to do more harm than good. This recent paper provides new and interesting information about the phenomenon.
Specifically, it explores the prevalence with which Australian Western herbalists treat menstrual problems and their related treatment, experiences, perceptions, and inter-referral practices with other health practitioners. Members of the Practitioner Research and Collaboration Initiative practice-based research network identifying as Western Herbalists (WHs) completed a specifically developed, online questionnaire.
Western Herbalists regularly treat menstrual problems, perceiving high, though differential, levels of effectiveness. For menstrual problems, WHs predominantly prescribe individualised formulas including core herbs, such as Vitex agnus-castus (VAC), and problem-specific herbs. Estimated clients’ weekly cost (median = $25.00) and treatment duration (median = 4-6 months) covering this Western herbal medicine treatment appears relatively low. Urban-based women are more likely than those rurally based to have used conventional treatment for their menstrual problems before consulting WHs. Only 19% of WHs indicated direct contact by conventional medical practitioners regarding treatment of clients’ menstrual problems despite 42% indicating clients’ conventional practitioners recommended consultation with WH.
The authors concluded that Western herbal medicine may be a substantially prevalent, cost-effective treatment option amongst women with menstrual problems. A detailed examination of the behaviour of women with menstrual problems who seek and use Western herbal medicine warrants attention to ensure this healthcare option is safe, effective, and appropriately co-ordinated within women’s wider healthcare use.
Apart from the fact, that I don’t see how the researchers could possibly draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of Western herbalism, I feel that this survey requires further comments.
There is no reason to assume that individualised herbalism is effective and plenty of reason to fear that it might cause harm (the larger the amount of herbal ingredients in one prescription, the higher the chances for toxicity and interactions). The only systematic review on the subject concluded that there is a sparsity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of individualised herbal medicine and no convincing evidence to support the use of individualised herbal medicine in any indication.
Moreover, VAC (the ‘core herb’ for menstrual problems) is hardly a herb that is solidly supported by evidence either. A systematic review concluded that, although meta-analysis shows a large pooled effect of VAC in placebo-controlled trials, the high risk of bias, high heterogeneity, and risk of publication bias of the included studies preclude a definitive conclusion. The pooled treatment effects should be viewed as merely explorative and, at best, overestimating the real treatment effect of VAC for premenstrual syndrome symptoms. There is a clear need for high-quality trials of appropriate size examining the effect of standardized extracts of VAC in comparison to placebo, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and oral contraceptives to establish relative efficacy.
And finally, VAC is by no means free of adverse effects; our review concluded that frequent adverse events include nausea, headache, gastrointestinal disturbances, menstrual disorders, acne, pruritus and erythematous rash. No drug interactions were reported. Use of VAC should be avoided during pregnancy or lactation. Theoretically, VAC might also interfere with dopaminergic antagonists.
So, to me, this survey suggests that the practice of Western herbalists is:
- not evidence-based;
- potentially harmful;
- and costly.
In a nutshell: IT IS BEST AVOIDED.
Switzerland seems to be something like the ‘promised land’ for homeopaths – at least this is what many homeopaths seem think. However, homeopaths’ thinking is rarely correct, and the situation of homeopathy in Switzerland is not quite what they believe it to be.
This article explains (my English explanations are below for all those you cannot do German):
Die Schweiz bekommt die steigenden Gesundheitskosten einfach nicht in den Griff. In den 20 Jahren zwischen 1996 und 2016 haben sie sich um rund 255,2 Prozent erhöht…
Einer der Gründe für den Anstieg: Seit 2017 sind Komplementärmedizinische Methoden wie beispielsweise Homöopathie auch in der Grundversorgung inbegriffen. Das Volk hatte im Jahr 2009 einen entsprechenden Verfassungsartikel angenommen. Damals hoffte man noch, dass mit dem erleichterten Zugang zur Komplementärmedizin die Gesundheitskosten sinken würden.
Doch es kam anders. Die Komplementärmedizin verursachte letztes Jahr zusätzliche Kosten von 30 Millionen Franken, wie Sandra Kobelt, Sprecherin Krankenkassenverbandes Santésuisse, gegenüber BLICK bestätigt.
Die Komplementärmedizin sorgt entsprechend weiter für Diskussionen. Auch, weil zum Beispiel die Wirkung der beliebten Globuli-Kügeli bis heute höchst umstritten bleibt. Doch auch sie werden laut neuem Gesetz in jedem Fall von der Krankenkasse bezahlt, sofern sie von einem Homöopathen mit medizinischem Fachausweis verschrieben wurden…
Aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht macht diese Bevorzugung der Homöopathie wenig Sinn. Denn: In einem Statement aus dem Jahr 2017 bestritten insgesamt 25 europäische Wissenschaftsvereinigungen die Wirksamkeit von Globuli. Darunter auch die Akademien der Wissenschaft Schweiz, die mit den Schweizer Hochschulen zusammenarbeiten. Sie halten fest, dass Homöopathie sogar gefährlich sein kann, da zu ihren Gunsten eine schulmedizinische Therapie aufgeschoben oder gar abgelehnt wird.
Dieser Meinung ist auch Beda Stadler, der ehemalige Leiter des Instituts für Immunologie an der Uni Bern. «Globuli verursachen nur unnötige Gesundheitskosten», sagt er. Man habe das Volk 2009 getäuscht, indem man ihm erzählte, Globuli wären ja günstig. «Doch viele Allergiker setzen die Globuli nicht ab, nachdem sie keine Wirkung festgestellt haben. Stattdessen schlucken sie noch zusätzlich medizinische Tabletten – das verursacht doppelte Kosten», so Stadler.
Homöopathin und Ärztin Doktor Gisela Etter hält dagegen. «Ich erlebe jeden Tag, wie Homöopathie bei Allergikern wirkt. Bei vielen treten die Symptome nach einiger Zeit überhaupt nicht mehr auf», sagt sie. Das Problem: Den Wirkungsmechanismus der Globuli kann die Medizinerin nicht erklären. «Das ist mit den herkömmlichen Naturwissenschaften gar nicht möglich», so Etter…
Let me try to translate the key points of this article:
- The costs for healthcare have exploded in Switzerland; an increase of > 255% during the last 10 years.
- One reason for this development is that, since 2017, the Swiss get various alternative therapies reimbursed, including homeopathy.
- That move has cost 30 000 000 Francs last year.
- The efficacy of homeopathic remedies is controversial.
- Yet they are being paid for by Swiss health insurances, provided they are prescribed by a qualified doctor.
- This does not make sense from a scientific perspective.
- In 2017, 25 European scientific societies, including the Swiss academies, stated that homeopathy does not work and can even be dangerous, if it replaces effective treatments.
- Beda Stadler, former director of the Institute of Immunology, Uni Bern said “Globuli only cause unnecessary healthcare costs”
- Homoeopath Gisela Etter said “I see every day how homeopathy works for allergies… to explain the mechanism of action is not possible with conventional science.”
I suppose, we will have to wait for some unconventional science then!
THE CONVERSATION recently carried an article shamelessly promoting osteopathy. It seems to originate from the University of Swansea, UK, and is full of bizarre notions. Here is an excerpt:
To find out more about how osteopathy could potentially affect mental health, at our university health and well-being academy, we have recently conducted one of the first studies on the psychological impact of OMT – with positive results.
For the last five years, therapists at the academy have been using OMT to treat members of the public who suffer from a variety of musculoskeletal disorders which have led to chronic pain. To find out more about the mental health impacts of the treatment, we looked at three points in time – before OMT treatment, after the first week of treatment, and after the second week of treatment – and asked patients how they felt using mental health questionnaires.
This data has shown that OMT is effective for reducing anxiety and psychological distress, as well as improving patient self-care. But it may not be suitable for all mental illnesses associated with chronic pain. For instance, we found that OMT was less effective for depression and fear avoidance.
All is not lost, though. Our results also suggested that the positive psychological effects of OMT could be further optimised by combining it with therapy approaches like acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Some research indicates that psychological problems such as anxiety and depression are associated with inflexibility, and lead to experiential avoidance. ACT has a positive effect at reducing experiential avoidance, so may be useful with reducing the fear avoidance and depression (which OMT did not significantly reduce).
Other researchers have also suggested that this combined approach may be useful for some subgroups receiving OMT where they may accept this treatment. And, further backing this idea up, there has already been at least one pilot clinical trial and a feasibility study which have used ACT and OMT with some success.
Looking to build on our positive results, we have now begun to develop our ACT treatment in the academy, to be combined with the osteopathic therapy already on offer. Though there will be a different range of options, one of these ACT therapies is psychoeducational in nature. It does not require an active therapist to work with the patient, and can be delivered through internet instruction videos and homework exercises, for example.
Looking to the future, this kind of low cost, broad healthcare could not only save the health service money if rolled out nationwide but would also mean that patients only have to undergo one treatment.
END OF QUOTE
So, they recruited a few patients who had come to receive osteopathic treatments (a self-selected population full of expectation and in favour of osteopathy), let them fill a few questionnaires and found some positive changes. From that, they conclude that OMT (osteopathic manipulative therapy) is effective. Not only that, they advocate that OMT is rolled out nationwide to save NHS funds.
Vis a vis so much nonsense, I am (almost) speechless!
As this comes not from some commercial enterprise but from a UK university, the nonsense is intolerable, I find.
Do I even need to point out what is wrong with it?
Not really, it’s too obvious.
But, just in case some readers struggle to find the fatal flaws of this ‘study’, let me mention just the most obvious one. There was no control group! That means the observed outcome could be due to many factors that are totally unrelated to OMT – such as placebo-effect, regression towards the mean, natural history of the condition, concomitant treatments, etc. In turn, this also means that the nationwide rolling out of their approach would most likely be a costly mistake.
The general adoption of OMT would of course please osteopaths a lot; it could even reduce anxiety – but only that of the osteopaths and their bank-managers, I am afraid.
Have you ever wondered whether doctors who practice homeopathy are different from those who don’t.
Silly question, of course they are! But how do they differ?
Having practised homeopathy myself during my very early days as a physician, I have often thought about this issue. My personal (and not very flattering) impressions were noted in my memoir where I describe my experience working in a German homeopathic hospital:
… some of my colleagues used homeopathy and other alternative approaches because they could not quite cope with the often exceedingly high demands of conventional medicine. It is almost understandable that, if a physician was having trouble comprehending the multifactorial causes and mechanisms of disease and illness, or for one reason or another could not master the equally complex process of reaching a diagnosis or finding an effective therapy, it might be tempting instead to employ notions such as dowsing, homeopathy or acupuncture, whose theoretical basis, unsullied by the inconvenient absolutes of science, was immeasurably more easy to grasp.
Some of my colleagues in the homeopathic hospital were clearly not cut out to be “real” doctors. Even a very junior doctor like me could not help noticing this somewhat embarrassing fact…
But this is anecdote and not evidence!
So, where is the evidence?
It was published last week and made headlines in many UK daily papers.
Our study was aimed at finding out whether English GP practices that prescribe any homeopathic preparations might differ in their prescribing of other drugs. We identified practices that made any homeopathy prescriptions over six months of data. We measured associations with four prescribing and two practice quality indicators using multivariable logistic regression.
Only 8.5% of practices (644) prescribed homeopathy between December 2016 and May 2017. Practices in the worst-scoring quartile for a composite measure of prescribing quality were 2.1 times more likely to prescribe homeopathy than those in the best category. Aggregate savings from the subset of these measures where a cost saving could be calculated were also strongly associated. Of practices spending the most on medicines identified as ‘low value’ by NHS England, 12.8% prescribed homeopathy, compared to 3.9% for lowest spenders. Of practices in the worst category for aggregated price-per-unit cost savings, 12.7% prescribed homeopathy, compared to 3.5% in the best category. Practice quality outcomes framework scores and patient recommendation rates were not associated with prescribing homeopathy.
We concluded that even infrequent homeopathy prescribing is strongly associated with poor performance on a range of prescribing quality measures, but not with overall patient recommendation or quality outcomes framework score. The association is unlikely to be a direct causal relationship, but may reflect underlying practice features, such as the extent of respect for evidence-based practice, or poorer stewardship of the prescribing budget.
Since our study was reported in almost all of the UK newspapers, it comes as no surprise that, in the interest of ‘journalistic balance’, homeopaths were invited to give their ‘expert’ opinions on our work.
Margaret Wyllie, head of the British Homeopathic Association, was quoted commenting: “This is another example of how real patient experience and health outcomes are so often discounted, when in actuality they should be the primary driver for research to improve our NHS services. This study provides no useful evidence about homeopathy, or about prescribing, and gives absolutely no data that can improve the health of people in the UK.”
The Faculty of Homeopathy was equally unhappy about our study and stated: “The study did not include any measures of patient outcomes, so it doesn’t tell us how the use of homeopathy in English general practice correlates with patients doing well or badly, nor with how many drugs they use.”
Cristal Summer from the Society of Homeopathy said that our research was just a rubbish bit of a study.
Peter Fisher, the Queen’s homeopath and the president of the Faculty of Homeopathy, stated: “We don’t know if these measures correlate with what matters to patients – whether they get better and have side-effects.”
A study aimed at determining whether GP practices that prescribe homeopathic preparations differ in their prescribing habits from those that do not prescribe homeopathics can hardly address these questions, Peter. A test of washing machines can hardly tell us much about the punctuality of trains. And an investigation into the risks of bungee jumping will not inform us about the benefits of regular exercise. Call me biased, but to me these comments indicate mainly one thing: HOMEOPATHS SEEM TO HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTIES UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC PAPERS.
I much prefer the witty remarks of Catherine Bennett in yesterday’s Observer: Homeopath-GPs, naturally, have mustered in response and challenge Goldacre’s findings, with a concern for methodology that could easily give the impression that there is some evidential basis for their parallel system, beyond the fact that the Prince of Wales likes it. In fairness to Charles, his upbringing is to blame. But what is the doctors’ excuse?
The media have (rightly) paid much attention to the three Lancet-articles on low back pain (LBP) which were published this week. LBP is such a common condition that its prevalence alone renders it an important subject for us all. One of the three papers covers the treatment and prevention of LBP. Specifically, it lists various therapies according to their effectiveness for both acute and persistent LBP. The authors of the article base their judgements mainly on published guidelines from Denmark, UK and the US; as these guidelines differ, they attempt a synthesis of the three.
Several alternative therapist organisations and individuals have consequently jumped on the LBP bandwagon and seem to feel encouraged by the attention given to the Lancet-papers to promote their treatments. Others have claimed that my often critical verdicts of alternative therapies for LBP are out of line with this evidence and asked ‘who should we believe the international team of experts writing in one of the best medical journals, or Edzard Ernst writing on his blog?’ They are trying to create a division where none exists,
The thing is that I am broadly in agreement with the evidence presented in Lancet-paper! But I also know that things are a bit more complex.
Below, I have copied the non-pharmacological, non-operative treatments listed in the Lancet-paper together with the authors’ verdicts regarding their effectiveness for both acute and persistent LBP. I find no glaring contradictions with what I regard as the best current evidence and with my posts on the subject. But I feel compelled to point out that the Lancet-paper merely lists the effectiveness of several therapeutic options, and that the value of a treatment is not only determined by its effectiveness. Crucial further elements are a therapy’s cost and its risks, the latter of which also determines the most important criterion: the risk/benefit balance. In my version of the Lancet table, I have therefore added these three variables for non-pharmacological and non-surgical options:
|EFFECTIVENESS ACUTE LBP||EFFECTIVENESS PERSISTENT LBP||RISKS||COSTS||RISK/BENEFIT BALANCE|
|Advice to stay active||+, routine||+, routine||None||Low||Positive|
|Education||+, routine||+, routine||None||Low||Positive|
|Superficial heat||+/-||Ie||Very minor||Low to medium||Positive (aLBP)|
|Exercise||Limited||+/-, routine||Very minor||Low||Positive (pLBP)|
|CBT||Limited||+/-, routine||None||Low to medium||Positive (pLBP)|
|Rehab||Ie||+/-||Minor||Medium to high||Questionable|
Routine = consider for routine use
+/- = second line or adjunctive treatment
Ie = insufficient evidence
Limited = limited use in selected patients
vfbmae = very frequent, minor adverse effects
sae = serious adverse effects, including deaths, are on record
aLBP = acute low back pain
The reason why my stance, as expressed on this blog and elsewhere, is often critical about certain alternative therapies is thus obvious and transparent. For none of them (except for massage) is the risk/benefit balance positive. And for spinal manipulation, it even turns out to be negative. It goes almost without saying that responsible advice must be to avoid treatments for which the benefits do not demonstrably outweigh the risks.
I imagine that chiropractors, osteopaths and acupuncturists will strongly disagree with my interpretation of the evidence (they might even feel that their cash-flow is endangered) – and I am looking forward to the discussions around their objections.
The pro arguments essentially are the well-rehearsed points acupuncture-fans like to advance:
- Some guidelines do recommend acupuncture.
- Sham acupuncture is not a valid comparator.
- The largest meta-analysis shows a small effect.
- Acupuncture is not implausible.
- It improves quality of life.
Cummings concludes as follows: In summary, the pragmatic view sees acupuncture as a relatively safe and moderately effective intervention for a wide range of common chronic pain conditions. It has a plausible set of neurophysiological mechanisms supported by basic science.12 For those patients who choose it and who respond well, it considerably improves health related quality of life, and it has much lower long term risk for them than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. It may be especially useful for chronic musculoskeletal pain and osteoarthritis in elderly patients, who are at particularly high risk from adverse drug reactions.
Our arguments are also not new; essentially, we stress that:
- The effects of acupuncture are too small to be clinically relevant.
- They are probably not even caused by acupuncture, but the result of residual bias.
- Pragmatic trials are of little value in defining efficacy.
- Acupuncture is not free of risks.
- Regular acupuncture treatments are expensive.
- There is no generally accepted, plausible mechanism.
We concluded that after decades of research and hundreds of acupuncture pain trials, including thousands of patients, we still have no clear mechanism of action, insufficient evidence for clinically worthwhile benefit, and possible harms. Therefore, doctors should not recommend acupuncture for pain.
Neither Asbjorn nor I have any conflicts of interests to declare.
Dr Cummings, by contrast, states that he is the salaried medical director of the British Medical Acupuncture Society, which is a membership organisation and charity established to stimulate and promote the use and scientific understanding of acupuncture as part of the practice of medicine for the public benefit. He is an associate editor for Acupuncture in Medicine, published by BMJ. He has a modest private income from lecturing outside the UK, royalties from textbooks, and a partnership teaching veterinary surgeons in Western veterinary acupuncture. He has participated in a NICE guideline development group as an expert adviser discussing acupuncture. He has used Western medical acupuncture in clinical practice following a chance observation as a medical officer in the Royal Air Force in 1989.
My question to you is this: WHICH OF THE TWO POSITION IS THE MORE REASONABLE ONE?
Please, do let us know by posting a comment here, or directly at the BMJ article (better), or both (best).
If you ask me, the field of alternative medicine is plagued with surveys; too many are published and most are complete, meaningless rubbish which serve merely the purpose of being misinterpreted as a means of popularising bogus treatments. Yet, every now and then, a decent and informative article appears – like this survey from Canada.
It yields a number of fascinating findings:
- More than three-quarters of Canadians (79%) had used at least one from of CAM sometime in their lives in 2016 (74% in 2006 and 73% in 1997). British Columbians were most likely to have used an alternative therapy during their lifetime (89%), followed by Albertans (84%) and Ontarians (81%).
- More than half (56%) of Canadians had used at least one CAM therapy in the year prior to the 2016 survey, compared to 54% in 2006 and 50% in 1997.
- In 2016, massage was the most common type of therapy that Canadians used over their lifetime with 44 percent having tried it, followed by chiropractic care (42%), yoga (27%), relaxation techniques (25%), and acupuncture (22%).
- The most rapidly expanding therapies over the past two decades were massage, yoga, acupuncture, chiropractic care, osteopathy, and naturopathy.
- High dose/mega vitamins, herbal therapies, and folk remedies were in declining use over that same time period.
- The most likely users of CAM over the past 12 months in 2016 were from the 35- to 44-year-old age group (61%). The use of CAM diminished with age, and generally rose with both income and education. These trends are similar to those observed in 2006 and 1997.
- The majority of people choosing to use CAM in the 12 months preceding the 2016 survey did so for “wellness”.
- Canadians spent an estimated $8.8 billion on CAM in the last 12 months ($8.0 billion in 2005/06 and $6.3 billion in 1996/97.
- Of the $8.8 billion spent in 2016, more than $6.5 billion was spent on providers of CAM, while another $2.3 billion was spent on herbs, vitamins, special diet programs, books, classes, and equipment.
- The majority of Canadians believe that CAM should be paid for privately and not by provincial health.
The strengths of this survey are that it is methodologically rigorous, and that it provides longitudinal data (this is in sharp contrast to the plethora of CAM surveys published recently). Many of its findings confirm what has already been known. Yet some results are new and noteworthy.
To many readers of this blog, the high CAM-usage will be disturbing. However, I am mildly encouraged by the results of this survey.
- Firstly, the choice of CAM by Canadians seems rather more reasonable than that by other nations. Canadians seem to avoid the more ridiculous types of CAM, such as homeopathy or para-normal healing.
- Secondly, many Canadians seem to view CAM not as medicine, but as a sort of luxurious pampering that they use to relax and feel well. Consequently, most are not pushing to get it reimbursed which I find more sensible than consumers’ attitudes in many other countries.
An article in the medical magazine ‘GP’ caught my eye. In it, a GP from Southampton argues that it is counter-productive for the NHS to ban ineffective treatments. Here are a few excerpts (my comments are inserted in brackets and are in bold print):
START OF QUOTES
NHS England’s recent decision requiring GPs stop prescribing a list of 18 medicines will reinforce the fears of many doctors that healthcare rationing is being introduced by the back door (all finite NHS resources need to be and always have been rationed). I would also argue that it is an illogical and ill-informed decision that will not achieve the professed aim of saving NHS resources (perhaps the decision is not purely based on the need to save money but also on a matter of principle and an attempt to make the NHS evidence-based?).
The decision to impose a blanket ban on these items will disproportionately affect those patients who currently receive free prescriptions: the young, the poor and the elderly (where is the evidence for this statement?). The conditions these patients are suffering from will persist (treating them with ineffective medications would also make them persist).
If in future these vulnerable patients want to continue with their medicines, they will be forced to pay for them. While wealthier patients will have the option to pay for their medications, those unable to do so will return to their GP for an alternative medication or procedure that has not been prohibited by NHS England’s recommendations. GPs will then find themselves prescribing other more costly medications. How this is helping NHS England to reduce prescribing costs is difficult to see (really? I don’t find it difficult to see that spending money on effective treatments is a better investment than wasting it on ineffective stuff)…
… ‘evidence-informed practice’… not only includes scientific research, but also evidence from clinical practice acquired over many years and endorsed by numerous clinicians. Yet this type of evidence, from the front line of medicine, is being dismissed as ‘unscientific’ or ‘anecdotal’ (no, it has never been considered to be evidence; remember: the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence)…
We all want the NHS to operate cost effectively… (as long as the NHS continues to pay for homeopathy?). Of course, treatments that have no good evidence of benefit to patients should be questioned (as long as the NHS continues to pay for homeopathy?)…
NHS England needs to conduct a review of how it evaluates treatments and take far more notice of the experiences of doctors and patients. Then perhaps we will see a more financially efficient health service, healthier patients and an end to the injustice of healthcare rationing (the author forgot to tell her readers that she is a homeopath – in fact, she did not even once use the word ‘homeopathy’ in her diatribe. Because of her extreme views, she has featured on this blog before. [“homeopathy can be helpful for pretty much any condition”] Dr Day also forgot to declare conflicts of interest in her most recent vituperation [easy mistake to make; I know I am being petty).
If I were a fan of homeopathy and a believer in the magical healing power of shaken water, I would be very worried. While homeopaths put forward such embarrassingly daft arguments, the future of homeopathy looks bleak indeed.