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

fallacy

1 2 3 10

Prof. Shailendra Ramchandra Vishampayan is the 1st author of the paper we discussed yesterday. He was kind enough to repeatedly join us in the comments section, and I was therefore keen to learn more about him. On his website, he says about himself that he is a renowned academician and famous homeopath, enriched with decades of ideal experiences and quality services. He is registered medical practitioner (M.D), performs all the duties of registered medical practitioner following the law of land in India. Globally he is considered as homeopath and known as “Dr.V”. He is a registered member of Society of Homeopaths (overseas).

Dr. V, is a practicing homeopath with clinical experience of over 20 years. In course of his years of practice he had successfully helped more than 250 happy families globally, with various kinds of cases like thyroid, immune compromised, epilepsy, endocrine disorders, paediatric, gynaecological disorders addictions, psychiatric disorder, children with special needs, pets and plants.

He is famous for his path breaking concept and novel idea of creating an organization called ‘Folk Homeopathy ‘, which is dedicated to professional enrichment of homeopathic practitioners helping them to improve their clinical acumen with spot on prescription.

His practical approach in solving cases has earned him accolades and fame throughout the globe.

Dr. V is the author of ‘Kinder Garten Materia Medica’ a reference book for beginners widely used by homeopathic students in India. It is a book with unique combination of pictorial and pneumonic.

He is a Professor (PG) at D.Y.Patil Homeopathy Medical College (Pune). He has a teaching experience of over 16 years in teaching UG and PG. He has drawn large number of followers through webinars which is accessible throughout the globe. He has given more than 50 international seminar ,workshops and webinars in countries like USA, Ireland, Malaysia, with presentations on Homeopathic approach to female hormonal imbalance cases at OMICS Conference of Alternative Medicine, presentation on Psychiatric cases at Asian Homeopathic League. And various presentation at University of Cyberjaya, Malaysia, California Homeopathic Medical society, San Diego and also at Corte Madera, 98th FOH Congress, Liverpool and Kinvara Co Galway, Ireland.

And on the same site, we also learn that ‘Dr V’ is particularly adept at treating diabetes:

India is now considered as the diabetes capital of the world. Approximately 8.7 percent of Indians between the age of 20 to 70 years are diabetic. This translates to approximately 62.5 million diabetics living in India, according to estimates by the World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) The economic burden of managing this disease is also substantial since this is a combination of cost of treatment and loss of productivity in such a high number of diabetics. Diabetes can affect multiple organ systems resulting in a wide range of serious issues in patients. Many of these complications in a diabetic do not have any specific treatment with conventional medicines. However, an indication of the popularity of homeopathy amongst diabetics is that the doctors at our clinic treat approximately two hundred cases of diabetes or diabetes related issues every day. We have, in fact, developed specific diabetes management protocols for patients based on the experience of thousands of cases we have seen over four decades.

This is interesting, I thought, and conducted a few Medline searches to see whether there is any evidence to show that homeopathy is an effective therapy for diabetes. I am afraid, I found no papers of ‘Dr V’ to suggest such an effect. But what I did find was certainly fascinating.

Last year, Italian diabetologists published an review entitled ‘Alternative treatment or alternative to treatment? A systematic review of randomized trials on homeopathic preparations for diabetes and obesity‘. Here is what they reported:

The searches failed to retrieve any trial comparing homeopathic remedies with placebo or any active drug for the treatment of either diabetes or obesity.

These authors commented that

… if homeopathy is used as an alternative to available and effective treatments, the consequences can be catastrophic, particularly in some conditions such as insulin-requiring diabetes. In conclusion, there is no scientific evidence on efficacy and no demonstration of safety of homeopathy in diabetes and obesity…

I agree with my Italian colleagues and I have previously expressed this view bluntly; I even entitled one of my posts ‘This is how homeopathy could kill millions‘.

‘Dr V’ will probably point out that he is a fully qualified doctor and uses homeopathy merely as an adjunct to conventional anti-diabetic treatments; thus he kills nobody.

I certainly hope this is so! But, even in this case, I must still ask: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HOMEOPATHY IS AN EFFECTIVE ADJUNCT TO CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE?

Recently, I have received this message via the comments section of my blog:

“you’re actually an evil old nut-job Ed—been following your pharma ‘science’ bullshit for years—all opinion and ignorance and anti-science”

Don’t get me wrong, such attacks do not bother me – not any more. On the contrary, they amuse me. At one stage, I even started collecting them. Nowadays, I usually ignore them.

But this one is somewhat special. Therefore, I decided to analyse it a bit. The author essentially makes 9 claims:

  1. I am evil.
  2. I am old.
  3. I am a nut-job.
  4. I am called Ed.
  5. I conduct pharma science.
  6. I publish bullshit.
  7. All I state is opinion.
  8. I am ignorant.
  9. I am anti-science.

Yes, that’s quite a list. Let me try to tackle it one by one.

  1. Am I evil? I have had many ad hominem attacks before but, as far as I remember, nobody has yet alleged that I am evil. I looked it up, evil means: wicked · bad · wrong · morally wrong · wrongful · immoral · sinful · ungodly · unholy · foul · vile · base · ignoble · dishonorable · corrupt · iniquitous · depraved · degenerate · villainous · nefarious · sinister · vicious · malicious · malevolent · demonic · devilish · diabolic · diabolical · fiendish · dark · black-hearted · monstrous · shocking · despicable · atrocious · heinous · odious · contemptible · horrible · execrable · lowdown · stinking · dirty · shady · warped · bent · crooked · dastardly · black · egregious · flagitious · peccable. I am obviously the wrong person to judge, but I do not think that these attributes describe me all that well.
  2. Yes, I am old, 72 to be precise.
  3. Am I a nut-job? I looked that one up too. It’s a mentally unbalanced person. Call me biased, but I don’t think that this applies to me at all.
  4. No, I am not called Ed.
  5. I am not quite sure what ‘pharma science’ is supposed to mean, but one thing I do know for sure: since I research so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – and that’s about 30 years now – I have not taken research funds from the pharmaceutical industry. And before I very rarely did.
  6. As I have published a sizable amount of papers and blog-posts, there must have been a bit of BS in some of it. But I do not think it can be much.
  7. All I state is opinion? Oh really! Opinion comes into blog-posts regularly; without it my stuff would be boring like hell. But ALL of it? I don’t think so.
  8. Am I ignorant? Yes, certainly; there are lots of things I don’t know, even in medicine. But in SCAM I do know quite a bit – even if I say so myself.
  9. Anti-science? That last allegation is probably the most far-fetched of them all. No, I am not anti-science, never have been and never will be.

So, Paul – the author of the comment preferred to remain anonymous and simply calls himself Paul – I have tried to give you credit where I could but, on the whole, I fear your ad hominem attack is yet another victory of reason over unreason. I thank you Paul for two reasons:

  • firstly for the just-mentioned victory; it always feels good to be on a winning side,
  • secondly for the stimulus and motivation to carry on doing what I have been doing for many years; your comment has shown me how much needed my work is in disclosing quackery, correcting errors, teaching critical thinking and responsibly informing the public.

THANKS PAUL

We probably all think we know what is meant by ‘pseudo-science’. But, in fact, the more you think about it, the less certain you are likely to become. Many very smart people have tried shed some light on this question and, in the end, had to admit that it is far from clear.

In his book ‘Decision Making and Rationality in the Modern World‘, Keith Stanovich makes a fresh attempt to tackle the problem. Here is a list of criteria that he deems important:

• The use of psychobabble – words that sound scientific, but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner. For example, “energy therapies” for psychological problems are often premised on biofeedback, meridian lines, quantum energies, and a host of other concepts that may sound impressive, but lack evidence.

• A substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence. Evidence for pseudoscience is typically anecdotal and consequently difficult to verify. For a class example, instructors may want to show students the Q-Ray bracelet website 1 and read the many quotes submitted by Q-Ray users. Although the quotes sound compelling, there is no scientific evidence to support any claims attached to them. In fact, the Q-Ray company lost a lawsuit in 2011 and was ordered to refund over $11 million dollars to people who purchased a Q-Ray bracelet.

• Extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence (Truzzi, 1978Sagan, 1995). In pseudosciences, assertions are often highly implausible in light of existing knowledge yet are not backed by convincing evidence. For a class example, instructors may wish to describe how infomercials promoting Q-Ray bracelets state that the “bracelet rips [pain] right out of the body 2.” and are “designed to optimize your natural positive energy 1.”

• Unfalsifiable claims – Most pseudoscientific claims are incapable of being refuted in principle. For example, proponents of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) believe the human body has an invisible energy force called Qi (Zollman and Vickers, 1999). Qi is a crucial component of TCM, even though it cannot be measured or tested scientifically.

• An absence of connectivity to other research (Stanovich, 2010). Connectivity refers to the extent to which assertions build on extant knowledge. For example, homeopathic practitioners state that homeopathic treatments become stronger as they become more dilute, and that water has memory. Both of these claims run counter to established scientific knowledge (Singh and Ernst, 2008).

• Absence of adequate peer review. Peer review is far from perfect, but it is a key safeguard against error. Instructors may wish to encourage students to contrast the claims advanced by the authors of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed articles.

• Lack of self-correction. Pseudosciences frequently persist despite refutation. Often, proponents of pseudoscience will use the idea that since the treatment or idea has been used for thousands of years it must be correct (e.g., astrology), an error often called the ad antiquetem fallacy (or, argument from antiquity).

Yes, I know, nothing fundamentally new here. Nonetheless, I thought the list was thought-provoking, particularly as it harps back to themes which we have discussed regularly on this blog. Stanovich’s list is certainly not comprehensive. Feel free, if you think you can add new aspects to the features that characterise pseudoscience.

One of the many issues that needs addressing about chiropractic is its safety. On this blog, we have had dozens of posts and debates on this topic. Today, I want to try and summarise them by providing a fictitious dialogue between a critic and a chiropractor.

Here we go:

Critic (CR): It seems to me that most of the chiros I talk to are convinced that their hallmark therapy, spinal manipulation, is risk-free.

Chiro (CH): Hallmark therapy? Not true! Osteopaths, physios, doctors they all use spinal manipulation.

CR: I know, but name me a profession that employs it more regularly than you chiros.

CH: In any case, it is as good as risk-free; nothing is totally devoid of risk, but chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSMT) is generally very safe, because we are better trained at it than the others.

CR: Do you say that because you believe it or because you know it?

CH: I know it.

CR: That means you have the evidence to prove it?

CH: Yes, of course. Over the years, I have treated over a thousand patients and never heard of any problems.

CR: Without a monitoring system of adverse events that occur after chiropractic spinal manipulation, this is pretty meaningless.

CH: Monitoring systems do not establish causality.

CR: No, but they are a start and can tell you whether there is a problem that requires looking into.

CH: Let me remind you please that the question of safety is foremost an issue for conventional medicine; this is why a monitoring system is useful for drugs. We actually do not need one, because CSMT is safe.

CR: Are you sure?

CH: Yes, V DabbsW J Lauretti have shown this very clearly in their seminal paper comparing drug treatments with chiropractic. 

CR: The much-cited paper by Dabbs and Lauretti is out-dated, poor quality, and heavily biased. It provides no sound basis for an evidence-based judgement on the relative risks of cervical manipulation and NSAIDs. The notion that cervical manipulations are safer than NSAIDs is therefore not based on reliable data. Thus, it is misleading and irresponsible to repeat this claim. Is there not a better comparison for supporting your point?

CH: Not as far as I know. But you can trust our collective experience: CSMT is safe!

CR: Don’t you think that the issue is too important to rely purely on experience? Your collective experience can be very misleading, you know.

CH: Then tell me why chiros pay only a fraction of the insurance premium compared to doctors.

CR: Yes, that is the argument many chiros love. But it also is a very poor one: doctors treat patients who are often very ill, while chiros treat mostly sore backs. Don’t you think that explains a lot about the difference in insurance premiums?

CH: Perhaps, but if you claim CSMT to be harmful, how about you supporting your claim with evidence?

CR: Sure, the best is to review systematically all prospective studies on the topic; and if you do this, the conclusion is that data from prospective studies suggest that minor, transient adverse events occur in approximately half of all patients receiving spinal manipulation. The most common serious adverse events are vertebrobasilar accidents, disk herniation, and cauda equina syndrome. Estimates of the incidence of serious complications range from 1 per 2 million manipulations to 1 per 400,000. Given the popularity of spinal manipulation, its safety requires rigorous investigation.

CH: I bet these are studies done by people who are against chiropractic.

CR: No, actually the primary studies were all done by chiropractors.

CH: Minor transient problems! These are merely what we expect; things often need to get worse before they get better.

CR: Imagine that a drug company claims such BS about the side-effects of a new drug.

CH: But that’s different!

CR: In what way?

CH: Big Pharma is only out to make money.

CR: And chiros?

CH: That’s different too.

CR: What about the serious adverse events like vertebrobasilar accidents, disk herniation, and cauda equina syndrome? Are you going to deny they exist?

CH: Some of those serious complications, while rare, are conditions that existed prior to CSMT being performed with the practitioner missing it upon initial examination.

CR: How do you know?

CH: I know this from experience.

CR: I already told you that experience is unreliable.

CH: Then show me the evidence that I am wrong.

CR: No, you have to come up with the evidence; the burden of proof is evidently on your shoulders.

CH: Whatever! As long as there is no good evidence, I cannot accept that serious complications are a real problem.

CR: That’s just fine: you say “as long as there is no good evidence…” and, at the same time, you prevent good evidence from emerging by preventing a decent AE monitoring system.

CH: I always knew that one cannot have a reasonable discussion with you. I consider that I have won this debate; this issue is now closed.

 

On this blog, I have discussed the adverse events (AEs) of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) with some regularity, and we have seen that ~ 50% of patients who receive SMT from a chiropractor experience some kind of AE. In addition there are many serious complications. In my book, I discuss, apart from the better-known vascular accidents followed by a stroke or death, the following:

  • atlantoaxial dislocation,
  • cauda equina syndrome,
  • cervical radiculopathy,
  • diaphragmatic paralysis,
  • disrupted fracture healing,
  • dural sleeve injury,
  • haematoma,
  • haematothorax,
  • haemorrhagic cysts,
  • muscle abscess,
  • muscle abscess,
  • myelopathy,
  • neurologic compromise,
  • oesophageal rupture
  • pneumothorax,
  • pseudoaneurysm,
  • soft tissue trauma,
  • spinal cord injury,
  • vertebral disc herniation,
  • vertebral fracture,
  • central retinal artery occlusion,
  • nystagmus,
  • Wallenberg syndrome,
  • ptosis,
  • loss of vision,
  • ophthalmoplegia,
  • diplopia,
  • Horner’s syndrome.

Considering this long list, we currently have far too little reliable information. A recent publication offers further information on this important topic.

The aim of this study was to identify beliefs, perceptions and practices of chiropractors and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and potential strategies to mitigate them. Clinicians and patients from two chiropractic teaching clinics were invited to respond to an 11-question survey exploring their beliefs, perceptions and practices regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them.

A total of 39 clinicians (67% response rate) and 203 patients (82.9% response rate) completed the survey. The results show that:

  • 97% of the chiropractors believed benign AEs occur.
  • 82% reported their own patients have experienced an AE.
  • 55% of the patients reported experiencing benign AEs post-SMT, with the most common symptoms being pain/soreness, headache and stiffness.
  • 61.5% of the chiropractors reported trying a mitigation strategy with their patients.
  • Yet only 21.2% of patients perceived their clinicians had tried any mitigation strategy.
  • Chiropractors perceived that patient education is most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by soft tissue therapy and/or icing after SMT.
  • Patients perceived stretching was most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by education and/or massage

 

The authors concluded that this is the first study comparing beliefs, perceptions and practices from clinicians and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them. This study provides an important step towards identifying the best strategies to improve patient safety and improve quality of care.

The question that I have often asked before, and I am bound to ask again after seeing such results, is this:

If there were a drug that causes temporary pain/soreness, headache and stiffness in 55% of all patients (plus an unknown frequency of a long list of serious complications), while being of uncertain benefit, do you think it would still be on the market?

 

In so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), there are few notions more difficult to argue against than this one:

I KNOW IT WORKS BECAUSE I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT MYSELF!

Yet, it is this notion that we most often encounter when discussing with proponents of SCAM. To argue against it often gets an emotional response, not least because the SCAM proponent feels that we are implying that (s)he is either lying or stupid or both. Therefore, it is important, I feel, to keep on addressing this issue. So, let me once again explain why ineffective treatments often appear to be effective.

To make this less boring, let’s consider a concrete case, one where nobody (well, almost nobody) will get emotionally involved. Let’s consider a patient who has been suffering from recurring pain of an undiagnosed origin and experiences benefit after crystal healing, a form of SCAM for which there truly is not a jot of evidence.

Why then does (s)he experience less pain after consulting her crystal healer?

There is a myriad of reasons, and in this post I will borrow some from the literature of psychology:

  1. The patient might think his/her pain is less frequent without actual change; recall bias.
  2. The healer might have provided an explanation for the pain which the patient experiences as a symptomatic improvement.
  3. The healer could have convinced him/her that his/her pre-treatment pain was worse than it truly was; recall bias.
  4. The patient might report improvement in accord with what (s)he believes to be the healer’s hope and expectation; social desirability.
  5. The patient is prone to preferentially remembering improvements as opposed to worsening; recall bias.
  6. Patients might interpret ambiguous changes in symptoms as indications of improvement.
  7. Many symptoms disappear or improve on their own; natural history of the disease.
  8. Many symptoms fluctuate; natural history of the disease.
  9. Extremes become less extreme on re-testing; the phenomenon of ‘regression towards the mean’.
  10. Patients employ several therapies simultaneously and later misattribute an improvement to one treatment.
  11. Patients expect to improve; the placebo-effect.
  12. Patients are conditioned to improve; the placebo-effect.
  13. Improvement owing to enthusiasm of receiving a new intervention; the novelty effect.
  14. Improvement owing to enthusiasm of receiving an exotic therapy.
  15. Improvement due to the compassionate care and attention received.
  16. Improvement due to the time spent with the healer.
  17. Improvement due to the effort and resources invested by the patient.

All these phenomena (and several more, I am sure) work in concert and can generate a clinical outcome that makes ineffective therapies and even slightly harmful treatments appear to be effective. In any single case, it is impossible to decide what precisely brought about the improvement. The only way to make sure that the specific effects of the treatment (in my example the crystal therapy) was involved is to conduct one (better several) controlled clinical trials.

I recently came across a short article from 2009 in the BMJ reporting that: “The World Health Organization has said that homoeopathy should not be used to treat several serious diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria...”

At the time most people (including myself) were rather pleased that the WHO took what was considered a clear stance, I remember. Reading the short paragraph again today, I must say I am underwhelmed. In fact, if I analyse it carefully, I have to admit that the statement is nonsense.

This would be inconsequential or trivial, were it not for the hundreds of similar statements warning people that HOMEOPATHY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SERIOUS CONDITIONS.

Have I confused you?

No, I am not claiming the homeopathy SHOULD be used for serious conditions! I am saying that the statement is misleading and can easily be misunderstood. Some people might interpret it as meaning that, alright homeopathy must not be used for serious diseases, but can be used for all other conditions. Come to think of it, the WHO has often been seen promoting so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), and therefore I cannot be sure that this is not the message they wanted to send out.

Highly diluted homeopathic remedies contain nothing; they are therefore biologically implausible. Crucially, the best evidence fails to show that they work beyond a placebo effect. Therefore, employing it for a serious condition might hasten the patient’s death. But using it for a less serious condition is surely not much better.

Imagine someone takes it for asthma, or psoriasis, or coronary heart disease, or rheumatoid arthritis, or flu, or food poisoning, or the common cold, etc, etc. If he uses it as a sole treatment, he will suffer needlessly. If he uses it as a complementary treatment (Hahnemann did expressly forbid such combinations), he might not be affected negatively except for the time and money invested. But his health would not benefit, and therefore the WHO (or anyone else for that matter) should not imply that this is fine.

It follows that the warning HOMEOPATHY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SERIOUS CONDITIONS is nonsense. The only sound advice is this:

HOMEOPATHY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY CONDITIONS.

 

People who use so-called alternative medicines (SCAM) tend to be more vaccine hesitant. One possible conclusion that can be drawn from this is that trusting SCAM results in people becoming more vaccine hesitant. An alternative possibility is that vaccine hesitancy and use of SCAM are both consequences of a distrust in conventional treatments. an International team of researchers conducted analyses designed to disentangle these two possibilities.

They measured vaccine hesitancy and SCAM use in a representative sample of Spanish residents (N = 5200). They also quantified their trust in three CCAM interventions;     

  1. acupuncture,
  2. reiki,
  3. homeopathy                                                                  

and in two conventional medical interventions:

  1. chemotherapy,
  2. antidepressants.

Vaccine hesitancy turned out to be strongly associated with (dis)trust in conventional medicine, and this relationship was particularly strong among SCAM users. In contrast, trust in SCAM was a relatively weak predictor of vaccine hesitancy, and the relationship was equally weak regardless of whether or not participants themselves had a history of using SCAM.

According to the authors of this paper, the implication for practitioners and policy makers is that SCAM is not necessarily a major obstacle to people’s willingness to vaccinate, and that the more proximal obstacle is people’s mistrust of conventional treatments.

This is an interesting study. Yet, it begs a few questions:

  1.  Is it possible to reliably establish trust in SCAM by asking about just 3 specific therapies?
  2. Is it possible to reliably establish trust in conventional medicine by asking about just 2 treatments?
  3. Why those therapies out of hundreds of options?
  4. Could it be that here are national differences (in other countries distrust in conventional medicine is not a strong determinant of SCAM use)?
  5. Is trust in SCAM and distrust in conventional medicine perhaps the common expression of an anti-science attitude or cultist tendencies?

THE INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE COLLABORATIVE‘ claim to be a collection of the leading organisations within the field, who are committed to working together to improve healthcare in the UK. They believe that a truly integrated healthcare service would improve patient experiences, bring about better patient outcomes, and provide a framework for a more cost-effective delivery of healthcare services.​

Their purpose is as follows:

To bring together professional associations and stakeholders within complementary, traditional and natural healthcare, to identify common areas of interest, and to collectively take forward agreed objectives to promote greater integration with conventional Western medicine.

Objectives:

  • To increase public awareness, knowledge and understanding of complementary, traditional and natural healthcare.
  • To raise issues in integrated healthcare with government and decision-makers.
  • To provide information on complementary, traditional and natural healthcare to the media and interested parties.
  • To promote the benefits to public health of greater provision and integration of complementary, traditional and natural healthcare.
  • To develop co-ordinated strategies to help patients access accurate information on integrated healthcare.
  • To facilitate better access to, and choice of, appropriate complementary, traditional and natural healthcare within the NHS.
  • To empower the public to share responsibility for their own health and wellbeing.
  • To encourage whole-person, individualised healthcare.
  • To advocate collaboration with conventional Western healthcare professionals.
  • To support the development of a robust and appropriate evidence base.

​They sate that Integrated Healthcare involves combining the best of conventional Western Medicine with a range of complementary, traditional and natural therapies.

The IHC brings together the following leading organisations, who are Core Members and lead our work.

  • Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH)
  • Association of Energy Therapists (AET)
  • Association of Naturopathic Practitioners (ANP)
  • Association of Physical and Natural Therapists (APNT)
  • Association of Reflexologists (AoR)
  • Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture (ATCM)
  • British Complementary Medicine Association (BCMA)
  • British Reflexology Association (BRA)
  • Chinese Medical Institute and Register (CMIR)
  • Craniosacral Therapy Association (CSTA)
  • General Council and Register of Naturopaths (GCRN)
  • Faculty of Homeopathy (FoH)
  • Federation of Holistic Therapists (FHT)
  • International Federation of Professional Aromatherapists (IFPA)
  • Kinesiology Federation (KF)
  • McTimoney Chiropractic Association (MCA)
  • National Institute of Medical Herbalists (NIMH)
  • Shiatsu Society UK (SSUK)
  • Society of Homeopaths (SoH)
  • Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique (STAT)
  • UK Reiki Federation (UKRF)

The IHC also provide revealing paragraphs about several so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) on their website. This is where I have found a host of interesting statements. Here are just 6 examples:

  1. Chiropractic treatment mainly involves safe, specific spinal manipulation to free joints in the spine or other areas of the body that are not moving properly.
  2. Science is starting to understand the mechanism of action of ultra-high dilutions in the body, and homeopathic medicines are gentle, safe to use and in widespread use across the world.
  3.  By testing … muscles the kinesiologist can get a picture of what is happening in your meridian system and how this may be affecting you.
  4. Radionics is a healing technique in which your natural intuitive faculties are used both to discover the energetic disturbances underlying illness and to encourage the return of a normal energetic field that supports health.
  5. Reflexology is a complementary therapy based on the belief that there are reflex areas in the feet and hands which are believed to correspond to all organs and parts of the body.
  6. [Reiki] is a tradition that is open to any belief system and benefits may include deep relaxation and the promotion of a calm peaceful sense of wellbeing.

And here are 6 corrections of the above-listed statements:

  1. Chiropractic involves unsafe spinal manipulation to free customers of their cash.
  2. Science has long understood that there is no mechanism that could possibly explain homeopathy.
  3. By testing muscles, the kinesiologist pretends to do something meaningful in order to be able to bill the customer.
  4. Radionics is a con technique that is counter-intuitive, implausible and unrelated to energy.
  5. Reflexologists believe to have shown conventional anatomy and physiology to be mistaken.
  6. Reiki is a tradition and a belief system demonstrably out of touch with reality.

PS

If the IHC want to change their text and adopt my corrections, I would waive my fee for this efforts.

There are uncounted different forms of bogus so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs), and many have been discussed on this blog. What do I mean by ‘bogus’? A bogus SCAM is one, in my view, that is being promoted for conditions for which it does not demonstrably generate more good than harm.

Ten popular examples are:

  • alternative cancer ‘cures’,
  • applied kinesiology,
  • Bach Flower Remedies,
  • CEASE,
  • chiropractic,
  • detox treatments,
  • homeopathy,
  • osteopathy,
  • paranormal or energy healing techniques,
  • slimming aids.

These treatments are diverse in many ways: history, basic assumption, risks, etc. But they nevertheless tend to have certain features in common:

  1. Most SCAMs originate from the ideas developed by a single, often charismatic individual who proclaimed to have seen the light. Think of Gerson, Bach, Palmer, Hahnemann, Still.
  2. They are recommended by enthusiasts as a panacea, a ‘cure all’.
  3. They are heavily promoted by celebrities, hyped by the press and marketed via books or the Internet, but they are far less or not at all supported by published studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature.
  4. The clinical trials of SCAM that have been published are flimsy, lack independent replication, yet are celebrated by proponents as though they represent robust evidence.
  5. SCAMs target either the most desperately ill patients who understandably tend to cling to every straw they can find. Or they go for the ‘worried well’ who have nothing truly wrong with them and plenty of cash to waste.
  6. Proponents of SCAM use scientific-sounding terminology, while simultaneously displaying a profoundly anti-scientific attitude.
  7. Entrepreneurs of SCAM are efficient at selling false hope at excessive prices.
  8. SCAMs sometimes seem to work because many of the therapists are skilled at maximising the placebo-response.
  9. SCAM is awash with conspiracy theories, for instance, the notion that ‘the establishment’ is supressing SCAM. (If a SCAM ever showed real promise, it would rapidly scrutinised by researchers and, if effectiveness were confirmed, adopted by conventional medicine. The notion of an alternative cure for any disease is idiotic, because it presupposes that conventional healthcare professionals shun a potentially valuable treatment simply because it emerged from elsewhere.)
  10. Most SCAMs can do direct harm. For instance, oral treatments can be toxic or interact with prescription drugs. Or spinal manipulations can cause a stroke. Or acupuncture can cause a pneumothorax.
  11. SCAMs are dangerous even if they do not cause direct harm. There are many examples of people who died needlessly early because they used SCAM as an alternative to conventional medicine (Steve Jobs is a prominent example).
  12. Moreover, SCAMs cause harm by undermining the principles of EBM and, more importantly, by undermining rational thinking in our society.
  13. SCAM practitioners violate fundamental rules of medical ethics on a daily basis. One could even argue that the ethical practice of SCAM is rarely possible.

 

1 2 3 10
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