education
It does not happen often, but when it does, it should be aknowledged. I am speaking of papers from chiropractors that make sense. If you are interested in chiropractic, I do encourage you to read the articles of which I will here only present bits of the conclusions:
The chiropractic profession is weighed down by the burden of historical theories regarding spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which, for some in the profession, have all the characteristics of dogmatic articles of faith. In our opinion, the unlimited scope of practice, which is still advocated by some chiropractors, and which has not been met with unequivocal political rejection, an over-reliance on SMT in the management of MSK disorders, and an over-emphasis on the technical intricacies of SMT represent weaknesses within chiropractic. We argue that these are obstacles to professional development and the major causes of professional stagnation both intellectually and in the market place.
We also discussed what we consider to be threats to the chiropractic profession. Science, the impact of EBM, and accountability to authorities and third party-payers all pose threats to the traditional chiropractic paradigm and, thus, to those within the profession, who practice within such a paradigm. In the marketplace, competition from other professions that provide care of patients with MSK disorders, including SMT, and are better positioned to be integrated into the wider health-care system/market represent a threat. Moreover, finally, the internal schism in chiropractic represents a threat to professional development, as it prevents the profession moving forward in unison with a coherent external message.
We have described those weaknesses and threats, knowing full well, that we do so from our perspective of chiropractic as EBM with a limited MSK scope of practice, i.e. from outside the subluxation frame of reference.
We recognize that for those who look at SMT from the perspective of traditional, subluxation-based chiropractic, things will look very different: What we identify as weaknesses may be seen by others as the pillars of chiropractic practice, and what we see as threats could appear as just peripheral and ephemeral distractions to the enduring core of chiropractic ideas. Such is the character of the schism at the heart of chiropractic.
None-the-less, having described what we identify as serious weaknesses and threats arising from the profession’s relationship to SMT, it has not escaped our attention that it also gives rise to several strengths, which serve the profession and its patients well. In turn, it follows that a number of opportunities are presenting themselves for the future of SMT and chiropractic.
The onus is now on the chiropractic profession itself to redefine its raison d’être in a way that plays to those strengths and delivers in terms of the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system/market. We suggest chiropractors embrace and cultivate a role as coordinators of long-term and broad-focused management of musculoskeletal disorders. We make specific recommendations about how the profession, from individual clinicians to political organizations, can promote such a development.
___________________________
For readers in a hurry:
Progress is an inevitable threat to obsolete and useless practices of any kind. In that, chiropractic is no exception.
Whenever a journalist wants to discuss the subject of acupuncture with me, he or she will inevitably ask one question:
DOES ACUPUNCTURE WORK?
It seems a legitimate, obvious and simple question, particularly during ‘Acupuncture Awareness Week‘, and I have heard it hundreds of times. Why then do I hesitate to answer it?
Journalists – like most of us – would like a straight answer, like YES or NO. But straight answers are in short supply, particularly when we are talking about acupuncture.
Let me explain.
Acupuncture is part of ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine’ (TCM). It is said to re-balance the life forces that determine our health. As such it is seen as a panacea, a treatment for all ills. Therefore, the question, does it work?, ought to be more specific: does it work for pain, obesity, fatigue, hair-loss, addiction, anxiety, ADHA, depression, asthma, old age, etc.etc. As we are dealing with virtually thousands of ills, the question, does it work?, quickly explodes into thousands of more specific questions.
But that’s not all!
The question, does acupuncture work?, assumes that we are talking about one therapy. Yet, there are dozens of different acupuncture traditions and sites:
- body acupuncture,
- ear acupuncture,
- tongue acupuncture,
- scalp acupuncture,
- etc., etc.
Then there are dozens of different ways to stimulate acupuncture points:
- needle acupuncture,
- electroacupuncture,
- acupressure,
- moxibustion,
- ultrasound acupuncture,
- laser acupuncture,
- etc., etc.
And then there are, of course, different acupuncture ‘philosophies’ or cultures:
- TCM,
- ‘Western’ acupuncture,
- Korean acupuncture,
- Japanese acupuncture,
- etc., etc.
If we multiply these different options, we surely arrive at thousands of different variations of acupuncture being used for thousands of different conditions.
But this is still not all!
To answer the question, does it work?, we today have easily around 10 000 clinical trials. One might therefore think that, despite the mentioned complexity, we might find several conclusive answers for the more specific questions. But there are very significant obstacles that are in our way:
- most acupuncture trials are of lousy quality;
- most were conducted by lousy researchers who merely aim at showing that acupuncture works rather that testing whether it is effective;
- most originate from China and are published in Chinese which means that most of us cannot access them;
- they get nevertheless included in many of the systematic reviews that are currently being published without non-Chinese speakers ever being able to scrutinise them;
- TCM is a hugely important export article for China which means that political influence is abundant;
- several investigators have noted that virtually 100% of Chinese acupuncture trials report positive results regardless of the condition that is being targeted;
- it has been reported that about 80% of studies emerging from China are fabricated.
Now, I think you understand why I hesitate every time a journalist asks me:
DOES ACUPUNCTURE WORK?
Most journalists do not have the patience to listen to all the complexity this question evokes. Many do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend an exhaustive reply. But all want to hear a simple and conclusive answer.
So, what do I say in this situation?
Usually, I respond that the answer would depend on who one asks. An acupuncturist is likely to say: YES, OF COURSE, IT DOES! An less biased expert might reply:
IT’S COMPLEX, BUT THE MOST RELIABLE EVIDENCE IS FAR FROM CONVINCING.
The aim of this study was to establish an international consensus regarding the use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents among expert international physiotherapists. Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics voluntarily participated in a 3-Round Delphi survey to reach a consensus via direct electronic mail solicitation using Qualtrics®. Consensus was defined a-priori as ≥75% agreement on all items with the same ranking of agreement or disagreement. Round 1 identified impairments and conditions where spinal mobilisation and manipulation might be utilised. In Rounds 2 and 3, panelists agreed or disagreed using a 4-point Likert scale.
Eleven physiotherapists from seven countries representing five continents completed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus regarding spinal mobilisation or manipulation included:
● Manipulation is not recommended: (1) for infants across all conditions, impairments, and
spinal levels; and (2) for children and adolescents across most conditions and spinal levels.
● Manipulation may be recommended for adolescents to treat spinal region-specific joint
hypomobility (thoracic, lumbar), and pain (thoracic).
● Mobilisation may be recommended for children and adolescents with hypomobility, joint
pain, muscle/myofascial pain, or stiffness at all spinal levels.
The authors of this paper concluded that consensus revealed spinal manipulation should not be performed on infants regardless of condition, impairment, or spinal level. Additionally, the panel agreed that manipulation may be recommended only for adolescents to treat joint pain and joint hypomobility (limited to thoracic and/or lumbar levels). Spinal mobilisation may be recommended for joint hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, and muscle/myofascial stiffness at all spinal levels among children and adolescents.
Various forms of spinal manipulations are the hallmark therapy of chiropractors. Almost 100% of their patients recieve these interventions. So, what will our friends, the chiros, say about the consensus? Might it be this:
- Physiotherapists are not the experts on spinal manipulation.
- Only chiropractors can do them properly.
- And when WE do them, they are very good*!
(* for our income)
This study aims to assess the feasibility of a pragmatic prospective study aiming to report the immediate and delayed (48-hours post-treatment) AEs associated with manual therapies in children aged 5 or younger and to report preliminary data on AEs frequency.
Between July 2021 and March 2022, chiropractors were recruited through purposive sampling and via a dedicated Facebook group for Quebec chiropractors interested in pediatrics. Legal guardians of patients aged 5 or younger were invited to fill out an online information and consent form. AEs were collected using the SafetyNET reporting system, which had been previously translated by the research team. Immediate AEs were collected through a questionnaire filled out by the legal guardian immediately after the treatment, while delayed AEs were collected through a questionnaire sent by email to the legal guardian 48 h after the treatment. Feasibility was assessed qualitatively through feedback from chiropractors and quantitatively through recruitment data.
Overall, a total of 28 chiropractors expressed interest following the Facebook publication, and 5 participated. An additional two chiropractors were enrolled through purposive sampling. In total, 80 legal guardians consented to their child’s participation, and data from 73 children were included for the analysis of AEs. At least one AE was reported in 30% of children (22/73), and AEs were mainly observed immediately following the treatment (16/22). The most common AEs were irritability/crying (11 children) or fatigue/tiredness (11 children). Feasibility analysis demonstrated that regular communication between the research team and clinicians, as well as targeting clinicians who showed great interest in pediatrics, were key factors for successful research.
The authors concluded that their results suggest that it is feasible to conduct a prospective pragmatic study evaluating AEs associated with manual therapies in private practices. Direct communication with the clinicians, a strategic clinicians’ recruitment plan, and the resulting administrative burden should be considered in future studies. A larger study is required to confirm the frequency of AEs reported in the current study.
It is hardly surprising that such a study is ‘feasible’. I could have told the authors that and saved them the trouble of doing the study. What is surprising, in my view, that chiropractors, after ~120 years of existence of the profession, ask whether it is feasible.
I suggest to do the definitive study on a much larger sample, extend the observation period, and recruit a representative rather than self-selected sample of chiros … or – much better – forget about the study and establich a functioning post-marketing surveillance system.
In recent weeks and months, I have been thinking quite a lot about the various types of scientists. This is partly due to me finishing a book entitled:
1. SCIENTIST
Scientists gather information through observation and experimentation, formulate hypothesis, and then test them. They work in vastly different areas but have certain attitudes or qualities in common, e.g. critial thinking and an open mind. As scientists tend to publish their findings, a very simple (but not fool-proof) way to identify a scinetist is to look him/her up, for example by finding his/her H-Index. (The H-Index is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given author/journal has published at least h papers that have each been cited at least h times. For instance, if someone has 10 papers that were cited 10 times, his H-Index would be 10. If another scientist has 50 papers that were cited 50 times, his H-Index would be 50.)
2. PSEUDO-SCIENTIST
Pseudo-scientists are people who pretend to produce science but, in fact, they generate pseudoscience. The demarkation of pseudo-science from science is sometimes difficult, as we have seen several times on this blog, e.g.:
- Characteristics of pseudoscience
- Science or Pseudoscience?
- Is acupuncture pseudoscience?
- The techniques of pseudoscience
- Pseudoscience revisited
- Tolerance towards pseudo-science?
- How to become a charlatan
The pseudo-scientist does have no or just a few publications in the peer-reviewed literature and no H-Index to speak of.
3. WOULD-BE SCIENTIST
The term ‘would-be scientist’ is not one that is commonly used, nor is it one that has an accepted definition. The way I see it, would-be scientists are aspiring to become scientist. They are on the way to become a scientist but have not quite arrived yet. To the would-be scientist I say: good luck to you; I hope you make it and I look forward to reading about your scientific achievements. The would-be scientist is, however, not the topic of my post.
4. THE PREDEND-SCIENTIST
The predent-scientist (PS) is the one who I want to focus on here. He – yes, the PS is usually male – talks a lot about science; so much so that outsiders would get the impression that he actually is a scientist. Crucially, the PS himself has managed to delude himself to the point where believes to be a scientist.
While scientists tend to be media-shy, the PS enjoys the limelight to generate the impression of being a scientist. He talks eloquently and at length about science. Much of what he says or writes might even be correct. The PS is often quite well-versed and knows (most of) his stuff.
The crucial difference between the PS and the scientist is that the PS produces no or very little science; neither does he intend to. To identify the PS, an easy (but not fool-proof) method is to him look up. Typically, he has published several articles in the popoular press or books for the lay public, but – as he does not conduct scientific research – he does not generate papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This void, however, has never stopped the PS from appearing in the media speaking about science, nor from occupying prominent positions in the world of science, nor from avidly rubbing shoulders with scientists. Few people see anything wrong with that, mainly because the PS has convinced them (most importantly himself) that he actually is a scientist. While the scientist is trained in doing science, the PS is trained in talking about science.
Don’t get me wrong, the PS can have his merits. He often presents science to the public more or less accurately and frequently is rhetorically superior to the scientist. I nevertheless have reservations about the PS (and the recent pandemic has shown us how dangerous PSs can beome). The questions to ask ourselves are the following:
- Does PS have a truly open mind?
- Can he set aside ideologies?
- Will he change his opinion vis a vis new evidence?
- Is he prepared to consider criticism?
- Does he avoid ‘black and white’ thinking?
- Is he sufficiently humble?
- Is he honest with himself and others?
These questions refer to important attitudes that scientists learn – often the hard way – while doing science. If someone lacks this experience, such attitudes are likely to be under-developed. Perhaps, it all boils down to honesty: if a man who has never done any amount of science to speak of has convinced himself to be a scientist, he arguably is dishonest with himself and the public.
In order to make my points as clearly as possible, I admittedly caricaturized the extremes of a wider spectrum; my appologies for that. In reality, the different types of scientists rarely exist as entirely pure forms. Frequently, people are mixtures of two types, either because they did different things during different periods of their lives, or because they simply are hybrids.
To provide a few examples, let me show you 14 H-Indices (according to ‘Google Scholar’) of people (in alphabetical order) who you might have heard of, for instance, because they have featured on my blog. I leave it up to you to decide how well they fit in any of my three categories and who might qualify to be a PS.
- Fabrizio Benedetti – H-Index = 83
- David Colquhoun – H-Index = 78
- Ian Chalmers – H-Index = 84
- Michael Dixon – H-Index = 0
- David Gorski – H-Index = 30
- Holm Hümmler – H-Index = 0
- Ted Kaptchuk – H-Index = 103
- Jos Kleinjen – H-Index = 104
- Andreas Michalsen – H-Index = 0
- Michael Mosely – H-Index = 0
- Dana Ullman – H-Index = 0
- Dale Thompson (alias DC) – H-Index = 0
- Chris van Tulleken – H-Index = 0
- Harald Walach – H-Index = 9
My conclusion: the PS, a person who presents himself as a scientist without having done any meaningful amount of science himself, is a man who is not entirely honest. The H-Index can be helpful for identifying PSs. An index of zero, for instance, seems to send out a fairly clear message. In the case low indices, it is advisable to go one step further and study the actual articles That mede up the index. However, the H-Index tells us nothing about whether someone presents himself as a scientist; this information must be gleaned from the person him(her)self.
These days, it has become a rare event – I am speaking of me publishing a paper in the peer-reviewed medical literature. But it has just happened: Spanish researchers and I published a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy. Here is its abstract:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of craniosacral therapy (CST) in the management of any conditions. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases in August 2023, and extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness of CST. The PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool were used to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies. The certainty of the evidence of each outcome variable was determined using GRADEpro. Quantitative synthesis was carried out with RevMan 5.4 software using random effect models.
Fifteen RCTs were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that CST produces no statistically significant or clinically relevant changes in pain and/or disability/impact in patients with headache disorders, neck pain, low back pain, pelvic girdle pain, or fibromyalgia. For non-musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis showed that CST was not effective for managing infant colic, preterm infants, cerebral palsy, or visual function deficits.
We concluded that the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence suggest that CST produces no benefits in any of the musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions assessed. Two RCTs suggested statistically significant benefits of CST in children. However, both studies are seriously flawed, and their findings are thus likely to be false positive.
So, CST is not really an effective option for any condition.
Not a big surprise! After all, the assumptions on which CST is based fly in the face of science.
Since CST is nonetheless being used by many healthcare professionals, it is, I feel, important to state and re-state that CST is an implausible intervention that is not supported by clinical evidence. Hopefully then, one day, these practitioners will remember that their ethical obligation is to treat their patients not according to their beliefs but according to the best available evidence. And, hopefully, our modest paper will have helped rendering healthcare a little less irrational and somewhat more effective.
I had never heard of him – but after getting insulted by ‘Dr. Nick Campos’ I became interested and looked him up. What I found was interesting. Here is how he describes himself.
Dr. Nick Campos is a teacher of universal principles and truths as they pertain to the health, wellness and evolution of body, mind and spirit, particularly as they relate to human growth and potential.
As a healer trained in the art of chiropractic, and as a prominent chiropractic sports physician, he has helped thousands of people overcome physical injury and trauma, allowing them to regain their functional lives.
Dr. Campos believes that wellness encompasses more than just the physical body, so a balanced mental and spiritual life is also necessary for full expression of being. Therefore, Dr. Campos assists people with mental and spiritual challenges and misperceptions, while teaching them tools to empower themselves in all areas of life.
Dr. Campos teaches universal principles of health, wellness, growth and evolution as they pertain to body, mind and spirit. His work is carried out through several media including books, articles and a widely-read, syndicated blog (Optimal Health). His book The Six Keys to Optimal Health is the quintessential guide to achieving and maintaining optimal wellness in the twenty-first century. Dr. Campos’ mission is to inspire people to adopt a new way of thinking and living.
In 2010 Dr. Campos launched his evolutionary personal growth and development consulting business dedicated to helping people tune-into and manifest their most inspired dreams. As the Dream Designer™, Dr. Campos shows people how to uncover their life’s purpose, and how to implement powerful strategies designed to create the life of their dreams.
Dr. Nick Campos has a planetary vision of impacting billions of people for years to come. His inspired mission is to help people tap into their incredible self-healing, self-regulating powers. With certainty and gratitude, he aims to teach the world the power inherent in the human mind, and prepare humankind for the next phase of planetary evolution. As the world changes rapidly, those that adapt steadily and most-balanced will have the greatest advantage to navigating new horizons.
Many people limp through their lives following other people’s standards, and striving for achievement in areas not really inspiring to them. As a result, they end up suffering from frustration, lack of fulfillment and potentially depression. Does this sound like you?
By not following your innermost drives, or by repressing your true heart’s desires, you run the greatest risk of succumbing to physical and mental pressures, strain and ultimately illness. Life can be stressful enough without the added anxiety of not knowing who you are or where you are going.
Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia are modern manifestations of this lack of purpose, but that doesn’t have to be your destiny.
Dream Design consulting services starts by helping you tune-in to your most authentic self—who you are, what you value, and how your body and mind work to direct you down your most inspired path. You will uncover the fears, resentments and infatuations that have been acting as barriers to your personal growth, and learn effective ways to overcome them.
And Dr Campos gives courses. On his website, we currently find Upcoming dates:
January 14, 2023 Burbank, CA
January 26, 2023 Palm Desert, CA
February 11, 2023 Thousand Oaks, CA
February 23, 2023 Palm Desert, CA
March 11, 2023 Burbank, CA
March 25, 2023 Palm Desert, CA
______________________________
Either this line of his business is not doing all that well or he offers time travel as part of the package.
On X 9formally Twitter), ,Dr’ Campos called me a LOSER – perhaps I should return the compliment?
An article about chiropractic caught my attention. Let me show you its final section which, I think, is relevant to what we often discuss on this blog:
If chiropractic treatment is unscientific, then why do I feel better? Because lots of things alleviate pain. Massage, analgesia and heat – but also a provider who listens, empathises and bothers to examine a patient. Then there is the placebo effect. For centuries, doctors have recognised that different interventions with unclear pathways result in clinical improvement. Among the benefits patients attributed to placebo 100 years ago: “I sleep better; my appetite is improved; my breathing is better; I can walk further without pain in my chest; my nerves are steadier.” Nothing has changed. Pain is a universal assignment; no one has a monopoly on its relief.
The chiropractic industry owes its existence to a ghost. Its founder, David Palmer, wrote in his memoir The Chiropractor that the principles of spinal manipulation were passed on to him during a séance by a doctor who had been dead for half a century. Before this, Palmer was a “magnetic healer”.
Today, chiropractors preside over a multibillion-dollar regulated industry that draws patients for various reasons. Some can’t find or afford a doctor, feel dismissed, or worse, mistreated. Others mistrust the medical establishment and big pharma. Still others want natural healing. But none of these reasons justifies conflating a chiropractor with a doctor. The conflation feels especially hazardous in an environment of health illiteracy, where the mere title of doctor confers upon its bearer strong legitimacy.
Chiropractors don’t have the same training as doctors. They cannot issue prescriptions or order advanced imaging. They do not undergo lifelong peer review or open themselves to monthly morbidity audits.
I know that doctors could do with a dose of humility, but I can’t find any evidence (or the need) for the assertion on one website that chiropractors are “academic overachievers”. Or the ambit claim that most health professionals have no idea how complicated the brain is, but chiropractors do.
Forget doctors, patients deserve more respect.
My friend’s back feels better for now. When it flares, I wonder if she will seek my advice – and I am prepared to hear no. Everyone is entitled to see a chiropractor. But no patient should visit a chiropractor thinking that they are seeing a doctor.
______________________
I would put it more bluntly:
- chiropractors are poorly trained; in particular, they do not learn to question their own, often ridiculous beliefs;
- they are poorly regulated; in the UK, the GCC seems to protect the chiros rather than the public;
- chiropractors regularly disregard essential rules of medical ethics, e.g. informed consent;
- many try to mislead us by pretending they are physicians;
- their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, can cause considerable harm;
- it generates hardly any demonstrable benefit for any condition;
- chiropractors also cause considerable harm, e.g. by interfering with real medicine, e.g. vaccinations;
- thus, in general, chiropractors do more harm than good;
- yes, everyone is entitled to see a chiropractor, but before they do, reliable information should be mandatory.
A recent article about ayurvedic medicine caught my eye. Here are a few excerpts:
Imagine if there were a magic pill to ward off COVID-19. Or if you could cure diabetes with vegetable juices and herbal pills instead of controlling it with insulin medication. Or if yoga and breathing exercises were all you need to do to get rid of asthma. These are all claims made by Patanjali Ayurved, one of India’s biggest manufacturers of traditional ayurvedic products…
Many scientists have expressed concerns over the lack of research into the safety and efficacy of ayurvedic products… Nonetheless, Ayurveda enjoys widespread acceptance among Indians. And under India’s Hindu-nationalist government that took power in 2014, ayurveda and other alternative systems of medicine have received unprecedented government support. India’s ministry of alternative medicine gets nearly $500 million a year. The government also promotes ayurveda through its international trade and diplomatic channels. All this set Patanjali’s fortunes soaring.
But now the Supreme Court of India has temporarily banned Patanjali – named after a Hindu mystic best known for his writings on yoga – from advertising some of its products… “The entire country has been taken for a ride,” Ahsanuddin Amanullah, one of the two judges conducting the court hearing, told the lawyer representing the government… The Indian Medical Association had brought the case to court in August 2022, claiming that Patanjali and its brand ambassador Baba Ramdev made a series of false claims against evidence-backed modern medicine and its practitioners, and spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. Their petition also referred to instances where Ramdev lambasted modern medicine as a “stupid and bankrupt science” at a yoga session. The trigger was a series of Patanjali advertisements in Indian newspapers in July 2022 claiming that ayurvedic products could cure chronic conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, heart diseases and autoimmune conditions. The Indian Medical Association’s petition alleged that such claims were in violation of India’s Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
…The company’s public face – yoga guru Baba Ramdev – is a vocal supporter of India’s ruling party, the BJP, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi even inaugurated Patanjali’s ayurvedic research facility in 2017… Some scientists have accused their government of promoting these alternative medicines at the expense of modern medicine, partly as a way to glorify India’s culture and history. “One of the political ideas of this government is to glorify the Hindu tradition,” says Dhrubajyoti Mukherjee, president of the Breakthrough Science Society, an organization that promotes scientific thinking. “But in the name of our glorious past, the government is propagating obscure, unscientific ideas.”
… A few months after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, India’s health minister at the time, Harsh Vardhan participated in the company’s launch of pills, where Ramdev, the yoga guru, claimed the pills showed “100 percent favorable results” during clinical trials on patients. Despite experts flagging the lack of evidence, the company said it sold 2.5 million kits in six months, consisting of the tablets to ward off COVID-19 and bottled oils that would allegedly boost immunity. And the company is making an enormous amount of money: Its income was over $1.3 billion in the financial year 2021-22, with profits of $74 million before taxes.
Addressing the overall impact of misinformation about ayurvedic treatments, Dr. Jayesh Lele, vice president of the Indian Medical Association, says “Our worry is people are being misguided. We have got people who’ve left our treatment saying their kidneys will be able to function properly [using ayurvedic medicines] and ended up with renal failure. The same happened with patients suffering from hepatitis, who’ve got the wrong medicine and ended up with further problems. And if you say every day that modern medicine is bad, that is not acceptable.”
_______________
The sad thing, in my view, is that (as discussed previously) ayurvedic medicine has not just taken India for a ride:
- King Charles’ “Ayurvedic Centre of Excellence” turns out to be an embarrassing failure
- Dr Michael Dixon seems to support homeopathy as a treatment for cancer
- PRINCE CHARLES: the ‘immense value’ of alternative diagnostic methods
- Will the UK ‘ROYAL COLLEGE OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS’ soon become a ‘ROYAL COLLEGE OF QUACKERY’?
And perhaps even more disappointing is the notion that, while in India they take action in order to prevent harm, I can see no such developments in the UK.
The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been the subject of intense speculation and several conspiracy theories, not least amongst the enthusiasts of so-called alternative medicine. Now Australian scientists have attempted to identify the origin of the coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As this is undoubtedly a most sensitive subject, let me show you the unadulterated abstract of their paper:
The origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is contentious. Most studies have focused on a zoonotic origin, but definitive evidence such as an intermediary animal host is lacking. We used an established risk analysis tool for differentiating natural and unnatural epidemics, the modified Grunow–Finke assessment tool (mGFT) to study the origin of SARS-COV-2. The mGFT scores 11 criteria to provide a likelihood of natural or unnatural origin. Using published literature and publicly available sources of information, we applied the mGFT to the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The mGFT scored 41/60 points (68%), with high inter-rater reliability (100%), indicating a greater likelihood of an unnatural than natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. This risk assessment cannot prove the origin of SARS-CoV-2 but shows that the possibility of a laboratory origin cannot be easily dismissed.
The somewhat clumsy wording harbours explosive potential. It is more likely that the pandemic was started by a laboratory accident than by a zoonosis. In this case, it would be man-made rather than natural. The authors of the paper do, however, caution that their analysis does not prove the origin of the coronavirus. They merely speak of likelihoods. Moreover, it seems important to stress that there is no scientific evidence that Sars-CoV-2 was deliberately developed as a biological warfare agent.
Will this paper put an end to speculation and conspiracy?
I doubt it!
