MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

evidence

1 2 3 59

The ‘Corona-Virus Quackery Club’ (CVQC) is getting positively crowded. You may remember, its members include:

Today we are admitting the herbalists. The reason is obvious: many of them have jumped on the corona band-wagon by trying to improve their cash-flow on the back of the pandemic-related anxiety of consumers. If you go on the Internet you will find many examples, I am sure. I have chosen this website for explaining the situation.

Herbs That Can Stop Coronavirus Reproduction

CoV multiplies fast in the lungs and the stomach and intestines. The more virus, the sicker you get. The herbs are in their scientific names and common names.

    1. Cibotium barometz – golden chicken fern or woolly fern grows in China and Southeast Asia.

      Cibotium Barometz

    2. Gentiana scabra – known as Korean gentian or Japanese gentian seen in the United States and Japan.

      Japanese Gentian

    3. Dioscorea batatas or Chinese Yam grows in China and East Asia

      Chinese Yam

    4. Cassia tora or Foetid cassia, The Sickle Senna, Wild Senna – grows in India and Central America

      Cassia Tora

    5. Taxillus Chinensis – Mulberry Mistletoe

Lectin Plants that Have Anti Coronavirus Properties

Plant Lectins with Antiviral activity Against Coronavirus

From the table above, all have anti coronavirus activity except for garlic. One plant that is effective but not listed is Stinging nettle.

Yes, very nice pictures – but sadly utterly unreliable messages. My advice is that, in case you have concerns about corona (or any other health problem for that matter), please do not ask a herbalist.

WELCOME TO THE CVQC, HERBALISTS!

Guest post by Richard Rawlins

Ever since its inception, Homeopathy has struggled to establish principled medical ethics amongst its practitioners. For sure, Samuel Hahnemann was good doctor who achieved much by denying his patients the bleeding, emetics, expectorants, laxatives and poly-pharmacy conventional at the turn of the nineteenth century. But he then lost his way in spiritism and vitalism, devised a system of care which could not, and did not, provide any benefit beyond placebo responses, and inveigled many colleagues to share his delusion. Many derided him.

As medicine in all developed countries became better regulated, so the associated ethics became better focussed. “First do no harm” is common to all systems, but in the UK, the four ‘A’s of avoiding adultery with a patient, alcohol whilst in a clinical situation, advertising, and association formed the next domain. ‘Association’ meant having a professional medical relationship with anyone not also a GMC registrant. Times, and standards have changed, but quackery, charlatanism and health care fraud has always been unethical. The problem for society has been the GMC’s reluctance to take any action against its registrants who lack integrity, promote quackery, or seek to defraud. The general response has been “we only act on complaints by a patient, health authority or fellow registrant – and complaints have to be specific.”

So it is that about 400 registrants of the GMC continue practising homeopathy with impunity. Sir Simon Stevens has now all but banned homeopathy from the NHS, but a medically qualified practitioner, in the private sector can do as they please, no matter how vulnerable and gullible the patient.

Doctors are of course required to obtain fully informed consent to treatment, and that should mean advising patients that homeopathic remedies are but placebos. Many patients so treated will declare they “feel better” and are content – but in practice, no explanation is offered to patients attending homeopaths. A classic charlatonnade (a charade promulgated by a charlatan).

But perhaps the vicissitudes of Covid-19 is exposing the hypocrisy of the GMC’s position, and might yet enable some redress for patients seeking redress for unethical medically qualified homeopathic attention.

The Guardian and Sunday Times of 22nd March 2020 reported that Dr Mark Ali allegedly made £1.7M profit in one week from selling kits to test for COVID -19.

“The GMC said no doctor should try to ‘profit from the fear and uncertainly caused by the pandemic…We would be concerned to learn that doctors are exploiting patient’s vulnerability or lack of medical knowledge, in order to profit from fear and uncertainty…’ “

The rationale for that fear is surely irrelevant – any health practice which takes advantage of the patient’s vulnerability or lack of medical knowledge is unethical. Simple.

“We also expect doctors… not to offer or recommend tests that are unproven, clinically unverified or otherwise unreliable.”

This is in the context of the serious issues of SARS-CoV-2 (the name of the corona virus which causes the illness COVID-19) – but it is helpful that the GMC’s ethical principles have been clearly stated.

May we take it the GMC will be equally as stringent with their registrants (doctors) who take advantage of the patient’s vulnerability or lack of medical knowledge, and recommend tests such as homeopathic provings “that are unproven, clinically unverified or otherwise unreliable.”?

And if not, why not?

All homeopathic remedy prescriptions are ‘tests’: “Take this, see how you go, I’ll adjust if needed…”. The German word pruefung used by Hahnemann (meaning ‘testing’ or ‘examination’) has been translated into English as ‘proving’. But the word for ‘to prove’ is beweisen, and that is not the word Hahnemann used. The use of ‘proving’ in English implies merit which is not deserved. All part of the delusion.

Clearly, any doctor who recommends homeopathic remedies, but does not explain the conventional view of the remedy, lacks integrity and is unethical – by definition. If the doctor is GMC registered (which a ‘doctor’ does not have to be – e.g., dentists are not) – they should be subject to sanction by the GMC. The GMC should do its duty to protect the public, and not wait for a crisis to stir them into action.

Sadly, if practitioners are not GMC registered, caveat emptor.

What Quacks Don’t Tell You is that ‘What Doctors Don’t Tell You‘ and ‘Get Well‘ magazines misinform the public in a scandalously dangerous fashion. If one ever needed evidence for this statement, it is provided by their latest action, explained on their website:

Lynne McTaggart and Bryan Hubbard, editors of What Doctors Don’t Tell You and Get Well magazines, are pleased to announce a series of four FREE weekly webinars, via Zoom, starting Thursday, April 2 designed to maximize your health and wellness in every way during these challenging times.

In these free hour-long sessions, Lynne and Bryan will interview a number of pioneering doctors and specialists, who will give you detailed advice about natural substances that kill viruses, the best supplements, foods and exercises to boost your immune system, and the best techniques to stay calm and centered during these challenging times.

Sign up to be sent the link for the live webinar where you can have the ability to ask your questions to these pioneers, get access to the recording of the webinars and receive a handout of helpful relevant tips to that webinar.

Part 1: Supercharging Yourself With Natural Virus Killers
Thursday, April 2, 2020
9 am PDST/12pm EDST/5 pm BST/6 pm CSTThis webinar will feature the best substances and supplements proven to prevent the spread of viruses. Joining Lynne and Bryan are noted pioneer Dr. Damien Downing, president of the Society for Environmental Medicine, who was part of a team of orthomolecular doctors who devised a special supplement preventative against the coronavirus; Dr. Sarah Myhill, a British integrative doctor noted expert on vitamin C and other natural virus killers; and Dr. Robert Verkerk PhD, the founder and president of the Alliance for Natural Health and an expert on food and health.
This hardly need a comment. Perhaps just this: there are no dietary supplements that have been shown to prevent the spread of the corona virus. Claiming otherwise might be commercially motivated or it might stem from a deep delusion. In any case, it risks the life of those consumers who believe in such bogus claims and, wrongly feel they are protected, and thus neglect effective measures of protection.

I have been alerted to the fact that the latest issue of ‘Homeopathy 4 Everyone’ is packed with what I might call the criminal promotion of homeopathy for coronavirus. Here are a list of and links to the articles in question:

The editorial is by Alan Schmuckler. Here are a few excerpts:

… homeopathy has a proven track record of preventing disease, whether it be bacterial or viral. It has protected people from polio, smallpox, diphtheria, scarlet fever, meningococcal meningitis, leptospirosis and various influenzas.  Homeopathic remedies have successfully treated virtually every epidemic disease that occurred over the last 200 years, including the 1918 influenza pandemic. Treating this disease will require keen observation but if we remain calm, and work as a community, we will be able to reason it through. Most importantly, we will have a means of prevention that will become clear as more cases are evaluated.

There will be the usual critics, but they are simply misinformed. The bottom line is, homeopathy is effective, safe and cheap and doesn’t interfere with other treatments.  In a situation where there is no other proven alternative, it is illogical not to use it.

To those in the Pharmaceutical industry, who know homeopathy works and have been trying to sabotage it, this is a good time to rethink your plan. If you could put away your greed and support homeopathy, you might save your own life and your loved ones, along with countless millions…

The degree of delusion which becomes evident in these lines is frightening. And the actions of these homeopaths are, in my view, criminal.

My ‘Corona-Virus Quackery Club’ (CVQC) is getting rather popular. The current members,

homeopaths,

colloidal silver crooks,

TCM practitioners,

orthomolecular quacks,

Unani-salesmen

and chiropractors,

are now thinking of admitting the essential oil salesmen. It seems that many of them find it impossible to resist the chance to make a fast buck on the fear many consumers currently have. Take this website for instance:

If you have a breathing aid or respiratory device, use it to reduce breathing difficulties. Alternatively, you can use a breathing ointment like Breathe and Focus Oil. Formulated with menthol, eucalyptus, rosemary and thyme essential oils, this phyto-aromatherapy ointment helps ease breathing difficulties commonly associated with cold, flu, cough, asthma and pneumonia. Gently massage a few drops of Breathe and Focus Oil to your chest and apply 1 to 2 drops to a tissue or handkerchief then inhale the aroma. Repeat as often as necessary.

Studies showed that eucalyptus essential oil contains cineole that helps reduce inflammation and infection in the lungs. Eucalyptus Radiata essential oil has antiviral effects against coronavirus SARS. Rosemary essential oil has been shown to be effective against Klebsiella pneumoniae, a bacteria which causes pneumonia in humans and animals. Thyme essential oil has been shown to have antiviral activities against Influenza A virus (H1N1), while menthol with its cooling-effect has also been shown to reduce breathing difficulties. These essential oils may help you dealing with Covid-19 disease.

Another website even has the promising title ‘What can you try to cure from coronavirus ….’ and it tells us that:

Black cumin can boost immunity, especially in patients with impaired immune systems. According to research, 1 gram Seed capsules, twice daily for four weeks can improve T-cell ratio between positive and negative up to 72%. Increased immunity plays an important role in the healing of colds, influenza, AIDS, and other diseases related to the immune system.

But there is more – so much more that I can here only present a very small selection of that is on offer.

Recommended antiviral essential oils for healthy adults:

  • Cinnamon bark
  • Clove bud
  • Eucalyptus globulus/radiata
  • Lemon
  • Lemon myrtle
  • Manuka
  • Melissa
  • Niaouli
  • Ravensara
  • Ravintsara
  • Rosemary
  • Saro
  • Tea tree
  • Thyme thymol & linalool

Yet another website includes the claim: “The most powerful anti-virus essential oils to provide defence (sic) against coronavirus include:

  • Basil
  • Bergamot
  • Cajuput
  • Cedarwood Virginian
  • Cinnamon
  • Clove Bud
  • Eucalyptus Globulus, Radiata and Smithii
  • Juniper Berry
  • Lavender Spike
  • Laurel leaf
  • Lemon
  • Manuka
  • Niaouli
  • Peppermint
  • Ravensara
  • Ravintsara
  • Rosemary
  • Sage
  • Tea Tree
  • Thyme Sweet Thyme White.”

I know, this is confusing! I do sympathise with the difficulty of choosing between all these recommendation; therefore, let me help you. Here is the full list of essential oils proven to prevent or treat a corona-virus infection:

Yes, that’s right: NO ESSENTIAL OIL HAS EVER BEEN FOUND TO BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST THIS OR ANY OTHER VIRUS INFECTION!

The FDA agree and have therefore sent out letters to seven US companies warning them to stop selling products that claim to cure or prevent COVID-19 infections, stating that such products are a threat to public health because they might prompt consumers to stop or delay appropriate medical treatment.

WELCOME TO THE CVQC, ESSENTIAL OIL SALESMEN!

I have almost got used to seeing that any health crisis brings the worst out of charlatans. In the present pandemic, this has been true for SCAM merchants such as the:

homeopaths,

colloidal silver crooks,

TCM practitioners,

orthomolecular quacks,

Unani-salesmen

and, of course, the chiropractors.

Perhaps one can even forgive such behaviour on an individual level – sadly, it seems to be a human trait to turn every misery into a business opportunity. But when professional organisations behave in this manner, I have less understanding.

In that context, this press release by the INTERNATIONAL CHIROPRACTORS ASSOCIATION seems revealing:

March 16, 2020 (Falls Church, VA) In these challenging times associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) is issuing a statement reaffirming chiropractic as an essential healthcare service. Everyone is under extraordinary levels of stress.

Chiropractic Services represent an essential and necessary component of the health care program of millions of patients of all ages and all walks of life in the United States and worldwide. Timely and consistent access to chiropractic care is essential to the maintenance of the health and wellbeing of this patient population, particularly during times of stress.

The association encourages jurisdictions at all levels to acknowledge and respect that chiropractic is an essential healthcare service even during a pandemic.

It is important to recognize that as of mid-March 2020, there are no recognized cures in conventional medicine or alternative health approaches for COVID-19. There are no vaccines, no drugs, no natural remedies, no alternative therapies that have been tested and the outcomes peer reviewed to meet any evidence-based standard. The public has the right to seek their own pathway to health and well-being. For millions of Americans, that pathway includes regular chiropractic care. For individuals such as those recovering from injury or suffering back pain, chiropractic care is essential on their road to recovery.

ICA President, Stephen P. Welsh, DC, FICA stated, “While Coronavirus-19 has everyone’s attention, it cannot be forgotten that health promotion and non-opioid pain management through chiropractic adjustments of the subluxation is essential and should not be curtailed or restricted because of this pandemic. With churches, schools, restaurants, museums being closed, the ICA reminds authorities that the offices of doctors of chiropractic should be treated no differently than the offices of medical doctors – as an essential health care service.”

Did I state that I have less understanding for this? To be honest, I feel slightly sick reading the press release!

The ICA state that one of their objectives is to ‘promote the highest professional, technical, and ethical standards for the doctor of chiropractic while safeguarding the professional welfare of its members and the public.’ I highly recommend that the ICA take a step back and inform themselves what professionalism and ethics really mean.

Boris Johnson said we should take the coronavirus ‘on the chin’ and count on ‘herd-immunity’. This, he claimed, is what his scientific advisers recommended.

I find this very hard to believe and have many doubts and questions.

To start with, I doubt that this is what Johnson’s scientific advisers recommend – it is a solution that SOME of his scientific advisers recommend. And it is a solution that seems easy to follow. It is, however, by no means the only strategy for tacking the pandemic; it is just one of several options.

The fact that all other countries have opted for other solutions, suggests to me that it is an unusual path to go down to. The modellers who obviously like it had to make a number of assumptions; that’s what modellers always have to do and rarely tell us about. But what if not all of these assumptions are correct?

The herd-immunity strategy counts on the fact that, once a certain percentage of the population has taken the infection ‘on the chin’, it is immune and therefore the transmission of the virus within such a population will be dramatically reduced or even zero. The percentage of the population needed for that to happen depends on how contagious the virus is. For the measles virus, herd immunity requires 90% of the population to be immune. For the coronavirus, the figure is said to be 60 – 70%. Is that an assumption or a fact? If it is a current fact, would the figure change, if the virus mutates? Could it be that a mutated virus can re-infect formerly immune people?

But let’s postulate that the herd-immunity assumption is both correct and stable. Johnson’s herd-immunity strategy would thus require that about 40 million Brits get infected with the virus to generate the required herd-immunity. Assuming a mortality rate of 1 – 2%, this means that Johnson is cheerfully accepting 400 000 – 800 000 fatalities.

But, as I said, this scenario is based on wild assumptions. It applies only if the virus does not mutate. And it only applies, if we do not run out of intensive care (IC) beds. However, running out seems possible, perhaps even likely, considering that we have only about half of the French and just one third of the German IC capacity. Sod’s law has it that both might happen. In this case, we might easily have far in excess of 800 000 fatalities. How should we take that ‘on the chin’, Mr Johnson?

Sadly, this is not all; I have further doubts about our PM’s ideas.

The present strategy regarding diagnosis of coronavirus cases is to self-isolate once suspicious symptoms start. Even if someone is seriously ill (with high fever etc.), they are told to stay at home and sit it out. This means we will never know whether these patients had or had not suffered from a coronavirus infection. How then can we ever be sure that the 60% target of infection has been reached? And if we are uncertain about it, how can we be sure that herd-immunity will work in the way the modellers predicted?

Moreover, we now know that people who caught the virus are infective BEFORE they develop symptoms. If that is so, the strategy of self-isolation will be far less effective than predicted. And, given this fact, are we not much more likely to have a sharp peak of cases early on which would make us run out of IC capacity? When that happens, even the pessimistic death rates might turn out to be too optimistic.

It seems to me that Johnson’s herd-immunity strategy is risky to the point of being reckless. It also seems to me that there are very good reasons why other countries have not adopted it.

But what is the solution?

In my view, the solution cannot be to uncritically adopt the theories and assumptions of modellers. This is not a computer game; we are talking about human lives, many human lives!

I wish I new what the best solution is – but I don’t. I merely fear that ‘taking it on the chin’ is not a solution at all. In any case, a wise move for Johnson and his team might be to consider that foreigners might be at least as clever as they are. Subsequently they could carefully study the actions of those countries which managed to bring down their death-rates despite being attacked by the coronavirus.

This ‘Manifesto of the European Committee for Homeopathy (ECH) and the European Federation of Homeopathic Patients Associations (EFHPA)‘ has just been published. It is worth considering in more detail, I think. So, I will first reproduce the document in its entirety and subsequently provide some critical assessment of it.

Homeopathy: a solution for major healthcare problems in the EU

  • Helps to reduce the need of antibiotics in human and veterinary health care, thus reducing the problem of antimicrobial resistance [i],[ii]
  • Increases quality of life and reduces severity of complaints in patients with chronic disease, when integrated in health care [iii],[iv],[v],[vi],[vii],[viii]
  • Can reduce the use of long-term conventional prescription drugs, when integrated in health care [ix]

Homeopathy: safe and cost-effective with a high patient satisfaction

  • Can lead to lower health care costs, when integrated in health care, [x],[xi],[xii],
  • Is safe, with high patient satisfaction [xiii],[xiv],[xv],[xvi]
  • Patients using homeopathy have better outcomes than users of conventional treatment, with similar costs [xvii]
  • Quality, safety and correct labelling of homeopathic products is guaranteed by Directive 2001/83 EC

 EU consumers expect and demand homeopathy as part of their health care

  • Reported as the most used medical complementary medicine in Europe [xviii]
  • Three out of four European citizens know about homeopathy and out of them 29% use it for their day-to day health care [xix]

 Scientific evidence of the highest calibre confirms the clinical efficacy of homeopathic   medicine

There is convincing evidence for biological efficacy of homeopathic medicine

  • Irrefutable scientific evidence has been published on the positive effects of homeopathic products in laboratory settings [xxvii],[xxviii]

References

[i] Grimaldi-Bensouda L, Bégaud B, Rossignol M, et al. Management of upper respiratory tract infections by different medical practices, including homeopathy, and consumption of antibiotics in primary care: the EPI3 cohort study in France 2007-2008. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 19;9(3):e89990

[ii] Camerlink I, Ellinger L, Bakker EJ, Lantinga EA. Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics in the case of Escherichia coli diarrhoea in neonatal piglets. Homeopathy. 2010 Jan;99(1):57-62

[iii] Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Baur R, Willich SN. Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. BMC Public Health 2005; 5:115

[iv]  Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11:793–798

[v] Mathie RT, Robinson TW. Outcomes from homeopathic prescribing in medical practice: a prospective, research-targeted, pilot study. Homeopathy 2006; 95:199–205

[vi] Thompson EA, Mathie RT, Baitson ES, et al. Towards standard setting for patient-reported outcomes in the NHS homeopathic hospitals. Homeopathy 2008; 97:114–121

[vii] Witt CM, Lüdtke R, Mengler N, Willich SN. How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?–Results from a long term observational study BMC Public Health 2008;8:413

[viii] Rossi E, Endrizzi C, Panozzo MA, Bianchi A, Da Frè M. Homeopathy in the public health system: a seven-year observational study at Lucca Hospital (Italy). Homeopathy 2009; 98:142–148

[ix] Grimaldi-Bensouda L, Abenhaim L, Massol J, et al. EPI3-LA-SER group. Homeopathic medical practice for anxiety and depression in primary care: the EPI3 cohort study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 May 4; 16:125

[x] Kooreman P, Baars EW. Patients whose GP knows complementary medicine tend to have lower costs and live longer. Eur J Health Econ. 2012 Dec;13(6):769-76

[xi] Baars EW, Kooreman P. A 6-year comparative economic evaluation of healthcare costs and mortality rates of Dutch patients from conventional and CAM GPs. BMJ Open. 2014 Aug 27;4(8):e005332

[xii] Colas A, Danno K, Tabar C, Ehreth J, Duru G. Economic impact of homeopathic practice in general medicine in France. Health Econ Rev. 2015;5(1):55

[xiii] Van Wassenhoven M, Galen Y. An observational study of patients receiving homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004 Jan;93(1):3-11

[xiv] Marian F, Joost K, Saini KD, von Ammon K, Thurneysen A, Busato A. Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: An observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008 Sep 18; 8:52

[xv] Witt C, Keil T, Selim D, et al. Outcome and costs of homoeopathic and conventional treatment strategies: a comparative cohort study in patients with chronic disorders. Complement Ther Med. 2005;13(2):79-86

[xvi] Marian F, Joost K, Saini KD, von Ammon K, Thurneysen A, Busato A. Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: An observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008 Sep 18; 8:52

[xvii] Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment.Forsch Komplementmed. 2006;13 Suppl 2:19-29. Epub 2006 Jun 26. Review

[xviii] Eardley S, Bishop FL, Prescott P, Cardini F, Brinkhaus B, Santos K Ͳ Rey, Vas J, von Ammon K, Hegyi G, Dragan S, Uehleke B, Fønnebø V, Lewith G. CAM use in Europe. The patients’ perspective.Part I: A systematic literature review of CAM prevalence in the EU. 2012. Online retrieved 19-11-2019. https://cam-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CAMbrella-WP4-part_1final.pdf

[xix] Report of the European Commission, 1997. Online retrieved 15-12-2019 via https://www.hri-research.org/resources/essentialevidence/use-of-homeopathy-across-the-world/

[xx] Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-4.

[xxi] Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP.Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;56(1):27-33

[xxii] Hahn RG. Homeopathy: meta-analyses of pooled clinical data. Forsch Komplementmed. 2013;20(5):376-81

[xxiii] Mathie RT, Van Wassenhoven M, Jacobs J et al. Model validity and risk of bias in randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment. Complement Ther Med. 2016 Apr; 25:120-5

[xxiv] Mathie RT, Lloyd, SM, Legg, LA, Clausen J, Moss S, Davidson JR, Ford: Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2014 Dec 6; 3:142

[xxv] Mathie RT, Clausen J. Veterinary homeopathy: systematic review of medical conditions studied by randomised placebo-controlled trials. Vet Rec. 2014 Oct 18;175(15):373-81.

[xxvi] Mathie RT, Clausen J. Veterinary homeopathy: meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. Homeopathy. 2015 Jan;104(1):3-8.

[xxvii] Tournier A, Klein SD, Würtenberger S, Wolf U, Baumgartner S. Physicochemical Investigations of Homeopathic Preparations: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis-Part 2. J Altern Complement Med. 2019 Jul 10

[xxviii] Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Complement. Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38

_____________________________________

Did I state above that the manifesto is worth considering in more detail? I need to retract or modify this statement.

Here are the considerations that are relevant, in my view:

  • The statements in the manifesto are based on wishful thinking and do not reflect the reality based on the best evidence available today.
  • The manifesto is the result of a mixture of cherry-picking and/or misinterpreting the evidence.
  • Most of the cited studies have been discussed on this blog in previous posts which disclose their flaws and/or erroneous conclusions.

So, instead of discussing all the tedious details yet again, I will present here a corrected version of the manifesto:

Homeopathy: no solution for major healthcare problems in the EU

  • Does not help to reduce the need of antibiotics in human and veterinary health care, thus reducing the problem of antimicrobial resistance
  • does not increases quality of life and reduces severity of complaints in patients with chronic disease, when integrated in health care
  • Cannot reduce the use of long-term conventional prescription drugs, when integrated in health care

Homeopathy: neither safe nor cost-effective with a high patient satisfaction

  • Cannot lead to lower health care costs, when integrated in health care
  • Is unsafe
  • Patients using homeopathy have no better outcomes than users of conventional treatment, but cause higher costs
  • Quality and correct labelling of homeopathic products is guaranteed by Directive 2001/83 EC

 Some EU consumers expect and demand homeopathy as part of their health care

  • Reported as a much-used complementary medicine in Europe
  • Three out of four European citizens know about homeopathy and out of them many use it for their day-to day health care

 Scientific evidence of the highest calibre fails to confirm the clinical efficacy of homeopathic   medicine

  • Clinical effects of homeopathic medicines have been confirmed by systematic reviews and meta- analyses to be no better than placebo

There is no convincing evidence for biological efficacy of homeopathic medicine

  • No irrefutable scientific evidence has been published on the positive effects of homeopathic products in laboratory settings

My critics regularly display a lot of imagination. For instance, some come up with the claim that I have never done any original research.

Well, I have!

How much?

A lot.

The precise answer depends on how you define original research.

Usually, my detractors then focus on clinical trials. Prof Ernst can only criticise and find fault in studies of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) published by others, they claim, but he never did a single clinical trial in his life!

Well, I have!

The allegation came up recently in a legal case that I am involved in, and I was asked to prove that it is false. I skimmed through my files and found something that I had almost forgotten about. Until my retirement in 2012, I had kept a record entitled THE EVIDENCE, A DOCUMENTATION OF OUR CLINICALLY RELEVANT RESEARCH. The document is based on 470 of our published articles and 35 of our clinical trials (I do not know many SCAM-researchers who have done more).

For the legal case, I also did a Medline-search to get the links of clinical trials including the ones before the Exeter job. The list is quite incomplete but, for what it’s worth, here it is:

  1. Placebo-controlled, double-blind study of haemodilution in peripheral arterial disease Ernst E, et al. Lancet 1987 – Clinical Trial. PMID 2885450
  2. Regular sauna bathing and the incidence of common colds Ernst E, et al. Ann Med 1990 – Clinical Trial. PMID 2248758
  3. A single blind randomized, controlled trial of hydrotherapy for varicose veins Ernst E, et al. Vasa 1991 – Clinical Trial. PMID 1877335
  4. Effects of felodipine ER and hydrochlorothiazide on blood rheology in essential hypertension–a randomized, double-blind, crossover study Koenig W, et al. J Intern Med 1991 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 2045762
  5. Does pentoxifylline prolong the walking distance in exercised claudicants? A placebo-controlled double-blind trial Ernst E, et al. Angiology 1992 – Clinical Trial. PMID 1536472
  6. Exercise therapy for osteoporosis: results of a randomised controlled trial Preisinger E, et al. Br J Sports Med 1996 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 8889112 Free PMC article.
  7. Randomized trial of acupuncture for nicotine withdrawal symptoms White AR, et al. Arch Intern Med 1998 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 9818805
  8. Randomized, double-blind trial of chitosan for body weight reduction Pittler MH, et al. Eur J Clin Nutr 1999 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 10369493 Free article
  9. A randomized trial of distant healing for skin warts Harkness EF, et al. Am J Med 2000 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 10781776
  10. Can singing exercises reduce snoring? A pilot study Ojay A and Ernst E. Complement Ther Med 2000 – Clinical Trial. PMID 11068344
  11. A blinded investigation into the accuracy of reflexology charts White AR, et al. Complement Ther Med 2000 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 11068346
  12. Acupuncture for episodic tension-type headache: a multicentre randomized controlled trial White AR, et al. Cephalalgia 2000 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 11128820
  13. Spiritual healing as a therapy for chronic pain: a randomized, clinical trial Abbot NC, et al. Pain 2001 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 11240080
  14. Randomised controlled trial of reflexology for menopausal symptoms Williamson J, et al. BJOG 2002 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 12269681 Free article.
  15. Validating a new non-penetrating sham acupuncture device: two randomised controlled trials Park J, et al. Acupunct Med 2002 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 12512790
  16. Homeopathic arnica for prevention of pain and bruising: randomized placebo-controlled trial in hand surgery Stevinson C, et al. J R Soc Med 2003 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 12562974 Free PMC
  17. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of autologous blood therapy for atopic dermatitis Pittler MH, et al. Br J Dermatol 2003 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 12588384
  18. Individualised homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma: a randomised placebo controlled trial White A, et al. Thorax 2003 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 12668794 Free PMC article.
  19. Multiple n = 1 trials in the identification of responders and non-responders to the cognitive effects of Ginkgo biloba Canter PH and Ernst E. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003 – Clinical Trial. PMID 12940592
  20. Effectiveness of artichoke extract in preventing alcohol-induced hangovers: a randomized controlled trial Pittler MH, et al. CMAJ 2003 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 14662662 Free PMC article.
  21. Autogenic training reduces anxiety after coronary angioplasty: a randomized clinical trial Kanji N, et al. Am Heart J 2004 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 14999212
  22. Does aromatherapy massage benefit patients with cancer attending a specialist palliative care day centre? Wilcock A, et al. Palliat Med 2004 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 15198118
  23. Randomised controlled trial of magnetic bracelets for relieving pain in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee Harlow T, et al. BMJ 2004 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 15604181 Free PMC article.
  24. Acupuncture for subacute stroke rehabilitation: a Sham-controlled, subject- and assessor-blind, randomized trial Park J, et al. Arch Intern Med 2005 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 16186474
  25. Autogenic training to reduce anxiety in nursing students: randomized controlled trial Kanji N, et al. J Adv Nurs 2006 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 16553681
  26. Autogenic training to manage symptomology in women with chest pain and normal coronary arteries Asbury EA, et al. Menopause 2009 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 18978640
  27. The effects of triple therapy (acupuncture, diet and exercise) on body weight: a randomized, clinical trial Nourshahi M, et al. Int J Obes (Lond) 2009 – Clinical Trial. Among authors: Ernst E. PMID 19274056

Five things I like about the list:

  1. It is long.
  2. It displays a wide variety of subjects.
  3. It hardly depicts me as a ‘pharma shill’.
  4. Most of the trials were published in top journals (suggesting they were of decent quality).
  5. It reminds me how much fun these studies often were (I wrote a chapter about No13 in my memoir, and I could write [very amusing] short stories about No 20 and [less funny but baffling] about No 17 and 23)

So, the next time they claim ‘Prof Ernst never did any clinical trials’, I will be able to shut them up by simply showing them this post.

I am looking forward to it!

During my almost 30 years of research into so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), I have published many papers which must have been severe disappointments to those who advocate SCAM or earn their living through it. Many SCAM proponents thus reacted with open hostility. Others tried to find flaws in those articles which they found most upsetting with a view of discrediting my work. The 2012 article entitled ‘A Replication of the Study ‘Adverse Effects of Spinal Manipulation: A Systematic Review‘ by the Australian chiropractor, Peter Tuchin, seems to be an example of the latter phenomenon (used recently by Jens Behnke in an attempt to defame me).

Here is the abstract of the Tuchin paper:

Objective: To assess the significance of adverse events after spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) by replicating and critically reviewing a paper commonly cited when reviewing adverse events of SMT as reported by Ernst (J Roy Soc Med 100:330-338, 2007).

Method: Replication of a 2007 Ernst paper to compare the details recorded in this paper to the original source material. Specific items that were assessed included the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and the recording of other significant risk factors such as diabetes, hyperhomocysteinemia, use of oral contraceptive pill, any history of hypertension, atherosclerosis and migraine.

Results: The review of the 32 papers discussed by Ernst found numerous errors or inconsistencies from the original case reports and case series. These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event. Other errors included incorrectly assigning spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) as chiropractic treatment when it had been reported in the original paper as delivered by a non-chiropractic provider (e.g. Physician).The original case reports often omitted to record the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and other significant clinical or risk factors. The country of origin of the original paper was also overlooked, which is significant as chiropractic is not legislated in many countries. In 21 of the cases reported by Ernst to be chiropractic treatment, 11 were from countries where chiropractic is not legislated.

Conclusion: The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper, reduce the validity of the study and the reported conclusions. The omissions of potential risk factors and the timeline between the adverse event and SMT could be significant confounding factors. Greater care is also needed to distinguish between chiropractors and other health practitioners when reviewing the application of SMT and related adverse effects.

The author of this ‘replication study’ claims to have identified several errors in my 2007 review of adverse effects of spinal manipulation. Here is the abstract of my article:

Objective: To identify adverse effects of spinal manipulation.

Design: Systematic review of papers published since 2001.

Setting: Six electronic databases.

Main outcome measures: Reports of adverse effects published between January 2001 and June 2006. There were no restrictions according to language of publication or research design of the reports.

Results: The searches identified 32 case reports, four case series, two prospective series, three case-control studies and three surveys. In case reports or case series, more than 200 patients were suspected to have been seriously harmed. The most common serious adverse effects were due to vertebral artery dissections. The two prospective reports suggested that relatively mild adverse effects occur in 30% to 61% of all patients. The case-control studies suggested a causal relationship between spinal manipulation and the adverse effect. The survey data indicated that even serious adverse effects are rarely reported in the medical literature.

Conclusions: Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation.

In my view, there are several things that are strange here:

  1. Tuchin published his paper 5 years after mine.
  2. He did not publish it in the same journal as my original, but in an obscure chiro journal that hardly any non-chiropractor would ever read.
  3. Tuchin never contacted me and never alerted me to his publication.
  4. The journal that Tuchin chose was not Medline-listed in 2012; consequently, I never got to know about the Tuchin article in a timely fashion. (Therefore, I did never respond to it.)
  5. A ‘replication study’ is a study that repeats the methodology of a previous study.
  6. Tuchin’s paper is therefore NOT a replication study. Firstly, mine was a review and not a study. Secondly, and crucially, Tuchin never repeated my methodology but used an entirely different one.

But arguably, these points are trivial. They should not distract from the fact that I might have made mistakes. So, let’s look at the substance of Tuchin’s claim, namely that I made errors or omissions in my review.

As to ‘omissions’, one could argue that a review such as mine will always have to omit some details in order to generate a concise summary. The only way to not omit any details is to re-publish all the primary papers in one large volume. Yet, this can hardly be the purpose of a systematic review.

As to the ‘errors’, it seems that the ages and sex of three patients were wrong (I have not checked this against the primary publications but, for the moment, I believe Tuchin). This is, of course, lamentable and – even though I have no idea whether the errors happened at the data extraction phase, during the typing, the revising, or the publishing of the paper – it is entirely my responsibility. I also seem to have mistaken a non-chiropractor for a chiropractor. This too is regrettable but, as the review was about spinal manipulation and not about chiropractic, the error is perhaps not so grave.

Be that as it may, these errors are unquestionably not good, and I can only apologise for them. If Tuchin had dealt with them in the usual way – by publishing in a timely fashion a ‘letter to the editor’ of the JRSM – I could have easily corrected them for everyone to see.

But I think there is a more important point to be made here:

Tuchin concludes his paper stating that it is unwise to make conclusions regarding causality from any case study or multiple case studies. The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper significantly limit any reported conclusions. I believe that both sentences are unjustified. The safety of any intervention in routine use has to be examined on the basis of published case studies. This is particularly true for chiropractic where no post-marketing surveillance similar to that for drugs exists.

The conclusions based on such evidence can, of course, never be firm, but they provide valuable signals that can prompt more rigorous investigations in the interest of patient safety. In view of such considerations, my own conclusions in my 2007 paper were, I think, correct and are NOT invalidated by my relatively trivial mistakes: spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, has repeatedly been associated with serious adverse events. Currently the incidence of such events is unknown. Adherence to informed consent, which currently seems less than rigorous, should therefore be mandatory to all therapists using this treatment. Considering that spinal manipulation is used mostly for self-limiting conditions and that its effectiveness is not well established, we should adopt a cautious attitude towards using it in routine health care. 

And my conclusions in the abstract have now, I believe, become established wisdom. They are thus even less in jeopardy through my calamitous lapsus or Tuchin’s ‘replication study’: Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation. 

 

 

1 2 3 59
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories