education
This systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness of cupping therapy on low back pain (LBP). Medline, Embase, Scopus and WANFANG databases were searched for relevant cupping RCTs on low back pain articles up to 2023. A complementary search was manually made on 27 September for update screening. Full-text English and Chinese articles on all ethnic adults with LBP of cupping management were included. Studies looking at acute low back pain only were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data, with any disagreement resolved through consensus by a third reviewer. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers using an adapted tool. Change-from-baseline outcomes were treated as continuous variables and calculated according to the Cochrane Handbook. Data were extracted and pooled into the meta-analysis by Review Manager software (version 5.4, Nordic Cochrane Centre).
Eleven trials involving 921 participants were included. Five studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias, and six studies were of acceptable quality. The findings reveal:
- High-quality evidence demonstrated cupping significantly improves pain at 2-8 weeks endpoint intervention (d=1.09, 95% CI: [0.35-1.83], p=0.004).
- There was no continuous pain improvement observed at one month (d=0.11, 95% CI: [-1.02-1.23], p=0.85) and 3-6 months (d=0.39, 95% CI: [-0.09-0.87], p=0.11).
- Dry cupping did not improve pain (d=1.06, 95% CI: [-0.34, 2.45], p=0.14) compared with wet cupping (d=1.5, 95% CI: [0.39-2.6], p=0.008) at the endpoint intervention.
- There was no evidence indicating the association between pain reduction and different types of cupping (p=0.2).
- Moderate- to low-quality evidence showed that cupping did not reduce chronic low back pain (d=0.74, 95% CI: [-0.67-2.15], p=0.30) and non-specific chronic low back pain (d=0.27, 95% CI: [-1.69-2.24], p=0.78) at the endpoint intervention.
- Cupping on acupoints showed a significant improvement in pain (d=1.29, 95% CI: [0.63-1.94], p<0.01) compared with the lower back area (d=0.35, 95% CI: [-0.29-0.99], p=0.29).
- A potential association between pain reduction and different cupping locations (p=0.05) was found.
- Meta-analysis showed a significant effect on pain improvement compared to medication therapy (n=8; d=1.8 [95% CI: 1.22 – 2.39], p<0.001) and usual care (n=5; d=1.07 [95% CI: 0.21- 1.93], p=0.01).
- Two studies demonstrated that cupping significantly mediated sensory and emotional pain immediately, after 24 hours, and 2 weeks post-intervention (d= 5.49, 95% CI [4.13-6.84], p<0.001).
- Moderate evidence suggested that cupping improved disability at the 1-6 months follow-up (d=0.67, 95% CI: [0.06-1.28], p=0.03).
- There was no immediate effect observed at the 2-8 weeks endpoint (d=0.40, 95% CI: [-0.51-1.30], p=0.39).
- A high degree of heterogeneity was noted in the subgroup analysis (I2 >50%).
The authors concluded that high- to moderate-quality evidence indicates that cupping significantly improves pain and disability. The effectiveness of cupping for LBP varies based on treatment durations, cupping types, treatment locations, and LBP classifications. Cupping demonstrated a superior and sustained effect on pain reduction compared with medication and usual care. The notable heterogeneity among studies raises concerns about the certainty of these findings. Further research should be designed with a standardized cupping manipulation that specifies treatment sessions, frequency, cupping types, and treatment locations. The real therapeutic effects of cupping could be confirmed using a sham device or objective outcome measurements. Studies with at least six- to twelve-month follow-ups are needed to investigate the long-term efficacy of cupping in managing LBP.
Confused?
No need, it’s really quite simple: cupping can, according to this review, be shown to have some short-lasting effect, provided the study is flawed and does not control for placebo effects.
Surprised?
No need! There is hardly a form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that does not have a similarly small effect of back pain, if tested in equally dodgy studies. This is particularly true for those treatments that can act as a theatrical placebo, e.g. acupuncture or chiropractic.
So, should a back pain sufferer try cupping?
If he/she insists, why not? But please don’t use wet cupping (which can do quite a bit of harm). Dry cupping (without injuring the skin) is arguably better (less risk, less expense, possibility of home treatment by your partner) than chiropractic, osteopathy, acupuncture, or many other SCAMs.
My conclusions – as mentioned many times previously – are as follows:
- Most SCAMs help a little with back pain (and similar conditions) because they can have a powerful placebo effect.
- Conventional medicine is also not convincingly effective for back pain.
- If you insist on SCAM, it is best to use one that is relatively harmless and inexpensive.
Representatives of six Australian professional organizations of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) developed a survey for e-mail distribution to members. The anonymous online Qualtrics survey was based on previous surveys to identify workforce trends over time. Survey data were analyzed descriptively using Qualtrics and STATA statistical software.
Responses were recorded from 1921 participants. Respondents were predominantly female (79.7%); 71.8% were aged over 45 years. Remedial massage therapists represented 32.1% and naturopaths represented 23.7% of respondents. Highest qualifications were diplomas (37.7%), bachelor’s degrees (28.9%), and advanced diplomas (21.8%). Metropolitan locations accounted for 68.1% of practices. Solo private practice was the main practice setting (59.8%); 13.8% practiced in group private practice with SCAM practitioners; and 10.6% practiced with allied health practitioners. Approximately three quarters of respondents (73.9%) saw 0–5 new clients per week; 42.2% had 0–5 follow-up consultations per week. Collaboration rates with SCAM practitioners, other non-SCAM practitioners, and general medical practitioners (GPs) were 68.7%, 24.4%, and 9.2%, respectively. A total of 93% did not suspect an adverse event from their treatment in the past year. Businesses of 75.9% of respondents were reportedly affected by the pandemic.
The authors concluded that comparisons with previous surveys show ongoing predominance of female practitioners, an aging workforce, a high proportion of remedial massage and naturopathy practitioners, and an increasingly qualified SCAM workforce. There was little change in the very low number of adverse events suspected by practitioners, number of consultations per week, and low levels of income of most SCAM practitioners compared with the average income in Australia. Respondents collaborated at similar rates as in the past; however, more with SCAM practitioners than with GPs.
Yet another fairly useless SCAM survey to add to the endless list of similarly wasteful investigations!
If I had to extract anything potentially relevant from it, it would be just three points:
- The authors speak of an ‘increasingly qualified workforce’. The basis for this claim is that the highest qualifications were diplomas (37.7%), bachelor’s degrees (28.9%), and advanced diplomas (21.8%). Oh dear, oh dear! Anyone can issue ‘diplomas’ which are not recognised qualifications. In other words, the SCAM workforce is woefully underqualified to take charge of patients.
- Only 9% of SCAM practitioners ‘collaborated’ with GPs. By collaboration, the authors mean the very minimum of informing the GPs what type of SCAM they might be getting. Such information can be essential for avoiding harm (e.g. interactions with prescribed drugs). In other words, even the minimum of ethical and safe practice is not met in 91% of the cases.
- The fact that a total of 93% SCAM practitioners did not suspect a single adverse event from their treatment in the past year is extraordinary. It does, I fear, not demonstrate thaat SCAM id safe but that SCAM practitioners are totally oblivious to the possibility of adverse effects. In other words, they don’t inquire about adverse effects and thus don’t notice any.
Yes, these are data from Australia, and one could argue that elsewhere the situation is different. But different does not necessarily mean better. Until I see convincing evidence, I am not optimistic about the clinical practice of SCAM. Altogether, these findings do not convince me that SCAM practitioners should be let anywhere near a person who needs medical attention.
Many years ago, when I was first invited to give a talk to a gathering of skeptics, I started my lecture by stating: “I am very sceptical – so much so that I am even sceptical about the skeptics.” Now it seems that my words are about to acquire a new meaning.
Since several years, I am a member of the scientific committee of the German sceptic organisation GWUP and I have observed with increasing bewilderment what is happenting to this formerly solid organization.
For me, scepticism is based on at least three elements:
- free thought,
- open discourse,
- pursuit of the truth through criticical assessment.
The leadership of the GWUP, recent developments seem to suggest, have lost sight of these elements. It occurred after the election of the new board of the GWUP in May 2023 (https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/10/shakeup-among-german-skeptics). Subsequently, the open exchange of ideas made way to an atmosphere where dissent is discouraged or stifled. Examples of this phenomenon, particularly by Hümmler the newly elected chair, are becoming increasingly evident.
The incident involving the German philosopher Andreas Edmüller might serve as an example. His presentation for a GWUP regional group on ‘The WOKE Phenomenon – A frontal assault on the values of the enlightenment?’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljm0iqqFoqk) was met with vitriol before he even spoke. One individual even called Edmüller an “asshole” (‘Arschloch’ https://twitter.com/Diaphanoskopie/status/1715441184431067512). Hümmler, rather than apologising to Edmüller for the undue abuse, chose to lecture him on politically correct language and accuse him of spreading ‘alt-right’ talking points (https://twitter.com/hummler/status/1719114920250265733).
Another example is the case of Stefan Kirsch, a long-standing member of GWUP. “He has been dismissed by Hümmler from his role as ‘communication manager’. Why? Because, would you believe it, he shared Edmüller’s presentation on X (formerly Twitter) (https://twitter.com/gwup/status/1715284877375942964).
To make matters worse, Hümmler is also said to have interfered with the organizing committee’s decisions for the upcoming Skepkon conference in May 2024. He apparently insisted on removing presentations from some GWUP members who had been critical of his leadership. In addition, Hümmler repeatedly denied the GWUP’s scientific committtee to share material with the GWUP’s members.
Up to now, I have watched this embarrassing spectacle from the sidelines and deliberately stayed out of any disputes. But I do feel strongly that skeptics, of all people, must not endanger our good causes by behaving like children on an ego-trip. We are in danger of becoming the laughing stock of our opponents!
I for one have grown increasingly sceptical about the GWUP and its future – so much so that I am now seriously considering my association with this organisation. If this embarrassingly counter-productive behavior does not demonstrably change after the annual convention in May this year, I (and probably many other German skeptics) will simply depart from the ruins of this organization.
PS
(added 8/1/2024)
I have been asked to be as transparent as possible and provide evidence for the statements I made above. Let me try:
- How do I know that Hümmler has interfered with the selection of the conference organising committee? Sorry, but I have been given this information in confidence; that is, I promised to not disclose the source. I tried my best to express this situation by wording my text accordingly: “Hümmler is also said to have interfered with the organizing committee’s decisions for the upcoming Skepkon conference in May 2024. He apparently insisted on removing presentations from some GWUP members who had been critical of his leadership.” Because of the interest in this matter, have now asked some people who may know about this to come forward to confirm my statement (e.g. on social media).
- As to my assertion that Hümmler “repeatedly denied the GWUP’s scientific committee to share material with the GWUP’s members”, I have first and knowledge of the situation. As a member of the committee, I was copied in to all the relevant exchanges. Moreover, his refusal is also documented in the minutes of the committee.
I hope this addresses the concerns that some readers have voiced.
Since the introduction of their new Education Standards in March 2023, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has been working with chiropractic education providers to support them in implementing the changes to their curricula. Recently, the GCC have stated this:
We expect students to be taught evidence-based practice: integrating individual clinical expertise, the best available evidence from current and credible clinical research, and the values and preferences of patients. Chiropractors are important members of a patient’s healthcare team, and interprofessional approaches enable the best outcomes. Programmes that meet these Standards will teach ethical, professional care and produce competent healthcare professionals who can serve the needs of patients.
These are indeed most encouraging words!
Basically, they are saying that chiropractic education will now have to be solidly based on the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) as well as sound medical ethics. Let me spell out what this really means. Chiropractic courses must teach that:
- The current and credible clinical evidence suggesting that spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, are effective is weak for back pain and negative or absent for all other conditions.
- The current and credible clinical evidence suggests that spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, can cause harm which in many instances is serious.
- The current and credible clinical evidence thus suggests that the risk/benefit balance for spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, is not positive.
- Medical ethics require that competent healthcare professionals inform their patients that spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, may not generate more good than harm which is the reason why they cannot employ these therapies.
So, the end of chiropractic in the UK is looming!
Unless, of course, the GCC’s words are not really meant to be translated into action. They could be just window dressing and politically correct bullshit. But that’ s really far too far fetched – after all they come from the GENERAL CHIROPRACTIC COUNCIL, known for its excellent track record, e.g.:
- The GCC “seems to be a little self-regulatory chiropractic bubble where chiropractors regulate chiropractors.”
- A 5-year strategy for UK chiropractors: not fit for purpose
- Chiro behaving badly… is the GCC fit for purpose?
- The UK General Chiropractic Council: fit for purpose?
- Farcical Chiropractic Council: Chiropractic Patient Satisfaction and Experience
- The General Chiropractic Council “regulates chiropractors to ensure the safety of patients” … well, you could have fooled me!
- Death of a chiropractic patient prompts a reaction by the UK General Chiropractic Council
On this blog, I have often been highly critical of integrative (or integrated) medicine (IM) – see, for instance:
- Integrative medicine: a satirical perspective
- A slightly different perspective on ‘INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE’
- Memorandum ‘INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE’
- Prince Charles’ opening speech at the ‘biggest ever’, ‘history-making’ integrative medicine conference
- The European Parliament’s Pathetic Attempt to Dabble in Integrative Medicine
- Integrative Medicine or Infiltrative Pseudoscience?
- Integrative Medicine: here is my slightly altered and much improved version
- More uncomfortable thoughts on ‘integrative medicine’
- The reality of ‘integrative medicine’ consists of little more than re-discoveries from conventional medicine, platitudes and outright nonsense
Recently, I began to realize that my previously critical stance has been largely due to the fact that 1) a plethora of definitions of IM exist causing endless confusion, 2) most, if not all, of the definitions of IM are vague and insufficient. At the same time, IM is making more and more inroads which makes it imprudent to ignore it.
I therefore decided it is time to change my view on IM and think more constructively. The first step on this new journey is to define IM in such a way that all interested parties can come on board. So, please allow me to present to you a definition of IM that is constructive and in the interest of progress:
IM is defined as the form of healthcare that employs the best available research to clinical care integrating evidence on all types of interventions with clinical expertise and patient values. By best available research, I mean clinically relevant (i.e., patient oriented) research that:
- establishes the efficacy and safety of all types of therapeutic, rehabilitative, or preventive healthcare strategies and
- seeks to understand the patient experience.
Healthcare practitioners who are dedicated to IM use their clinical skills and prior experience to identify each patient’s unique clinical situation, applying the evidence tailored to the individual’s risks versus benefits of potential interventions. Ultimately, the goal of IM is to support the patient by contextualising the evidence with their preferences, concerns, and expectations. This results in a process of shared decision making, in which the patient’s values, circumstances, and setting dictate the best care.
If applied appropriately, IM has the potential to be a great equaliser – striving for equitable care for patients in disparate parts of the world. Furthermore, IM can play a role in policy making; politicians are increasingly speaking to their use of research evidence to inform their decision making as a declaration of legitimacy. IM reflects the work of countless people who have improved the process of generating clinical evidence over several decades, and that it continues to evolve.
Developing the skills to practise IM requires access to evidence, opportunities to practise, and time. IM proponents strive to find novel ways to integrate evidence into personal holistic health in the best interest of our patients.
_________________________
I feel confident that this could create a basis for a fresh start in the dabate about the merits of IM. I for one am all for it!
In case some of my readers thought that the wording of my definition sounded somewhat familiar, I should perhaps tell you that it is my adaptation of the definition of evidence-based medicine (EBM) as published in ‘BMJ Best Practice‘.
What does that mean?
The points I am trying to make are the ones that I have tried to get across many times before:
- IM is a flawed, unethical, superflous and counter-productive concept.
- It is flawed because it is aimed at smuggling unproven or disproven treatments into routine care which can only render healthcare less safe and less effective.
- It is unethical because it cannot provide the best possible healthcare and thus is not in the best interest of patients.
- It is superflous because the aspects of IM that might seem valuable to proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are already part of EBM.
- It is counter-productive because it distracts from the laudable efforts of EBM.
Following on from my recent post about chiropractic denial, I feel like elaborating a little on an argument that is regularly used by those who try to defend the indefensible:
YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT TO CRITICIZE!
The notion is extremely popular not just with chiropractors but with virtually all practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
- Discuss with a chiropractor the merits of chiropractic, and she will soon ask you for your qualifications in the subject. If you are not a qualified chiropractor, she will say something like: sorry, but you are not qualified to discuss this because chiropractic is a complex subject that requires a lot of study to fully understand.
- Discuss with a homeopath the merits of homeopathy, and she will soon ask you for your qualifications in the subject. If you are not a qualified homeopath, she will say something like: sorry, but you are not qualified to discuss this because homeopathy is a complex subject that requires a lot of study to fully understand.
- Discuss with a energy healer the merits of energy healing, and she will soon ask you for your qualifications in the subject. If you are not a qualified energy healer, she will say something like: sorry, but you are not qualified to discuss this because energy healing is a complex subject that requires a lot of study to fully understand.
- Discuss with a osteopath the merits of osteopathy, and she will soon ask you for your qualifications in the subject. If you are not a qualified osteopath, she will say something like: sorry, but you are not qualified to discuss this because osteopathy is a complex subject that requires a lot of study to fully understand.
- Discuss with a acupuncturist the merits of acupuncture, and she will soon ask you for your qualifications in the subject. If you are not a qualified acupuncturist, she will say something like: sorry, but you are not qualified to discuss this because acupuncture is a complex subject that requires a lot of study to fully understand.
- etc. I’m sure you get the drift.
The first question to ask oneself here is this: what are these SCAM qualifications? Once you look into it, you might find – depending on national differences – that they consist of a series of courses that are more akin to brain-washing than to proper study. In other words, the arrogant pretence of SCAM practitioners to have more knowledge than the opponent is nil and void. What they do have is mostly pseudo-knowledge aquired during the brain-wash they assumed to be study.
But this is not what I wanted to explore today. I am more interested in another aspect of the ‘YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT TO CRITICIZE’ argument.
It has the effect that, from the persective of the SCAM practitioner, criticism voiced by people who are not experts in the SCAM in question can be dismissed. These people are simply not competent to criticize!
Consequently, criticism can only be considered, if it originates from someone who is an accepted expert in the SCAM. This means that:
- Only a well-versed chiropractor can legitimately criticize chiropractic.
- Only a well-versed homeopath can legitimately criticize homeopathy.
- Only a well-versed energy healer can legitimately criticize energy healing.
- Only a well-versed osteopath can legitimately criticize osteopathy.
- Only a well-versed acupuncturist can legitimately criticize acupuncture.
- etc. I’m sure you get the drift.
To perfect this culture of avoiding criticism, a final step is essential: a definition of what constitutes a ‘well-versed’ practitioner. A ‘well-versed’ SCAM practitioner is someone who is fully trained and understands and subscribes to the assumptions on which the SCAM in question is based. ‘Fully trained’ means, of course, that he/she went through the process of brain washing where the dogmas of the SCAM in question are internalized.
Should someone disagree with them (i.e. begin to criticize the SCAM) he/she is thus easily identified as being a heritic who is insufficiently ‘well-versed’ and incompetent to criticize. Consequently his/her criticism can be declared as invalid and can be ignored: a heritic would, of course, disagree – what else do you expect? – but that has no relevance because the maveric does not understand the subtleties of the SCAM and is quite simply incompetent.
Bob’s your uncle!
Criticism has been successfully averted.
No legitimate criticism of SCAM has ever been formulated.
SCAM practitioners are thus on the right track and should carry on as always.
PS
In order to make a clear point, I occasionally exaggerate – but only slightly.
The risks of chiropractic spinal manipulations (CSMs) feature regularly on my blog, not least because most chiropractors are in denial of this important issue and insist that chiropractic spinal manipulations are safe!!!. I therefore thought it might be a good idea to try and summarize the arguments they often put forward in promoting their dangerously fallacious and quasi-religious belief that CSMs are safe:
- There is not evidence to suggest that CSMs do harm. Such a statement is based on wishful thinking and ignorance motivated by the need of making a living. The evidence shows a different picture.
- There are hundreds of clinical trials that demonstrate the safety of CSMs. This argument is utterly unconvincing for at least two reasons: firstly clinical trials are far too small for identifying rare (but serious) complications; secondly, we know that clinical trials of CSM very often fail to report adverse events.
- Case reports of adverse effects are mere anecdotes and thus not reliable evidence. As there is no post-marketing surveillance system of adverse events after CSMs, case reports are, in fact, the most important and informative source of information we currently have on this subject.
- Case reports of harm by CSMs are invariably incomplete and of poor quality. Case reports are usually published by doctors who often have to rely on incomplete information. It would be up to chiropractors to publish case reports with the full details; yet chiropractors hardly ever do this.
- Case reports cannot establish cause and effect. True, but they do provide important signals which then should be investigated further. It would be up to chiropractors to do this; sadly, this is not what is happening.
- Adverse effects such as arterial dissections or strokes occur spontaneaously. True, but many have an identifiable cause, and it is our duty to find it.
- The forces applied during CSM are small and cannot cause an injury. This might be true under ideal conditions, but in clinical practice the conditions are often not ideal.
- If an arterial dissection occurs nevertheless, it is because there was a pre-existing injury. This argument is largely based on wishful thinking. Even if it were true, it would be foolish to aggravate a pre-existing injury by CSMs.
- Injuries happen only if the contra-indications of CSMs are ignored. This obviously begs the question: what are the contra-indications and how well established are they? The answer is that they are largely based on guess-work and not on systematic research. Thus chiropractors are able to claim that, once an adverse effects has occurred, the incident was due to a disregard of contra-indication and not due to the inherent risks of CSM.
- Only poorly trained chiropractors cause harm. This is evidently untrue, yet the argument provides yet another welcome escape route for those defending CSMs: if something went wrong, it must have been due to the practitioner and not the intervention!
- Chiropractors are an easy target. In my fairly extensive experience in this field, the opposite is true. Chiropractors tend to have multiple excuses and escape routes. As a consequence, they are difficult to pin down.
- Other causes, e.g. car accidents, are much more common causes of vascular injuries. Even if this were true, it does certainly not mean that CSM can be ruled out as the cause of serious harm.
- Patients who experience harm had pre-existing issues. Again, this notion is mostly based on wishful thinking and not based on sound evidence. Yet, it clearly is another popular escape route for chiropractors. And again, it is irresponsible to administer CSM if there is the possibility that pre-existing issues are present.
- The alleged harms of CSMs are merely an obsession for people who don’t really understand chiropractic. That is an old trick of someone trying to defend the indefensible. Chiropractors like to pompously claim that opponents are ignorant and only chiropractors understand the subject area. They use arrogance in an attempt to intimidate or scilence experts who disagree with them.
- Chiropractors do so much more than just CSN. True. They have ‘borrowed’ many modalities from physiotherapy and, by pointing that out, they aim at distracting from the dangers of CSMs. Yet, it is also true that practically every patient who consults a chiropractor will receive a CSM.
- Doctors are just jealous of the success of chiropractors. This fallacy is used when chiropractors run out of proper arguments. Rather than addressing the problem, they try to distract from it by claiming the opponent has ulterior motives.
- Medical treatments cause much more harm than CSM. Chiropractors are keen to mislead us into believing that NSAIDs, for instance, are much more dangerous than CSMs. The notion is largely based on one lousy article and thus not convincing. Even if it were true, it would obviously be no reason to ignore the risks of CSNs.
I am sure my list is far from complete. If you can think of further (pseudo-) arguments, please use the comments section below to let us know.
Chiropractors may have a bad reputation, but that’s all wrong. They are selfless and dedicated to the extend that some of them even offer their services for free! A UK chiropractor, for instance, proundly claims on his website this:
If your spine is not healthy, you are not healthy. Chiropractic care works to help ensure your spine is aligned so that your central nervous system works properly as it controls every single organ, gland, blood vessel and cell in your body. Over the years, Dr Jason (Chiropractor) has seen how chiropractic care goes far beyond pain relief to find the underlying cause of your problem. “I have seen people simply giving up all hope of a life free from pain and illness, then taking an active role in their health and completely turning their own and their families’ quality of life around.”
He also states that:
When complications during delivery led Dr Jason’s (Chiropractor) son Jake to be born via a ventouse birth, his passion for paediatric care was also born. Seeing his son immediately benefit from care inspired him and has led the O’Connor Chiropractic direction to focus on helping Yorkshire families experience wellness. Now, Dr Jason (Chiropractor) has paired a passion for helping children with specialised paediatrics training so he can help children to live life to their full potential.
Children are being offered free spinal checks in Harrogate this weekend.
O’Connor Chiropractic on Station Parade is welcoming visitors for a Christmas party on Saturday (16th December). Families are being invited to attend the family wellness centre for coffee and treats from 7:30am until 12pm. And children are being offered free spinal checks from chiropractor Jason O’Connor alongside an offer for 50% off full assessments.
_________________
The 16th December has long passed, and we all missed the occasion of free spinal checks for our kids.
What a shame!!!
Think of all the subluxations that will now have to remain undiagnosed!
Think of all the Yorkshire families unable to experience wellness now!
Think of all the children unable to live life to their full potential!
PS
To those who are not regulars on my blog, I recommend a few previous posts that put the above into context:
- A chiropractic paper that, in my view, is nothing less than the promotion of child abuse
- Pediatric care by chiropractors borders on child abuse
- Spinal manipulation in children amounts to abuse
- Children are regularly (mis)treated by practitioners who do not have adequate competence to do so
- What are the competencies of a ‘certified paediatric doctor of chiropractic’?
TOXIN BUILDUP CAN CAUSE:
- Brain Fog
- Irritability
- Exhaustion
- Stress Induced Muscle Aches
- Inability to Concentrate
- Tiredness
- Restlessness
- And Many More Problems
At least this is what we are being told on the Nuunu website which appeared in my emails recently (how did they know that I am full of toxins?). Here is some more of the infinite wisdom promoted by Nuubu:
Improve your body and mind with a natural Asian solution!
- Traditional Wisdom: Nuubu was inspired by Centuries-old traditional Asian knowledge, passed on by generations. True trust is earned by passing a test of time. Nuubu is made of natural herbs and herbal extracts. Forget about harmful, toxic chemicals and embrace the soothing power of nature!
- Detox Through Sweat: Nuubu is a revolutionary detox foot patch that can greatly increase your sense of wellbeing. Nuubu supports the body’s natural way of removing toxins through activated sweat glands.
- Holistic Approach: Tackle the cause, not the symptoms – your body is riddled by toxic elements, which may harm your wellbeing and increase stress. Using sweat detox and vitamin infusion Nuubu helps you to strengthen your mind, body and soul!
Natural Body Toxin Removal:
Amazing
New Way to Improve Your Life
- A Secret to a Stress-Free Living
Tired? Stressed? Fatigued? You are not alone – our lifestyles are extremely taxing on our bodies and minds alike. Headaches, bad sleep and stress are the unfortunate hallmarks of fast-moving modern life. Active ingredients that are found in the Nuubu foot patch are known for their ability to remove accumulating harmful elements from your body, which can greatly improve your sense of wellbeing!*
- Traditional Medicine gets Modern Upgrade
According to Japanese traditional knowledge, the human body has over 360 acupuncture points, with more than 60 points found on the soles of the foot. Nuubu combines tried-and-true Asian techniques with a sleek and modern approach – attach the herbal-remedy based patches to your feet and wait a few hours for the toxin removal through your sweat glands. It has never been that easy!
- Natural Approach
Are you tired of hazardous man-made chemicals being used in every aspect of your life? There is a better way to harmonize your lifestyle! Nuubu foot patches are made using natural herbs similar to ones found in the remote East-Asian mountainsides. Forget the harmful toxicity and side effects!
Traditional Wisdom
Traditional Asian wisdom that has been passed down through the ages is what inspired the Nuubu Patches. The test of time is what allows us to provide you with a product that you can trust. Forget about hazardous, dangerous drugs and enjoy nature’s calming influence instead.
Only the most natural herbs and herbal extracts are used to make the Nuubu Patches. We have blended together ancient herbal therapies to create the ultimate in cleansing wellness.
The soothing herbal aroma of Mother Nature’s finest plants and botanicals allow you to know that the Nuubu Patches are doing their job and providing you with optimal wellness.
______________________
I hope you are as impressed as I am!
So, I searched for the evidence?
Does detox work? Specifically, does the Nuubu reduce my:
- Brain Fog
- Irritability
- Exhaustion
- Stress Induced Muscle Aches
- Inability to Concentrate
- Tiredness
- Restlessness
- And Many More Problems
No matter how hard I searched, I did not find any evidence. Eventually, I had to conclude that the patch does not work.
Hold on!
The website might be correct with one claim: it helps you to strengthen your mind
… to such an extend that you will
never fall for the lies of detox entrepreneurs!
The story about Thomas Rau made me once again look into the plethora of hair-raising nonsense that is being claimed on social media and elsewhere about live-blood analysis (LBA). LBA is a form of ‘dark field microscopy where the sample is illuminated with light that will not be collected by the objective lens and thus will not form part of the image. This generates the appearance of a dark background with bright objects on it. LBA is employed as a diagnostic method used by many practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). The procedure is faily simple:
- a drop of blood is taken usually by a finger prick,
- it is then put on a glass plate without anticoagulation,
- the glass plate id placed on a darkfield microscope,
- the blood cells (mostly erythrocytes) are oberved,
- the SCAM practitioner can make patients watch their own blood cells on a TV screen while they are listening to his/her interpretation of the phenomena on display.
LBA is quick and simple – provided you have a dark field microscope – looks very ‘cutting edge’ to a lay person, and commands impressive fees. For all of these reasons, it is popular in the realm of SCAM.
The claims that are being made for LBA are varied and far-reaching, e.g.:
- LBA can allegedly find pleomorphic bacteria in the blood of healthy and diseased humans.
- LBA can allegedly be used to evaluate immune system status.
- LBA can allegedly diagnose diseases or predispositions to diseases such as allergies and chronic diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, immunity-related disorders and many more.
LBA has a long and colorful history, e.g.:
- In the early 1900’s, Béchamp claimed that animal body fluids contained subcellular living particles (i.e., microzymas) that transformed into bacteria upon death and decay of the host (Béchamp, A. The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element. (John Ouseley Ltd, 1912)).
- Enderlein described small entities called endobionts and protits in human blood and believed that these particles underwent a complex life cycle that correlated with disease progression ( Enderlein, G. Bacteria Cyclogeny. (Verlag Walter de Gruyter, 1925)).
- In the 1950’s, Villequez proposed that human blood was infected by a latent parasite similar to bacterial L-forms.
- In the 1960/70s, Tedeschi and Pease reported that the blood of healthy and diseased individuals appeared to be continually infected with bacteria.
For a range of reasons, I am confident that LBA is hocuspocus. In the first 10 years of my career as a scientist, I was a researcher of ‘hemorhelology’, i.e. the flow properties of blood. One of the phenomena of interest in this field is that of red cell aggregation (RCA), the tendency of erythrocytes to reversibly aggregate when left still (i.e. in the absence of shear forces normally provided by the flow of blood). In the course of our research we even developed a method to quantify RCA.
Suffice to say that I think I understand the main phenomenon SCAM practitioners see when they look down their dark field microscope. They see red cells aligning in ‘rouleaux’ similar to stacks of coins. So far, so good! Where they go wrong is the interpretation of this phenomenon. It is the normal tendency of red cells to aggregate. It is not indicative of any of the conditions SCAM practitioners think it to be.
While RCA is well researched and understood, it’s re-branding under the banner of LBA has attracted almost no research at all (and this in itself should make us think: valid methods of diagnosis are invariably well-researched). The little research that did emerge fails to show that LBA is a valid diagnostic tool. Judge for yourself, here are the abstracts of the 3 recent papers on LBA that I managed to find:
BACKGROUND: Dark field microscopy according to Enderlin claims to be able to detect forthcoming or beginning cancer at an early stage through minute abnormalities in the blood. In Germany and the USA, this method is used by an increasing number of physicians and health practitioners (non-medically qualified complementary practitioners), because this easy test seems to give important information about patients’ health status.
OBJECTIVE: Can dark field microscopy reliably detect cancer?
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the course of a prospective study on iridology, blood samples were drawn for dark field microscopy in 110 patients. A health practitioner with several years of training in the field carried out the examination without prior information about the patients.
RESULTS: Out of 12 patients with present tumor metastasis as confirmed by radiological methods (CT, MRI or ultra-sound) 3 were correctly identified. Analysis of sensitivity (0.25), specificity (0.64), positive (0.09) and negative (0.85) predictive values revealed unsatisfactory results.
CONCLUSION: Dark field micoroscopy does not seem to reliably detect the presence of cancer. Clinical use of the method can therefore not be recommended until future studies are conducted.
CONTEXT: In 1925, the German zoologist Günther Enderlein, PhD, published a concept of microbial life cycles. His observations of live blood using darkfield microscopy revealed structures and phenomena that had not yet been described. Although very little research has been conducted to explain the phenomena Dr. Enderlein observed, the diagnostic test is still used in complementary and alternative medicine.
OBJECTIVE: To test the interobserver reliability and test-retest reliability of 2 experienced darkfield specialists who had undergone comparable training in Enderlein blood analysis.
SETTING: Inpatient clinic for internal medicine and geriatrics.
METHODS: Both observers assessed 48 capillary blood samples from 24 patients with diabetes. The observers were mutually blind and assessed their findings according to a specific item randomization list that allowed observers to specify whether Enderlein structures were visible or not.
RESULTS: The interobserver reliability for the visibility of various structures was kappa = .35 (95% CI: .27-.43), the test-retest reliability was kappa = .44 (95% CI: .36-.53).
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study indicates that Enderlein darkfield analysis is very difficult to standardize and that the reliability of the diagnostic test is low.
Although human blood is believed to be a sterile environment, recent studies suggest that pleomorphic bacteria exist in the blood of healthy humans. These studies have led to the development of “live-blood analysis,” a technique used by alternative medicine practitioners to diagnose various human conditions, including allergies, cancer, cardiovascular disease and septicemia. We show here that bacteria-like vesicles and refringent particles form in healthy human blood observed under dark-field microscopy. These structures gradually increase in number during incubation and show morphologies reminiscent of cells undergoing division. Based on lipid analysis and Western blotting, we show that the bacteria-like entities consist of membrane vesicles containing serum and exosome proteins, including albumin, fetuin-A, apolipoprotein-A1, alkaline phosphatase, TNFR1 and CD63. In contrast, the refringent particles represent protein aggregates that contain several blood proteins. 16S rDNA PCR analysis reveals the presence of bacterial DNA in incubated blood samples but also in negative controls, indicating that the amplified sequences represent contaminants. These results suggest that the bacteria-like vesicles and refringent particles observed in human blood represent non-living membrane vesicles and protein aggregates derived from blood. The phenomena observed during live-blood analysis are therefore consistent with time-dependent decay of cells and body fluids during incubation ex vivo.
So, what does all of this mean?
It means that LBA is not a valid diagnostic tool. Its use carries the serious danger of making false-positive and false-negative diagnoses. LBA has a poor reproducibility and is prone to all sorts of artefacts (including temperature, time, contaminants, method of obtaining the blood sample, etc.) that influence RCA. RCA is a normal and reversible phenomenon that determines the flow properties of blood in vivo. In itself, it is not a sign of any disease or disposition to fall ill.
In a nutshell:
LBA is an ideal tool for quacks to rip off their gullible clients.
