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

experience

1 2 3 7

Really?

For dogs?

Yes, one (of many) website explains that dogs benefit from acupuncture in 5 different ways:

1. Pain management is one of the most common uses for acupuncture, often in conjunction with a more traditional treatment plan. Strong medical treatments like chemo, which can cause discomfort, are often paired with acupuncture to help make a pet more comfortable and able to fight the illness.

2. Musculoskeletal problems such as arthritis, hip dysplasia, or nerve injuries can respond to acupuncture. It is often employed during rehabilitation after an injury. Carefully monitoring a healing pet is important; without the feeling of pain, a dog can re-injure him or herself with over-activity.

3. Skin problems like allergic dermatitis, granulomas, or hot spots may respond well to acupuncture treatment because increased circulation can improve healing, while pain reduction will reduce a dog’s overgrooming or itching responses.

4. Gastrointestinal problems like nausea and diarrhea can be aided by the increased blood flow from acupuncture. It may also help normalize digestive activity by stimulating digestive secretions.

5. Respiratory problems like asthma and allergies can benefit from the immune-calming, anti-inflammatory capabilities of acupuncture.

But all of this is based on ‘experience’ (or probably more accurately, the wishful thinking of those who earn money by sticking needles into animals), not evidence!

So, what does the evidence tell us about acupuncture for dogs?

The answer is: next to nothing; there are almost no studies. And this is why this recent paper could be important.

This new study was aimed at quantifying changes in gastric and intestinal emptying times in the conscious dog following gastrointestinal acupoint stimulation.

In a randomised, blinded crossover study, six dogs were fed 30×1.5 mm barium-impregnated polyethylene spheres and underwent: (1) no acupuncture (Control); (2) stimulation of target points PC6 and ST36 (Target) and (3) stimulation of non-target points LU7 and BL55 (Sham). Abdominal radiographs were assessed immediately after feeding the spheres and every hour for 12 hours and their number in the stomach and large intestines was counted.

The number of barium-impregnated polyethylene spheres found distal to the stomach was less in the Target group compared to the Control and Sham groups between hours 2 and 4, but no differences between groups were seen for the remainder of the treatment period. The number of spheres found within the colon/rectum was less in the Target group compared to the Control and Sham groups between hours 4 and 6, and compared to the Sham group only at hour 7 but no differences between groups were seen after hour 8.

The authors concluded that acupuncture targeted at the gastrointestinal tract of dogs was associated briefly with slowed gastric emptying and gastrointestinal transit time. This foundational study lays the groundwork for additional studies of acupuncture effects associated with altered physiologic states.

There you have it: the proof has been presented that acupuncture works in dogs; and if it works in animals, it cannot be a placebo!

Hold on, not so quick!

This was a tiny study, and the effects are small, only temporary and of questionable relevance. It is possible (I’d say even likely) that the finding was entirely coincidental.

I think, I wait until we have more and better data.

Dr Alok Pareek has been elected as the World President of the International Homeopathic Medical league (LMHI – Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis), the largest, oldest and only association of Medical Homeopaths in the World. He is the first Asian in 4 decades to bring this honour to India. Dr Alok Pareek was elected at the 71st World Congress of the LMHI held in Buenos Aires, Argentina on 23rd August 2016. He was elected unopposed by over 70 member countries. He has been elected for a three year tenure from 2016 to 2019

Dr. Alok Pareek runs a homeopathic hospital together with his father R.S. Pareek in Agra, India with fifty beds, treating around two hundred patients daily. His clinical practice spans thirty years. This extensive experience has given him a wealth of opportunity to carry out and refine homeopathic treatment in a wide range of acute and emergency situations…  Dr. Pareek demonstrates that homeopathy has much to offer in acute and emergency settings. He aims to increase the confidence of practitioners, to improve results and encourage them to offer safe and effective treatment in this important field, enabling homeopathy to take its place alongside conventional approaches within mainstream medicine. “As an Emergency Medicine physician who deals with life threatening diseases on a daily basis, I found Dr. Pareek’s homeopathic approach to be full of well-rounded clinical criteria and plenty of wise advice to the homeopathic doctor. I truly hope to be in medicine long enough to see us practice ‘hand in hand’ and enjoy the great benefits of this marvelous ‘scientific marriage’ in my emergency medicine patients.” Gladys H. Lopez M.D., M.P.H. USA Board Certified in Emergency ­Medicine

These two quotes might give you a fairly good impression of Dr Alok Pareek.

But why do I dedicate an entire post to him?

The reason is that I was alerted to one of his books entitled ‘Cancer is curable with homeopathy’. Even though it is obviously a translation from English, I could not find the original; so you have to bear with me as I translate for you the German abstract copied below:

75 years of homeopathic experience by father and son from India are expressed in this book about the homeopathic cure of cancers. Based on excellently documented cases, it demonstrates how homeopathy is clearly superior to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. We experience how a cure is possible even for such a serious disease as cancer in advanced stages. Dr D. Spinedi (Switzeralnd) estimates the immense experience of the doctors Pareek as ‘essential basic knowledge that should be accessible to all homeopaths’. It is a book that gives courage to both patients and therapists.

Zusammen 75 Jahre homöopathischer Erfahrung von Vater und Sohn Pareek aus Indien mit Tausenden von Patienten finden in diesem Buch ihren Niederschlag in der homöopathischen Heilung von Krebserkrankungen. Anhand exzellent dokumentierter Fallbeispiele wird gezeigt, wie in klassischer Arbeitsweise die Homöopathie der Chemotherapie und der Strahlentherapie deutlich überlegen ist. Wir erleben mit, wie Heilung bei einer so schweren Krankheit wie Krebs auch noch in fortgeschrittenen Stadien durch Homöopathie möglich ist. Dr. D. Spinedi (Schweiz) wertet die immense Erfahrung der Dres. Pareek als “unverzichtbares Grundlagenwissen, das allen Homöopathen zugänglich sein sollte.” Ein Buch, das Patienten wie Therapeuten Mut macht!

It is by Jove not often that I am speechless, but today, that’s exactly what I am.

The UK Royal Pharmaceutical Society have published a quick reference guide on homeopathy. In it, they make the following 5 ‘key points’:

  • The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) does not endorse homeopathy as a form of treatment because there is no scientific basis for homeopathy nor any evidence to support the clinical efficacy of homeopathic products beyond a placebo effect.
  • The RPS does not support the prescribing of homeopathic products on the NHS.
  • Pharmacists should ensure, wherever possible, that patients do not stop taking their prescribed conventional medication, if they are taking or are considering taking a homeopathic product.
  • Pharmacists must be aware that patients requesting homeopathic products may have serious underlying undiagnosed medical conditions which may require referral to another healthcare professional.
  • Pharmacists must advise patients considering a homeopathic product about their lack of efficacy beyond that of a placebo.

This publication is a few months old, but I only saw it recently. It could not be clearer and it is much more to the point than the General Pharmaceutical Council’s ‘Standards for Pharmacy Professionals‘ which state:

People receive safe and effective care when pharmacy professionals reflect on the application of their knowledge and skills and keep them up-to-date, including using evidence in their decision making. A pharmacy professional’s knowledge and skills must develop over the course of their career to reflect the changing nature of healthcare, the population they provide care to and the roles they carry out. There are a number of ways to meet this standard and below are examples of the attitudes and behaviours expected.

People receive safe and effective care when pharmacy professionals:

  • recognise and work within the limits of their knowledge and skills, and refer to others when needed
  • use their skills and knowledge, including up-to-date evidence, to deliver care and improve the quality of care they provide
  • carry out a range of continuing professional development (CPD) activities relevant to their practice
  • record their development activities to demonstrate that their knowledge and skills are up to date
  • use a variety of methods to regularly monitor and reflect on their practice, skills and knowledge

The two statements together should suffice to finally get some sense into UK pharmacies when it comes to the sale of homeopathic remedies. What is needed now, I think, is an (under-cover?) investigation to see how many UK community pharmacists abide by this guidance.

If anyone has the means to conduct it, I would be delighted to advise them on the best methodology.

Vis a vis the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, why are there so many clinicians (doctors as well as lay practitioners) who still believe that homeopathy is working? And why are there so many patients who still believe that homeopathy is working?

These are questions that puzzle me quite a bit.

Of course, there is no simple, single answer; there are probably dozens. But one reason must be that there are only three possible outcomes after homeopathic treatments, all of which are favourable for homeopathy (at least in the interpretation of proponents of homeopathy). Seen in this light, there simply is no better therapy!

Let me explain:

If a patient consults a homeopath who prescribes a highly diluted homeopathic remedy, she might subsequently:

  1. get better,
  2. get worse,
  3. or experience no change at all.

Analysing these three possibilities, we quickly see that, from the point of view of a convinced homeopath, all are a proof for homeopathy’s effectiveness, and none suggests that the scientific evidence is correct in claiming that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos.

SCENARIO 1

In this situation, it is easy to assume that the remedy was the cause for the clinical improvement. Most clinicians of any discipline fall into this trap, and most patients follow them willingly. Yet, we all know that a temporal relationship is not the same as a causal one (the crowing of a cock before dawn is not the cause of the sun rising). Of course, it is conceivable that the treatment was the cause, but there are several other possibilities as well; just think of the placebo effect, regression towards the mean, and the natural history of the disease. In our case, these non-specific effects are most certainly the cause of our patient’s improvement.

SCENARIO 2

Most clinicians in this situation would start wondering whether they have employed the correct therapy for this patient’s condition – not so the homeopath! He would triumphantly exclaim: “excellent, you are experiencing a ‘homeopathic aggravation’. This is a sure sign that I have given you the optimal remedy. Things will get better soon.” A homeopathic aggravation occurs, according to homeopathic logic, because homeopathy follows the ‘like cures like’ principle. The homeopath prescribes the remedy that would normally cause the symptoms from which his patient is suffering. This means it must also cause these symptoms in every patient. Usually these aggravations are not strong enough to be noticed, but when they are, it is interpreted by homeopaths as a triumph of homeopathy.

SCENARIO 3

In this situation, the homeopath has several options. He can claim “but without my remedy you would be much worse by now. The fact that you are not, shows how very effective homeopathy really is. A more humble homeopaths might explain that the optimal remedy is not always easy to find straight away, and he would therefore proceed in prescribing another one. In both cases, the patient is kept paying for more and homeopathy is presented as an effective therapy.

These three scenarios clearly show that there is no conceivable outcome where any homeopathy-fan would need to consider that scientists are correct in stating that homeopathy is ineffective. And this is one of the reasons why the myth of homeopathy’s effectiveness persists.

Hold on … the patient might be dead!

Yes, that is a rather unfortunate situation for any clinician – except for a homeopath, of course. He would simply point out that the patient must have forgotten to take her medicine. A conventional practitioner might get in trouble, if he tried that excuse; one could easily measure blood levels of the prescribed drug and verify the claim. Not so in homeopathy! Because they contain not a single active molecule, homeopathic remedies are undetectable!

We can easily see that there is no better treatment than homeopathy – at least for the homeopath!

 

 

Needle acupuncture in small children is controversial, not least because the evidence that it works is negative or weak, and because small children are unable to consent to the treatment. Yet it is recommended by some acupuncturists for infant colic. This, of course, begs the questions:

  1. Does the best evidence tell us that acupuncture is effective for infant colic?
  2. Are acupuncturists who recommend acupuncture for this condition responsible and ethical?

This systematic review and a blinding-test validation based on individual patient data from randomised controlled trials was aimed to assess its efficacy for treating infantile colic. Primary end-points were crying time at mid-treatment, at the end of treatment and at a 1-month follow-up. A 30-min mean difference (MD) in crying time between acupuncture and control was predefined as a clinically important difference. Pearson’s chi-squared test and the James and Bang indices were used to test the success of blinding of the outcome assessors [parents].

The investigators included three randomised controlled trials with data from 307 participants. Only one of the included trials obtained a successful blinding of the outcome assessors in both the acupuncture and control groups. The MD in crying time between acupuncture intervention and no acupuncture control was -24.9 min at mid-treatment, -11.4 min at the end of treatment and -11.8 min at the 4-week follow-up. The heterogeneity was negligible in all analyses. The statistically significant result at mid-treatment was lost when excluding the apparently unblinded study in a sensitivity analysis: MD -13.8 min. The registration of crying during treatment suggested more crying during acupuncture.

The authors concluded that percutaneous needle acupuncture treatments should not be recommended for infantile colic on a general basis.

The authors also provide this further comment: “Our blinding test validated IPD meta-analysis of minimal acupuncture treatments of infantile colic did not show clinically relevant effects in pain reduction as estimated by differences in crying time between needle acupuncture intervention and no acupuncture control. Analyses indicated that acupuncture treatment induced crying in many of the children. Caution should therefore be exercised in recommending potentially painful treatments with uncertain efficacy in infants. The studies are few, the analysis is made on small samples of individuals, and conclusions should be considered in this context. With this limitation in mind, our findings do not support the idea that percutaneous needle acupuncture should be recommended for treatment of infantile colic on a general basis.”

So, returning to the two questions that I listed above – what are the answers?

I think they must be:

  1. No.
  2. No.

In the comment section of a recent post, we saw a classic example of the type of reasoning that many alternative practitioners seem to like. In order to offer a service to other practitioners, I will elaborate on it here. The reasoning roughly follows these simple 10 steps:

  1. My treatment works.
  2. My treatment requires a lot of skills, training and experience.
  3. Most people fail to appreciate how subtle my treatment really is.
  4. In fact, only few practitioners manage do it the way it has to be done.
  5. The negative trials of my treatment are false-negative because they were conducted by incompetent practitioners.
  6. In any case, for a whole range of reasons, my treatment cannot be pressed into the straight jacket of a clinical trial.
  7. My treatment is therefore not supported by the type of evidence people who don’t understand it insist upon.
  8. Therefore, we have to rely on the best evidence that is available to date.
  9. And that clearly is the experience of therapists and patients.
  10. So, the best evidence unquestionably confirms that my treatment works.

The case I mentioned above was that of an acupuncturist defending his beloved acupuncture. To a degree, the argument put forward by him sounded (to fellow acupuncturists) reasonable. On closer inspection, however, they seem far less so, perhaps even fallacious. If you are an acupuncturist, you will, of course, disagree with me. Therefore, I invite all acupuncturists to imagine a homeopath arguing in that way (which they often do). Would you still find the line of arguments reasonable?

And what, if you are a homeopath? Then I invite you to imagine that a crystal therapist argues in that way (which they often do). Would you still find the line of arguments reasonable?

And what, if you are a crystal therapist? …

I am not getting anywhere, am I?

To make my point, it might perhaps be best, if I created my very own therapy!

Here we go: it’s called ENERGY PRESERVATION THERAPY (EPT).

I have discovered, after studying ancient texts from various cultures, that the vital energy of our closest deceased relatives can be transferred by consuming their carbon molecules. The most hygienic way to achieve this is to have our deceased relatives cremated and consume their ashes afterwards. The cremation, storage of the ashes, as well as their preparation and regular consumption all have to be highly individualised, of course. But I am certain that this is the only way to preserve their vital force and transfer it to a living relative. The benefits of this treatment are instantly visible.

As it happens, I run special three-year (6 years part-time) courses at the RSM in London to teach other clinicians how exactly to do this. And I should warn you: they are neither cheap nor easy; we are talking of very skilled stuff here.

What! You doubt that my treatment works?

Doubt no more!

Here are 10 convincing arguments for it:

  1. EPT works, I have 10 years of experience and seen hundreds of cases.
  2. EPT requires a lot of skills, training and experience.
  3. Most people fail to appreciate how subtle EPT really is.
  4. In fact, only few practitioners manage do EPT the way it has to be done.
  5. The negative trials of EPT are false-negative because they were conducted by incompetent practitioners.
  6. In any case, for a whole range of reasons, EPT cannot be pressed into the straight jacket of a clinical trial.
  7. EPT is therefore not supported by the type of evidence people who don’t understand it insist upon.
  8. Therefore, we have to rely on the best evidence that is available to date.
  9. And that clearly is the experience of therapists and patients.
  10. So, the best evidence unquestionably confirms that EPT works.

Convinced?

No?

You do surprise me!

Why then are you convinced of the effectiveness of acupuncture, homeopathy, etc?

Having yesterday been to a ‘Skeptics in the Pub’ event on MEDITATION in Cambridge (my home town since last year) I had to think about the subject quite a bit. As I have hardly covered this topic on my blog, I am today trying to briefly summarise my view on it.

The first thing that strikes me when looking at the evidence on meditation is that it is highly confusing. There seem to be:

  • a lack of clear definitions,
  • hundreds of studies, most of which are of poor or even very poor quality,
  • lots of people with ’emotional baggage’,
  • plenty of strange links to cults and religions,
  • dozens of different meditation methods and regimen,
  • unbelievable claims by enthusiasts,
  • lots of weirdly enthusiastic followers.

What was confirmed yesterday is the fact that, once we look at the reliable medical evidence, we are bound to find that the health claims of various meditation techniques are hugely exaggerated. There is almost no strong evidence to suggest that meditation does affect any condition. The small effects that do emerge from some meta-analyses could easily be due to residual bias and confounding; it is not possible to rigorously control for placebo effects in clinical trials of meditation.

Another thing that came out clearly yesterday is the fact that meditation might not be as risk-free as it is usually presented. Several cases of psychoses after meditation are on record; some of these are both severe and log-lasting. How often do they happen? Nobody knows! Like with most alternative therapies, there is no reporting system in place that could possibly give us anything like a reliable answer.

For me, however, the biggest danger with (certain forms of) meditation is not the risk of psychosis. It is the risk of getting sucked into a cult that then takes over the victim and more or less destroys his or her personality. I have seen this several times, and it is a truly frightening phenomenon.

In our now 10-year-old book THE DESKTOP GUIDE TO COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, we included a chapter on meditation. It concluded that “meditation appears to be safe for most people and those with sufficient motivation to practise regularly will probably find a relaxing experience. Evidence for effectiveness in any indication is week.” Even today, this is not far off the mark, I think. If I had to re-write it now, I would perhaps mention the potential for harm and also add that, as a therapy, the risk/benefit balance of meditation fails to be convincingly positive. 

PS

I highly recommend ‘Skeptics in the Pub’ events to anyone who likes stimulating talks and critical thinking.

On this blog, we constantly discuss the shortcomings of clinical trials of (and other research into) alternative medicine. Yet, there can be no question that research into conventional medicine is often unreliable as well.

What might be the main reasons for this lamentable fact?

A recent BMJ article discussed 5 prominent reasons:

Firstly, much research fails to address questions that matter. For example, new drugs are tested against placebo rather than against usual treatments. Or the question may already have been answered, but the researchers haven’t undertaken a systematic review that would have told them the research was not needed. Or the research may use outcomes, perhaps surrogate measures, that are not useful.

Secondly, the methods of the studies may be inadequate. Many studies are too small, and more than half fail to deal adequately with bias. Studies are not replicated, and when people have tried to replicate studies they find that most do not have reproducible results.

Thirdly, research is not efficiently regulated and managed. Quality assurance systems fail to pick up the flaws in the research proposals. Or the bureaucracy involved in having research funded and approved may encourage researchers to conduct studies that are too small or too short term.

Fourthly, the research that is completed is not made fully accessible. Half of studies are never published at all, and there is a bias in what is published, meaning that treatments may seem to be more effective and safer than they actually are. Then not all outcome measures are reported, again with a bias towards those are positive.

Fifthly, published reports of research are often biased and unusable. In trials about a third of interventions are inadequately described meaning they cannot be implemented. Half of study outcomes are not reported.

END OF QUOTE

Apparently, these 5 issues are the reason why 85% of biomedical research is being wasted.

That is in CONVENTIONAL medicine, of course.

What about alternative medicine?

There is no question in my mind that the percentage figure must be even higher here. But do the same reasons apply? Let’s go through them again:

  1. Much research fails to address questions that matter. That is certainly true for alternative medicine – just think of the plethora of utterly useless surveys that are being published.
  2. The methods of the studies may be inadequate. Also true, as we have seen hundreds of time on this blog. Some of the most prevalent flaws include in my experience small sample sizes, lack of adequate controls (e.g. A+B vs B design) and misleading conclusions.
  3. Research is not efficiently regulated and managed. True, but probably not a specific feature of alternative medicine research.
  4. Research that is completed is not made fully accessible. most likely true but, due to lack of information and transparency, impossible to judge.
  5. Published reports of research are often biased and unusable. This is unquestionably a prominent feature of alternative medicine research.

All of this seems to indicate that the problems are very similar – similar but much more profound in the realm of alternative medicine, I’d say based on many years of experience (yes, what follows is opinion and not evidence because the latter is hardly available).

The thing is that, like almost any other job, research needs knowledge, skills, training, experience, integrity and impartiality to do it properly. It simply cannot be done well without such qualities. In alternative medicine, we do not have many individuals who have all or even most of these qualities. Instead, we have people who often are evangelic believers in alternative medicine, want to further their field by doing some research and therefore acquire a thin veneer of scientific expertise.

In my 25 years of experience in this area, I have not often seen researchers who knew that research is for testing hypotheses and not for trying to prove one’s hunches to be correct. In my own team, those who were the most enthusiastic about a particular therapy (and were thus seen as experts in its clinical application), were often the lousiest researchers who had the most difficulties coping with the scientific approach.

For me, this continues to be THE problem in alternative medicine research. The investigators – and some of them are now sufficiently skilled to bluff us to believe they are serious scientists – essentially start on the wrong foot. Because they never were properly trained and educated, they fail to appreciate how research proceeds. They hardly know how to properly establish a hypothesis, and – most crucially – they don’t know that, once that is done, you ought to conduct investigation after investigation to show that your hypothesis is incorrect. Only once all reasonable attempts to disprove it have failed, can your hypothesis be considered correct. These multiple attempts of disproving go entirely against the grain of an enthusiast who has plenty of emotional baggage and therefore cannot bring him/herself to honestly attempt to disprove his/her beloved hypothesis.

The plainly visible result of this situation is the fact that we have dozens of alternative medicine researchers who never publish a negative finding related to their pet therapy (some of them were admitted to what I call my HALL OF FAME on this blog, in case you want to verify this statement). And the lamentable consequence of all this is the fast-growing mountain of dangerously misleading (but often seemingly robust) articles about alternative treatments polluting Medline and other databases.

Doctor Jens Wurster is no stranger to this blog; previously I discussed his claim that he has treated more than 1000 cancer patients homeopathically and we could even cure or considerably ameliorate the quality of life for several years in some, advanced and metastasizing cases. So far, his claims were based not on evidence published in peer-reviewed journals (I cannot find a single Medline-listed paper by this man); but now Wurster has published an article in a German Journal (Wurster J. Zusatznutzen der Homöopathie … Deutsche Zeitschrift für Onkologie 2018; 50: 85–91; not Medline-listed, I am afraid). The paper is in German, but it has an English abstract; here it is:

____________________________________________________________________________

All over the world, oncology patients receive homeopathic treatment concomitant to conventional treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation treatment, in order to reduce the side effects of these therapies. It has been shown that cancer patients, who are receiving homeopathic treatment in addition to conventional therapies, have a higher quality of life and a longer survival rate. Studies in cancer cell research have shown the direct effects of highly potentized homeopathic medicines on tumor cell lines. Tumor inhibiting properties of homeopathic medicines have been proven in vivo as well as in vitro. Research projects into complementary medicine (CAMbrella) and research into personalized immunotherapies as well as additive homeopathy open the door to the future of integrative oncology.

_____________________________________________________________________________

In the article, Wurster states that he has 20 years of experience in treating cancer with homeopathy as an add-on to conventional care, and that he can confirm homeopathy’s effectiveness. He claims that ‘very many’ patients have thus benefitted by experiencing less side-effects of conventional treatments. And he offers two case-reports to illustrate this.

[Nach 20 Jahren klinischer Erfahrung in der Clinica St. Croce im Tessin mit der Behandlung onkologischer Patienten mithilfe der Homöopathie können wir deutlich den Zusatznutzen der Homöopathie in der Onkologie bestätigen [1]. So gelang es unserem Ärzteteam in den zurückliegenden Jahren bei sehr vielen Patienten, durch gezielten Einsatz homöopathischer Mittel die Nebenwirkungen von Chemotherapien oder Bestrahlungen erfolgreich zu reduzieren [1]. Wie dabei Schulmedizin und Homöopathie in der Praxis zusammenwirken, zeigt folgendes Beispiel. ([1] Wurster J. Die homöopathische Behandlung und Heilung von Krebs und metastasierten Tumoren. Norderstedt: Books on Demand; 2015)]

The two case-reports lack detail and are less than convincing, in my view. Both patients have had conventional therapies and Wurster claims that his homeopathic remedies reduced their side-effects. There is no way of verifying this claim, and the improvements might have occurred also without homeopathy.

In the discussion section of his paper, Wurster then elaborates that oncologists throughout Europe are now realising the potential of homeopathy. In support he mentions paediatric oncologists in Klagenfurt who managed to spare pain-killers by giving homeopathics. Similarly, at the Inselspital in Bern, they are offering homeopathic consultations to complement conventional treatments.

[Inzwischen haben auch einige Onkologen erkannt, wie eine gezielt eingesetzte homöopathische Behandlung die Nebenwirkungen von Chemotherapien oder Bestrahlungen reduzieren kann. Wir arbeiten inzwischen mit einigen Onkologen aus ganz Europa zusammen, die den Zusatznutzen der Homöopathie in der Onkologie erlebt haben. In der Kinderonkologie in Klagenfurt beispielsweise konnten mithilfe der Homöopathie Schmerzmittel bei den Kindern eingespart werden. Auch am Inselspital Bern werden zusätzliche homöopathische Konsile in der Kinderonkologie angeboten, um die konventionelle Behandlung begleiten zu können [8].]

At this point, Wurster inserts his reference number 8. As several of his references are either books or websites, this reference to an article in a top journal seems interesting. Here is its abstract:

___________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND:

Though complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are frequently used by children and adolescents with cancer, there is little information on how and why they use it. This study examined prevalence and methods of CAM, the therapists who applied it, reasons for and against using CAM and its perceived effectiveness. Parent-perceived communication was also evaluated. Parents were asked if medical staff provided information on CAM to patients, if parents reported use of CAM to physicians, and what attitude they thought physicians had toward CAM.

STUDY DESIGN:

All childhood cancer patients treated at the University Children‘s Hospital Bern between 2002-2011 were retrospectively surveyed about their use of CAM.

RESULTS:

Data was collected from 133 patients (response rate: 52%). Of those, 53% had used CAM (mostly classical homeopathy) and 25% of patients received information about CAM from medical staff. Those diagnosed more recently were more likely to be informed about CAM options. The most frequent reason for choosing CAM was that parents thought it would improve the patient’s general condition. The most frequent reason for not using CAM was lack of information. Of those who used CAM, 87% perceived positive effects.

CONCLUSIONS:

Since many pediatric oncology patients use CAM, patients’ needs should be addressed by open communication between families, treating oncologists and CAM therapists, which will allow parents to make informed and safe choices about using CAM.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Any hope that this paper might back up the statements made by Wurster is thus disappointed.

Altogether, this Wurster-paper contains no reliable evidence. The only clinical trial it seems to rely on is the one by Prof Frass which we have discussed previously here and here. The Frass-study is odd in several ways and, before we can take its results seriously, we need to see an independent replication of its findings. In this context, it is noteworthy that my own 2006 systematic review concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care. In view of all this, I feel that the new Wurster-paper provides no reliable evidence and no reason to change my now somewhat dated conclusion of 2006. Moreover, I would insist that those who claim otherwise are unethical and behave irresponsible.

And finally, I need to reiterate what I stated in my previous post: the Wurster-paper indicates that something is amiss with medical publishing. How can it be that, in 2018, the ‘Deutsche Zeitschrift für Onkologie’ (or any other medical journal for that matter) can be so bar of critical thinking to publish such dangerously misleading nonsense? The editors of this journal (Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Arndt Büssing, Witten/Herdecke; Dr. med. Peter Holzhauer, Bad Trissl und München) and its editorial board members (L. Auerbach, Wien; C. Bahne Bahnson, Kiel; J. Büntzel, Nordhausen; B. Freimüller-Kreutzer, Heidelberg; H.R. Maurer, Berlin; A. Mayr, Starnberg; R. Moss, New York; T. Ostermann, Witten/Herdecke; K. Prasad, Denver; G. Pulverer, Köln; H. Renner, Nürnberg; C.P. Siegers, Lübeck; W. Schmidt, Greifswald; G. Uhlenbruck, Köln; B. Wolf, München; K.S. Zänker, Witten/Herdecke) should ask themselves whether they are taking their moral obligations seriously enough, or whether their behaviour is not a violation of their most fundamental ethical duties.

In our book ‘MORE HARM THAN GOOD‘ we allude to such problems as follows: …Spurious results are frequently paraded by CAM advocates in support of implausible treatments… the more poorly conceived and executed a research project is, the more likely it is to produce false-positive results. These results then may lead to repetitive cycles of unproductive work to explain what was found—often to simply disprove the erroneous results. This is an unfortunate feature of various fields of scientific research, but it has particularly serious implications in medical research. Moreover, researchers who practice and behave as advocates of CAM may unintentionally or deliberately distort or exaggerate weak findings. Invalid CAM research claims tend not to be put to rest; instead they are repeatedly recycled…

And:

The CAM practitioner who promotes untruths has either failed to enlighten themselves as to the facts—this being a central requirement of professional ethics— or has chosen to deliberately deceive patients. Either of these reasons for promulgating falsehoods amounts to a serious breach in terms of virtue ethics. According to almost all forms of ethical theory, the truth-violating nature of CAM renders it immoral in both theory and practice.

The damage that can result from such violations of medical ethics is not merely a matter for the ‘ivory towers of academia’, it can virtually be a matter of life and death.

Why  do most alternative practitioners  show such dogged determination not to change their view of the efficacy of their therapy, even if  good evidence shows that it is a placebo? This is the question that I have been pondering for some time. I have seen many doctors change their mind about this or that treatment in the light of new evidence. In fact, I have not seen one who has not done so at some stage. Yet I have never seen an alternative therapist change his/her mind about his/her alternative therapy. Why is that?

You might say that the answers are obvious:

  • because they have heavily invested in their therapy, both emotionally and financially;
  • because their therapy has ‘stood the test of time’;
  • because they believe what they were taught;
  • because they are deluded, not very bright, etc.;
  • because they need to earn a living.

All of these reasons may apply. But do they really tell the whole story? While contemplating about this question, I thought of something that had previously not been entirely clear to me: they simply KNOW that the evidence MUST be wrong.

Let me try to explain.

Consider an acupuncturist (I could have chosen almost any other type of alternative practitioner) who has many years of experience. He has grown to be a well-respected expert in the world of acupuncture. He sits on various committees and has advised important institutions. He knows the literature and has treated thousands of patients.

This experience has taught him one thing for sure: his patients do benefit from his treatment. He has seen it happening too many times; it cannot be a coincidence. Acupuncture works, no question about it.

And this is also what the studies tell him. Even the most sceptical scientist cannot deny the fact that patients do get better after acupuncture. So, what is the problem?

The problem is that sceptics say that this is due to a placebo effect, and many studies seem to confirm this to be true. Yet, our acupuncturist completely dismisses the placebo explanation.

Why?

  • Because he has heavily invested in their therapy? Perhaps.
  • Because acupuncture has ‘stood the test of time’? Perhaps.
  • Because he believes what he has been taught? Perhaps.
  • Because he is deluded, not very bright, etc.? Perhaps.
  • Because he needs to earn a living? Perhaps.

But there is something else.

He has only ever treated his patients with acupuncture. He has therefore no experience of real medicine, or other therapeutic options. He has no perspective. Therefore, he does not know that patients often get better, even if they receive an ineffective treatment, even if they receive no treatment, and even if they receive a harmful treatment. Every improvement he notes in his patients, he relates to his acupuncture. Our acupuncturist never had the opportunity to learn to doubt cause and effect in his clinical routine. He never had to question the benefits of acupuncture. He never had to select from a pool of therapies the optimal one, because he only ever used acupuncture.

It is this lack of experience that never led him to think critically about acupuncture. He is in a similar situation as physicians were 200 years ago; they only (mainly) had blood-letting, and because some patients improved with it, they had no reason to doubt it. He only ever saw his successes (not that all his patients improved, but those who did not, did not return). He simply KNOWS that acupuncture works, because his own, very limited experience never forced him to consider anything else. And because he KNOWS, the evidence that does not agree with his knowledge MUST be wrong.

I am of course exaggerating and simplifying in order to make a point. And please don’t get me wrong.

I am not saying that doctors cannot be stubborn. And I am not saying that all alternative practitioners have such limited experience and are unable to change their mind in the light of new evidence. However, I am trying to say that many alternative practitioners have a limited perspective and therefore find it impossible to be critical about their own practice.

If I am right, there would be an easy (and entirely alternative) cure to remedy this situation. We should sent our acupuncturist to a homeopath (or any other alternative practitioner whose practice he assumes to be entirely bogus) and ask him to watch what kind of therapeutic success the homeopath is generating. The acupuncturist would soon see that it is very similar to his own. He would then have the choice to agree that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are effective in curing illness, or that the homeopath relies on the same phenomenon as his own practice: placebo.

Sadly, this is not going to happen, is it?

 

1 2 3 7
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.”


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories