fallacy
This study aimed to determine the effects of Reiki on pain and biochemical parameters in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. This investigation was designed as a “single-blind, repeated measures, randomized prospective controlled study”. It was conducted between August 2022 and April 2023 with patients who underwent autologous bone marrow transplantation (BMT).
- In the Reiki group (n = 21), Reiki therapy was applied directly to the energy centers for 30 min on the 0th and 1st day of BMT, and from a distance for 30 min on the 2nd day.
- No intervention was performed on the control group (n = 21).
Data were collected using the Personal Information Form, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and biochemical parameters. Pain and biochemical parameters were evaluated on days 0, 1, 2, and 10 before the Reiki application.
There were no statistically significant differences in pain scores between the groups before the intervention (p > .005). The Reiki group showed a significant improvement in the mean VAS score compared with the control group on days 1 and 2 (p = .002; p < .001, respectively). The measurement of procalcitonin showed a decrease in the Reiki group and an increase in the control group (p = .026, p = .001, p < .001, respectively). Although the Reiki group had better absolute neutrophil, thrombocyte, and C-reactive protein values than the control group, no significant difference was observed between the groups (p > .05).
The authors concluded that Reiki is effective for pain control and enhancing the immune system response.
For the following reasons, I beg to differ:
- The patients of the verum group were fully aware of receiving the therapy; thus they were expecting/hoping to benefit from it.
- The patients of the control group received no therapy; thus they were disappointed which may have influenced thie VAS ratings.
- The procalcitonin levels are of doubtful relevance; they changed only within the group which, in a controlled clinical trial that is supposed to compare groups is meaningless and most likely a chance finding.
- The only people who could have been blinded in this ‘single blind’ study were the evaluators of the results (even though the authors state that “patients were blinded to the group assignments”) which is meaningless if patients and therapists are not blinded.
Because of all this, I feel that the conclusions should be re-written:
Reiki is known to cause a placebo effect which most likely caused the observed outcomes.
Available data suggest that general practitioners (GPs) in Germany use so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) modalities more frequently than GPs in many other countries. German researchers investigated the country differences perceived by GPs who have worked in Germany and in one of four other European countries with regard to the role of SCAM in primary care.
A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 12 GPs who had worked both in Germany and Italy, the Netherlands, Norway or the United Kingdom (UK; n = 3 for each of the four countries). Participants were asked how they perceived and experienced country differences regarding health system, relevance of SCAM modalities, the role of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and science, and how they handle so-called indeterminate situations. For the analysis, we followed a thematic analysis approach according to Braun and Clarke with focus on themes that cover SCAM.
Participants unanimously reported that they perceived SCAM to be more relevant in general practice in Germany compared to the other countries. The researchers identified four overarching themes in relation to the perceived reasons for these differences.
- Physicians with experiences in countries with a strong EBM and science orientation (Netherlands, Norway and the UK) considered the deeply ingrained view in national healthcare systems and GP communities that SCAM modalities are not evidence-based as the main reason for the lower use of SCAM by GPs.
- Extensive training of communication skills was cited as a reason that reduced the need for SCAM in the Netherlands, Norway and the UK.
- Differences in patient expectations and demands were perceived as a factor contributing to greater utilisation of SCAM by German GPs compared to the other countries.
- Country-specific reimbursement mechanisms were considered as a factor influencing the role of SCAM in general practice.
The authors concluded that their study results point to major differences between countries with regard to the role of SCAM in GP care. Differences in basic attitudes in the discipline of general practice, patient expectations and system conditions appear to play an important role here.
The authors comment that a remarkable finding is the very consistent narrative with regard to the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom that a stronger scientific and EBM orientation is seen as the main reason for the lower utilisation of SCAM by GPs compared to Germany. I agree that this is an important and, as far as I can see, new aspect. It concurrs with my personal impression that many German doctors feel that EBM is some sort of ‘KOCHBUCH MEDIZIN’ [cookbook medicine] that limits their freedom of prescribing based on intuition and experience. This, I have always felt, is a profound misunderstanding of what EBM is about.
You might remember that I recently reported of TWO studies sponsored by the ‘Carstens Stiftung’ and wonder whether the second is any better that the first. Here is its published outline: Multimodal online programme and biosignal analysis:
Here, too, the basic principles of a plant-based wholefood diet, Kneipp hydrotherapy, naturopathic self-help strategies and elements of holistic therapy and mind-body medicine are taught – but online. ‘The study represents a prototype for the optimal use of modern digital tools in naturopathic care situations and could serve as a best-practice model for online therapy approaches,’ says Dr Michael Jeitler, Deputy Research Coordinator at the Charité University Outpatient Clinic for Naturopathy at Immanuel Hospital Berlin. There is an urgent need for this, as it is known that only one sixth of the population in Germany is reached with appropriate lifestyle interventions taught in a practical manner.
The hypothesis: The physical resilience of patients with post-COVID syndrome improves more with a combination of naturopathic therapy in an online setting and routine care than with routine care alone. A total of 120 subjects will be included in the two-arm randomised controlled trial.
Group 1 will receive online training lasting 120 minutes once a week over a period of 2 months. In addition, there will be a recommendation to consolidate what has been learnt in daily 30-minute exercises at home. An online diary will also be kept. The observation period per patient is 12 months.
Group 2 will initially be placed on a waiting list.
A highlight of the project is a physiological sub-study focusing on the establishment and validation of a biosignal characterisation of post-COVID syndrome and in particular the prominent symptoms of fatigue. To this end, heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, pulse, electrodermal activity and brain activity are measured simultaneously in patients with fatigue. ‘This approach should make it possible to objectively quantify the clinical symptom changes of fatigue, which have been difficult to objectify up to now,’ says Jeitler. ‘We hope to gain a better understanding of fatigue itself and its role in post-COVID syndrome. Ideally, this will improve diagnosis in the future.’
There will also be an embedded qualitative sub-study. After two months, both some of the test subjects and the GPs treating them will be interviewed individually about their perceptions and experiences in order to better adapt the naturopathic interventions to the needs and requirements of the patients in the long term.
_________________________
What is in my view particularly noteworthy is the fact that both studies pretend (like proper science) to test a hypothesis. This is, of course, not true. A true test of a hypothesis would be open to either its confirmation or its rejection. However, with the present study we have a situation where only a confirmation is on the cards. This discloses one thing very clearly: we are dealing here not with proper science, but with proper pseudoscience.
This study follows (just as the first trial) a ‘A+B versus B’ design and thus has the same major flaws as the first trial sponsored by the ‘Carstens Stiftung’. The reason for using this study design seems all too obvious: it will always generate a positive outcome. There is, of course, a prize: the study is unable to show that the intervention has any effects other than placebo. The Carstens Stiftung is happy to pay this price; their main interest seems to be not to answer meaningful research questions but to generate findings that lend themselves to promoting so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
The JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS (I did not even know such a journal existed) recently carried a most interesting article. Here is its abstract:
Consumers spend billions of dollars per year on homeopathic products. But there is powerful evidence that these products don’t work, i.e., they are not medically effective. Should homeopathic products be for sale? I give reason for thinking that the answer is ‘no.’ It has been suggested that the sale of homeopathic products involves deception. This might be so in some cases, but the problem is simpler: it is that these products don’t do what people buy them to do. More precisely, homeopathic products don’t meet the “desire-satisfaction condition,” according to which products for sale in markets should satisfy the desires that people buy them to satisfy. I defend my view against objections, and conclude by acknowledging some of the practical difficulties of banning products people want to buy.
Allow me to introduce you to the logic of the author, Jeffrey Moriarty, in a little more detail. Essentially, he argues as follows:
- There is powerful evidence that homeopathic products don’t work, i.e., they are not medically effective. As we have discussed ad nauseam on my blog, this is certainly true.
- Thus they don’t meet the “desire-satisfaction condition,” according to which the sale of a product should satisfy the desire(s) that people buy it to satisfy. Regulators prohibit retailers from advertising in ways that cause reasonable people to have materially false beliefs. It doesn’t matter to regulators whether advertisers cause false beliefs intentionally, and therefore deceive consumers, or unintentionally, and therefore merely mislead them. The point is to prevent consumers from acting on false information; however, they acquire it.
- If a product doesn’t meet the “desire-satisfaction condition” condition, then there is a presumption against selling it. When people act on false information in markets, they are likely to make themselves worse off. We can understand how this works in terms of the satisfaction of desires. People engage in market exchanges in order to satisfy their desires. When their desires are satisfied as a result of market exchange, they are better off. You want a car that runs and seek to buy one. When you purchase the car, and it does run, you are better off. But when people act on false information, they are likely to frustrate rather than satisfy their desires. As a result, they are likely to be worse off. If the car you purchase doesn’t run, you are worse off. You spent your money on something you didn’t want.
- The products people buy should satisfy the desires they buy them to satisfy. This is the “desire-satisfaction condition” for market exchange. Transactions that reliably don’t result in desire-satisfaction are problematic. Because desires aren’t satisfied, this is evidence that value isn’t being created; the party whose desires are not satisfied is worse off. Since markets should make people better off, there is a presumption against allowing these transactions.
- The author states that his arguments also apply to other medicines and medical treatments that we have powerful reason to believe don’t work.
Jeffrey Moriatry concludes: When people purchase homeopathic products, they act on false information, and in doing so, fail to satisfy their desires. This is a sign that the purchase does not create value for them. Since market transactions should create value, there is a presumption in favor of prohibiting this transaction … we give states broad authority to decide what sorts of products can and can’t be sold, including medicines. This suggests that people generally think that banning the sale of certain products, despite the costs of doing so, is worth it. It also suggests that people think that the state uses its power competently and fairly—or at least that it doesn’t use it so incompetently and unfairly that it is better for the state not to have this power. The state would be doing nothing out of the ordinary in prohibiting the sale of homeopathic products.
_________________________
These arguments are interesting and relevant (sorry, if I have not represented them fully; I recommend reading the full article). Personally, I have never argued that the sales of homeopathics should be banned; I felt that good and responsible information is essential and would eventually reduce sales to an insignificant level. Yet, after reading this paper, I have to admit that its arguments make sense.
I’d love to hear what you think about them.
Vaccine hesitancy has been defined as a continuum of attitudes, ranging from accepting vaccines with doubts to rejecting them. For good reasons, the topic has featured regularly on this blog, e.g.:
- Anthroposophic medicine and vaccine hesitancy: are there links?
- Endorsement of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and vaccine hesitancy among physicians
- So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and vaccine hesitancy among physicians: findings from Germany, Finland, Portugal, and France
- Echo chambers of vaccine hesitancy and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- Vaccine hesitancy and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- How to reduce vaccination hesitancy?
- Reasons for parental hesitancy or refusal of childhood vaccination
- Intelligence, Religiosity, SCAM, Vaccination Hesitancy – are there links?
- The American Medical Association take a stand against chiropractors, naturopaths, or homeopaths granting medical exemptions to vaccines
- Attitudes of Vaccination-Hesitant Parents Towards So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM)
- Do views about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), nature and god influence people’s vaccination intentions?
This new study aimed to explore the heterogeneity of a childhood-vaccine-hesitant group by using a person-oriented approach, i.e. latent profile analysis.
A non-representative cross-sectional sample of vaccine-hesitant Slovenians (N = 421, Mage = 35.21, 82.9% women) was used to identify differences based on their
- reliance on personal research (“self” researching instead of relying on science),
- over-confidence in knowledge,
- endorsement of conspiracy theories,
- complementary and alternative medicine,
- trust in the healthcare system.
The analysis revealed three profiles of vaccine-hesitant individuals. The most hesitant profile—vaccine rejecting—expressed the greatest reliance on personal research, expressed the highest endorsement of conspiracy theories and complementary and alternative medicine, showed moderate overconfidence in their knowledge, and expressed the highest levels of distrust in the healthcare system. Furthermore, the researchers found differences in sociodemographic structure and noted that the identified profiles differed in their attitudes regarding MMR, HPV, and Seasonal Influenza vaccinations.
The authors concluded as follows: our findings not only further confirm the heterogeneous nature of vaccine-hesitant groups but also offer critical insights for public health interventions. By acknowledging the existence of distinct profiles within the vaccine-hesitant population, strategies can be tailored to address the nuanced beliefs and attitudes of these subgroups more effectively.
- Skeptics who already express a certain level of trust in healthcare, may be most receptive to messages from medical professionals. Given that skeptics are typically older, higher-educated men, interventions could focus on leveraging their existing trust in healthcare professionals and providing detailed, evidence-based information to address their specific concerns.
- Self-directed researchers, who are characterized by high endorsement of CAM and conspiracy theories and moderate over-confidence, could benefit from interventions involving trusted community figures or CAM medicine experts who can bridge the gap between traditional and CAM perspectives. In addition, reaching out to younger women in this group through online platforms and providing credible information that counteracts misinformation could be effective.
- Conventionalists, who have the highest trust in the healthcare system and tend to include more educated individuals with a left-leaning political orientation, may respond well to public health messages that emphasize the collective benefits of vaccination. Campaigns could focus on reinforcing their positive views on the efficacy, safety, and importance of vaccines while leveraging their trust in physicians and public health institutions.
The effectiveness of targeted interventions for each specific subgroup could then also be examined, employing insights from the present study. For instance, tailored communication strategies could be tested to determine which messages and messengers are the most effective in regard to changing attitudes and behaviors within each profile.
I better start this post with an appology: I am going to try and explain something that is rather obvious to rational thinkers. But recently, we had comments on this blog that made it clear to me that some of my readers are are far from rational. They have suggested that the real life test of a therapy like homeopathy is the survival rate of hospitals where this therapy is being used.
So why are the mortality rates in homeopathic hospitals lower that for normal hosptials?
Does that fact not prove the value of homeopathy?
No!
Why not?
Because with every comparison we need to make sure that we compare comparable things.
Patients who are admitted to homeopathic hospitals are very different from those in a normal hospital. To put it in a nutshell: THEY ARE FAR LESS SERIOUSLY ILL.
I should know that because I worked both in a homeopathic hospital and in several normal ones.
Most patients who chose to go to a homeopathic hospital are chronically unwell. Some do have a chronic illness but many others are not truly ill. Hardly anyone has a life-threatening disease.
During the months I worked in a homeopathic hospital, we only had to report one single fatality. I do remember many patients with asthma, allergies, neck pain, obseity, insomnia and similar conditions. During a comparable time period when I worked in a normal hospital of a similar size, we had dozens of fatalities.
I am sure that we all have sad experiences of a seriously ill relative or friend. Because her diesease is so serious she gets worse and worse. Eventually, home care does not suffice and she is admitted to hospital. We hope that there her life will be saved. Sadly, this is not always the case.
In other words, moribund patients are often rushed to hospital where many of them die. They are not rushed to a homeopathic hospital!
Or, to put it bluntly, the ‘real life test’ of measuring death rates of homeopathic (or naturopathic, integrative, etc.) hospitals and comparing them with the usually high mortality rates of normal hospitals is not just unreliable, it is meaningless rubbish.
As I stated above, all of this is entirely obvious – except, of course, for the deluded.
PS
There are comparisons between two or more hospitals that can provide useful information; they usually relate to specific conditions or interventions, e.g. hip replacement in hospital A versus hip replacement in hospital B.
Individuals with large followings can influence public opinions and behaviors, especially during a pandemic. In the early days of the COVID pandemic, US president Donald J Trump endorsed the use of unproven therapies. Subsequently, a death attributed to the wrongful ingestion of a chloroquine-containing compound occurred.
This paper investigated Donald J Trump’s speeches and Twitter posts, as well as Google searches and Amazon purchases, and television airtime for mentions of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, and remdesivir. Twitter sourcing was catalogued with Factba.se, and analytics data, both past and present, were analyzed with Tweet Binder to assess average analytics data on key metrics. Donald J Trump’s time spent discussing unverified treatments on the United States’ 5 largest TV stations was catalogued with the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone, and his speech transcripts were obtained from White House briefings. Google searches and shopping trends were analyzed with Google Trends. Amazon purchases were assessed using Helium 10 software.
From March 1 to April 30, 2020, Donald J Trump made 11 tweets about unproven therapies and mentioned these therapies 65 times in White House briefings, especially touting hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. These tweets had an impression reach of 300% above Donald J Trump’s average. Following these tweets, at least 2% of airtime on conservative networks for treatment modalities like azithromycin and continuous mentions of such treatments were observed on stations like Fox News. Google searches and purchases increased following his first press conference on March 19, 2020, and increased again following his tweets on March 21, 2020. The same is true for medications on Amazon, with purchases for medicine substitutes, such as hydroxychloroquine, increasing by 200%.
The authors concluded that individuals in positions of power can sway public purchasing, resulting in undesired effects when the individuals’ claims are unverified. Public health officials must work to dissuade the use of unproven treatments for COVID-19.
Trump is by no means the only politician who misled the public in matters of healthcare through ignorance, or stupidity, or both. Other recent examples that we previously discussed include, for instance:
- Kirsty Adams (UK) – UK politician dabbles in faith healing
- Andrew Bridgen (UK) – British politician punished for calling COVID-vaccination the “biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust”
- Norbert Hofer (Austria) – When politicians become snake-oil salesmen
- Penny Mordaunt (UK) – Penny Mordaunt, defender of homeopathy
- Jeremy Corbyn (UK) – Jeremy Corbyn and homeopathy
- David Tredennick (UK) – David Tredinnick: perhaps the worst example of scientific illiteracy in government?
Yes, Trump is not the only, but he is the most influential and might well be the most ignorant one:
- Words of wisdom from Donald Trump on science and related matters
- The ‘Trump-Effect’ on vaccination attitudes
- Trump seems to think that UV might be the answer to the corona-pandemic – could he mean “ultraviolet blood irradiation”?
- Andrew Wakefield, Donald Trump, SCAM, and the anti-vaccination cult
- Unbelievable: ‘THE TRUMP WELLNESS-PLAN’
For this reason alone – and there are many more – I hope he will not soon become merely a dark and scary chapter in the history of the US.
To accuse anyone of an abuse of science is a hefty charge, I know. In the case of proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) doing science, it is, however, often justified. Let me explain this by using the example of chiropractors (I could have chosen homeopathy, faith heaalers, acupuncturists or almost any other type of SCAM professional, but in recent times it was the chiros who provided the clearest examples of abuse).
Science can be seen as a set of tools that is used to estabish the truth. In therapeutics, science is employed foremost to answer three questions:
- Is the therapy plausible?
- Is the therapy effective?
- Is the therapy safe?
The way to answer them is to falsify the underlying hypotheses, i.e. to demonstrate that:
- The therapy is not plausible.
- The therapy is not effective.
- The therapy is not safe.
Only if rigorous attempts at falsifying these hypotheses have falied can we conclude that:
- The therapy is plausible.
- The therapy is effective.
- The therapy is safe.
I know, this is rather elementary stuff. It is taught during the first lessons of any decent science course. Yet, proponents of SCAM are either not being properly taught or they are immune to even the most basic facts about science. On this blog, we regularly have the opportunity to observe exactly that when we read and are bewildered by the comments made by SCAM proponents. This is often clearest in the case of chiropractors.
- They cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, is plausible.
- They cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, is effective.
- They cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, is safe.
If they conduct research, they set up their investigations in such a way that they confirm their beliefs:
- Spinal manipulations are plausible.
- Spinal manipulations are effective.
- Spinal manipulations are safe.
In other words, they do not try to falsify hypotheses, but they do their very best to confirm them. And this, I am afraid, is nothing other than an abuse of science.
QED
And how can the average consumer (who may not always be in a position to realize whether a study is reliable or not) tell when such abuse of science is occurring? How can he or she decide who to trust and who not?
A simplest but sadly not fool-proof advice might consist in 2 main points:
- Never rely on a single study.
- Check whether there is a discrepancy in the results and views of SCAM proponents and independent experts; e.g.:
- Chiropractors claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Homeopath claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Acupuncturists claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Energy healers claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Naturopaths claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced.
- Etc., etc.
In all of those cases, your alarm bells should ring and it might be wise to be cautious and avoid the treatment in question.
This study sought to identify if an Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) integrating complementary medicine has low antibiotic prescribing.
The researchers conducted a retrospective analysis at the level-2 NICU of the Filderklinik, an integrative medicine hospital in Southern Germany, to compare antibiotic use locally and internationally; to compare neonates with suspected infection, managed with and without antibiotics; and to describe use and safety of complementary medicinal products.
Among 7778 live births, 1086 neonates were hospitalized between 2014 and 2017. Two hundred forty-six were diagnosed with suspected or confirmed infection, their median gestational age was 40.3 weeks (range 29-42), 3.25% had a birthweight <2500 g, 176 were treated with antibiotics for a median duration of 4 days, 6 had culture-proven infection (0.77 per 1000 live births), and 2.26% of live births were started on antibiotics. A total of 866 antibiotic treatment days corresponded to 111 antibiotic days per 1000 live births and 8.8 antibiotic days per 100 hospital days. Neonates managed with antibiotics more often had fever and abnormal laboratory parameters than those managed without. Complementary medicinal products comprising 71 different natural substances were used, no side effect or adverse event were described. A subanalysis using the inclusion criteria of a recent analysis of 13 networks in Europe, North America, and Australia confirmed this cohort to be among the lowest prescribing networks.
The authors concluded that antibiotic use was low in this NICU in both local and international comparison, while the disease burden was in the mid-range, confirming an association between integrative medicine practice and low antibiotic prescribing in newborns. Complementary medicinal products were widely used and well tolerated.
I have often suggested that somone does a study to assess the usage of meat products in a vegetarian restaurant. I am sure it would generate resuts that are at least as meaningful as the ones reported by the team of anthroposophic geniuses responsible for this paper. Here are their affiliations:
- 1ARCIM Institute, Filderstadt, Germany.
- 2Department of Pediatrics, Filderklinik, Filderstadt, Germany.
- 3Department of Neonatology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
- 4Center for Integrative Pediatrics, Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland.
- 5Department of Community Health, Fribourg University, Fribourg, Switzerland.
- 6Institute of Precision Medicine, University Furtwangen, Furtwangen, Germany.
Say no more!
In the previous 3 parts of this series (see here, here and here), we have discussed 9 fake diagnoses of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM):
- adrenal fatigue,
- candidiasis hypersensitivity,
- chronic intoxications,
- chronic Lyme disease,
- electromagnetic hypersensitivity,
- homosexuality,
- leaky gut syndrome,
- multiple chemical sensitivity,
- neurasthenia.
Today I will briefly discuss three further fake diagnoses and list the treatments that SCAM practitioners might recommend for them.
Vaccine overload
Vaccine overload is a term for the notion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a patient’s immune system which, in turn, is alleged to lead to adverse effects. Because children have an immature immune system, they are claimed to be afflicted most frequently.
There is no evidence that vaccine overload exists nor that it can lead to illness. This does not stop SCAM practitioners to apply or recommend all sorts of SCAMs for the imagined condition. Particular favourites are all sorts of detox diets, homeopathy and a wide range of dietary supplements. Such diets and supplements can be tricky for younger children. In this case, SCAM practitioners recommend, amongst many other things, smoothies or adding turmeric, ginger, and small amounts of Shillington’s adult supplements to the child’s food.
None of these recommendations are supported by anything resembling sound evidence, of course.
Vertebral subluxation
On this blog, we have discussed vertebral subluxations more often than I care to remember. Chiropractors claim that these figments of their imagination impair the flow of innate which, in turn, makes us ill. Straight chiros, those who adhere to the gospel of their guru DD Palmer, diagnose subluxations in 100% of their patients. They are undeterred by the fact that vertebral subluxations do not exist.
I can understand why! If they did aknowledge that the diagnosis is fake, they would have no reason to treat patients with spinal manipulations, and they would quickly go out of business.
Yin/Yang imbalance
According to the assumptions of practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), all health problems arise from an imbalaance of the two life forces , yin and yang. To restore the balance, they employ a range of therapies such as acupuncture, herbal mixtures, massages, etc.
But these life forces do not exist. Thus they cannot be out of balance, and consequently the imbalance cannot cause illness. TCM practitioners don’t want to hear any of this. Why not? You guessed it: if they aknowledged these facts, they would need to stop practising.
____________________
Fake diagnoses are the life-line of many SCAM practitioners:
- they tell you that something is wrong with you (despite the fact that you are entirely healthy);
- they make sure that this is a reason for serious concern;
- they claim they can put the alleged abnormality right again;
- they administer a lengthy series of treatments and/or sell you plenty of remedies;
- when they have earned enough money treating you, they give you the good news: you are back to narmal;
- gullible consumers are impressed by the unfailing competence of the SCAM practitioners.
My conclusion:
there is nothing easier and more profitably to heal that a condition that did not exist in the first place.
