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

gullible consumer

In the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), we see a lot of papers that are bizarre to the point of being disturbing and often dangerous nonsense. Yesterday, I came across an article that fits this bill well; in fact, I have not seen such misleading BS for quite a while. Let me present to you the abstract of this paper:

Introduction

There has been accumulating interest in the application of biofield therapy as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to treat various diseases. The practices include reiki, qigong, blessing, prayer, distant healing, known as biofield therapies. This paper aims to state scientific knowledge on preclinical and clinical studies to validate its potential use as an alternative medicine in the clinic. It also provides a more in-depth context for understanding the potential role of quantum entanglement in the effect of biofield energy therapy.

Content

A comprehensive literature search was performed using the different databases (PubMed, Scopus, Medline, etc.). The published English articles relevant to the scope of this review were considered. The review gathered 45 papers that were considered suitable for the purpose. Based on the results of these papers, it was concluded that biofield energy therapy was effective in treating different disease symptoms in preclinical and clinical studies.

Summary

Biofield therapies offer therapeutic benefits for different human health disorders, and can be used as alternative medicine in clinics for the medically pluralistic world due to the growing interest in CAM worldwide.

Outlook

The effects of the biofield energy therapies are observed due to the healer’s quantum thinking, and transmission of the quantum energy to the subject leads to the healing that occurs spiritually through instantaneous communication at the quantum level via quantum entanglement.

The authors of this article are affiliated with Trivedi Global, an organisation that states this about ‘biofield energy’:

Human Biofield EBnergy has subtle energy that has the capacity to work in an effective manner. This energy can be harnessed and transmitted by the gifted into living and non-living things via the process of a Biofield Energy Healing Treatment or Therapy.

If they aleady know that “Biofield EBnergy has subtle energy that has the capacity to work in an effective manner”, I wonder why they felt the need to conduct this review. Even more wonderous is the fact that their review showed such a positive result.

How did they manage this?

The answer might lie in their methodology: they “gathered 45 papers that were considered suitable”. While scientists gather the totality of the available evidence (and assess it critically), they merely selected what was suitable for the purpose of generating a positive result. This must be the reason our two studies on the subject were discretely omitted:

Our 1st study

Purpose: Distant healing, a treatment that is transmitted by a healer to a patient at another location, is widely used, although good scientific evidence of its efficacy is sparse. This trial was aimed at assessing the efficacy of one form of distant healing on common skin warts.

Subjects and methods: A total of 84 patients with warts were randomly assigned either to a group that received 6 weeks of distant healing by one of 10 experienced healers or to a control group that received a similar preliminary assessment but no distant healing. The primary outcomes were the number of warts and their mean size at the end of the treatment period. Secondary outcomes were the change in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and patients’ subjective experiences. Both the patients and the evaluator were blinded to group assignment.

Results: The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in the distant healing (n = 41) and control groups (n = 43). The mean number and size of warts per person did not change significantly during the study. The number of warts increased by 0.2 in the healing group and decreased by 1.1 in the control group (difference [healing to control] = -1.3; 95% confidence interval = -1.0 to 3.6, P = 0.25). Six patients in the distant healing group and 8 in the control group reported a subjective improvement (P = 0.63). There were no significant between-group differences in the depression and anxiety scores.

Conclusion: Distant healing from experienced healers had no effect on the number or size of patients’ warts.

Our 2nd study

Spiritual healing is a popular complementary and alternative therapy; in the UK almost 13000 members are registered in nine separate healing organisations. The present randomized clinical trial was designed to investigate the efficacy of healing in the treatment of chronic pain. One hundred and twenty patients suffering from chronic pain, predominantly of neuropathic and nociceptive origin resistant to conventional treatments, were recruited from a Pain Management Clinic. The trial had two parts: face-to-face healing or simulated face-to-face healing for 30 min per week for 8 weeks (part I); and distant healing or no healing for 30 min per week for 8 weeks (part II). The McGill Pain Questionnaire was pre-defined as the primary outcome measure, and sample size was calculated to detect a difference of 8 units on the total pain rating index of this instrument after 8 weeks of healing. VASs for pain, SF36, HAD scale, MYMOP and patient subjective experiences at week 8 were employed as secondary outcome measures. Data from all patients who reached the pre-defined mid-point of 4 weeks (50 subjects in part I and 55 subjects in part II) were included in the analysis. Two baseline measurements of outcome measures were made, 3 weeks apart, and no significant differences were observed between them. After eight sessions there were significant decreases from baseline in McGill Pain Questionnaire total pain rating index score for both groups in part I and for the control group in part II. However, there were no statistically significant differences between healing and control groups in either part. In part I the primary outcome measure decreased from 32.8 (95% CI 28.5-37.0) to 23.3 (16.8-29.7) in the healing group and from 33.1 (27.2-38.9) to 26.1 (19.3-32.9) in the simulated healing group. In part II it changed from 29.6 (24.8-34.4) to 24.0 (18.7-29.4) in the distant healing group and from 31.0 (25.8-36.2) to 21.0 (15.7-26.2) in the no healing group. Subjects in healing groups in both parts I and II reported significantly more ‘unusual experiences’ during the sessions, but the clinical relevance of this is unclear. It was concluded that a specific effect of face-to-face or distant healing on chronic pain could not be demonstrated over eight treatment sessions in these patients.

In addition, they, of course, also omitted many further studies by other investigators that failed to be positive. Considering this amount of cherry-picking, it is easy to understand how they arrived at their conclusion. It is all a question of chosing the right methodology!

A few decades ago, the cigarette industry employed this technique to show that smoking did not cause cancer! Luckily, we have since moved away from such pseudo-scientific ‘research’ – except, of course, in the realm of SCAM where it is still hughely popular.

An interesting and fully referenced (205 references) article caught my attention; it seems highly relevant to the discussions we are having on this blog. Let me show you the abstract:

Medical misinformation has always existed, but it has recently become more frequent due to the development of the internet and social media. Medical misinformation can cover a wide variety of topics, and studies show that some groups are more likely to be affected by medical misinformation than others, like those with less trust in health care, less health literacy, and a more positive attitude toward alternative medicines. Aspects of the internet, like echo chambers and algorithms, have contributed to the rise of medical misinformation, along with belief in anecdotal evidence and alternative remedies that are not backed by science. Some personal beliefs and a lack of media literacy skills are also contributing to medical misinformation. Medical misinformation causes higher rates of death and negative health outcomes, a lack of trust in medical professionals, and more racism and hate crimes. One possible way to combat the spread of misinformation is education surrounding media literacy. Still, there are gaps in this practice that must be addressed like a lack of high-quality research about different educational programs.

The author also offers the following key points:

  • Medical misinformation is becoming an urgent issue for United States citizens—leading to increased deaths,
    a lack of trust in health professionals, and hate crimes and racism.
  • Although this is a worldwide issue, the United States has the second highest rate of misinformation of any
    country, behind India.
  • One piece of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic stated that highly concentrated alcohol could
    disinfect the body and kill the virus. Studies show that 800 people died, 5,876 were hospitalized, and 60
    became completely blind from drinking methanol, thinking it would cure coronavirus.
  • Studies estimate that only 14% of the United States population has proficient health literacy, which makes it difficult to recognize medical misinformation.
  • Media literacy education is being pursued in order to combat the spread of misinformation, but more research is needed in order to understand the long-term effects of this education and what programs are best.

__________________

I would like to stress, as indeeed the author does as well, that medical misinformation is a phenomenon that is by no means confined to the US. Like most information, misinformation has become a global issue. Its dangers cannot be under-estimated. My blog offers an abundance of reports where misinformation in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has caused harm and even death. The author advocates media literacy as a remedy for the problem. I would argue that even more important would be to teach CRITICAL THINKING, a task that has to start at school and must continue well into adult life.

This conclusion is so very obvious that it begs an important question: WHY HAS IT NOT BEEN DONE YEARS AGO? The answer, I fear, is simple: for reasons that are self-evident, governments have little interst in the public being able to think critically. On the contrary, governments across the world foremost want to be re-elected, and critical thinking would be a major obstacle to this aim.

 

In spite of the safety and efficiency of the COVID-19 vaccines and the many promotion efforts of political and expert authorities, a fair portion of the population remained hesitant if not opposed to vaccination. Public debate and the available literature point to the possible role of people’s attitudes towards medical institutions as well as their preference for so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) on their motivations and intentions to be vaccinated. Other potential ideological factors are beliefs about environmental laissez-faire and divine providence insofar as they encourage people to let the pandemic unfold without human interference.

In three cross-sectional samples (total N = 8214), collected at successive moments during the Belgian vaccination campaign, the present research examines the distal role of these psychological and ideological factors on vaccination intentions via motivational processes.

  • Study 1 gauges the relation between trust in medical institutions and preference for SCAM on intentions to get vaccinated via motivations.
  • Study 2 examines the role of beliefs in the desirability of letting nature take its course (‘environmental laissez-faire beliefs’) on vaccination intention via motivations.
  • Study 3 tests whether people’s adherence to environmental laissez-faire and beliefs about divine providence are linked to their motivations for vaccination via trust in the medical institutions and SCAM.

The results show that adherence to SCAM has a deleterious effect on vaccination intentions, whereas trust in medical institutions has a positive effect. Both ideological factors pertaining to external control are only moderately related, with environmental laissez-faire beliefs having stronger effects on SCAM, medical trust and vaccination motivations.

The evidence of an association between SCAM and willingness to get vaccinated is undeniable. On this blog, we have discussed it repeatedly, e.g.:

But what exactly is the nature of this association?

  • Does SCAM-use predispose to vaccination hesitancy?
  • Does Vaccination hesitancy predispose to SCAM use?
  • Is both true?

After reading all this research that has emerged on the subject, I get the impression that we are mostly dealing here with a cross-correlation where a certain mind-set of being

  • prone to conspiracy theories,
  • anti-establishment,
  • anti-science,
  • irrational,
  • of low intelligence,
  • unable of critical thinking,
  • etc., etc,

determines both the SCAM-use and the vaccination hesitancy.

 

It has been reported that 5 people who took a Japanese health supplement have died and more than 100 have been hospitalized as of Friday, a week after a pharmaceutical company issued a recall of the products, officials said. Osaka-based Kobayashi Pharmaceutical Co. came under fire for not going public quickly with problems known internally as early as January. Yet the first public announcement came only on 22 March. Company officials said 114 people were being treated in hospitals after taking products — including Benikoji Choleste Help meant to lower cholesterol — that contain an ingredient called benikoji, a red species of mold. Some people developed kidney problems after taking the supplements, but the exact cause was still under investigation in cooperation with government laboratories, according to the manufacturer.

“We apologize deeply,” President Akihiro Kobayashi told reporters last Friday, bowing for a long time to emphasize the apology alongside three other top company officials. He expressed remorse to those who have died and have been taken ill and to their families. He also apologized for the troubles caused to the entire health food industry and the medical profession, adding that the company was working to prevent further damage and improve crisis management.

The company’s products have been recalled — as have dozens of other products that contain benikoji, including miso paste, crackers, and a vinegar dressing. Japan’s health ministry put up a list on its official site of all the recalled products, including some that use benikoji for food coloring. The ministry warned the deaths could keep growing. The supplements could be bought at drug stores without a prescription from a doctor, and some may have been purchased or exported before the recall, including by tourists who may not be aware of the health risks.

Kobayashi Pharmaceutical had been selling benikoji products for years, with a million packages sold over the past 3 fiscal years, but a problem crept up with the supplements produced in 2023. Kobayashi Pharmaceutical said it produced 18.5 tons of benikoji last year. Some analysts blame the recent deregulation initiatives, which simplified and sped up approval for health products to spur economic growth.

________________________

Anouther source reported that Japanese authorities on Saturday raided a drug factory after a pharmaceutical company reported at least five deaths and 114 hospitalizations possibly linked to a health supplement. About a dozen Japanese health officials walked into the Osaka plant of the Kobayashi Pharmaceutical Co., as seen in footage of the raid widely telecasted on Japanese news. The health supplement in question is a pink pill called Benikoji Choleste Help. It is said to help lower cholesterol levels. A key ingredient is benikoji, a type of red mold. The company has said it knows little about the cause of the sickness, which can include kidney failure. It is currently investigating the effects in cooperation with Japan’s government.

___________________________

More recent reports update the figure of affected individuals: Japanese dietary supplements at the center of an expanding health scare have now been linked to at least 157 hospitalizations, a health ministry official said Tuesday.The figure reflects an increase from the 114 hospitalization cases that Kobayashi Pharmaceutical said on Friday were linked to its products containing red yeast rice, or beni kōji.

____________________________

A Kobayashi Pharmaceutical spokeswoman confirmed the latest hospitalization cases without elaborating further.

Benikoji is widely sold and used; not just in Japan. It comes under a range of different names:

  • red yeast rice,
  • red fermented rice,
  • red kojic rice,
  • red koji rice,
  • anka,
  • angkak,
  • Ben Cao Gang Mu.

It is a bright reddish purple fermented rice which acquires its color from being cultivated with the mold Monascus purpureus. Red yeast rice is used as food and as a medicine in Asian cultures, such as Kampo and TCM.

It contains lovastatin which, of course, became patented  and is marketed as the prescription drug, Mevacor. Red yeast rice went on to become a non-prescription dietary supplement in the United States and other countries. In 1998, the U.S. FDA banned a dietary supplement containing red yeast rice extract, stating that red yeast rice products containing monacolin K are identical to a prescription drug, and thus subject to regulation as a drug.

It does not happen often, but when it does, it should be aknowledged. I am speaking of papers from chiropractors that make sense. If you are interested in chiropractic, I do encourage you to read the articles of which I will here only present bits of the conclusions:

Part 1

The chiropractic profession is weighed down by the burden of historical theories regarding spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which, for some in the profession, have all the characteristics of dogmatic articles of faith. In our opinion, the unlimited scope of practice, which is still advocated by some chiropractors, and which has not been met with unequivocal political rejection, an over-reliance on SMT in the management of MSK disorders, and an over-emphasis on the technical intricacies of SMT represent weaknesses within chiropractic. We argue that these are obstacles to professional development and the major causes of professional stagnation both intellectually and in the market place.

We also discussed what we consider to be threats to the chiropractic profession. Science, the impact of EBM, and accountability to authorities and third party-payers all pose threats to the traditional chiropractic paradigm and, thus, to those within the profession, who practice within such a paradigm. In the marketplace, competition from other professions that provide care of patients with MSK disorders, including SMT, and are better positioned to be integrated into the wider health-care system/market represent a threat. Moreover, finally, the internal schism in chiropractic represents a threat to professional development, as it prevents the profession moving forward in unison with a coherent external message.

We have described those weaknesses and threats, knowing full well, that we do so from our perspective of chiropractic as EBM with a limited MSK scope of practice, i.e. from outside the subluxation frame of reference.

We recognize that for those who look at SMT from the perspective of traditional, subluxation-based chiropractic, things will look very different: What we identify as weaknesses may be seen by others as the pillars of chiropractic practice, and what we see as threats could appear as just peripheral and ephemeral distractions to the enduring core of chiropractic ideas. Such is the character of the schism at the heart of chiropractic.

None-the-less, having described what we identify as serious weaknesses and threats arising from the profession’s relationship to SMT, it has not escaped our attention that it also gives rise to several strengths, which serve the profession and its patients well. In turn, it follows that a number of opportunities are presenting themselves for the future of SMT and chiropractic.

Part 2

The onus is now on the chiropractic profession itself to redefine its raison d’être in a way that plays to those strengths and delivers in terms of the needs of patients and the wider healthcare system/market. We suggest chiropractors embrace and cultivate a role as coordinators of long-term and broad-focused management of musculoskeletal disorders. We make specific recommendations about how the profession, from individual clinicians to political organizations, can promote such a development.

___________________________

For readers in a hurry:

Progress is an inevitable threat to obsolete and useless practices of any kind. In that, chiropractic is no exception.

Lumbar stabilization exercises (LSEs) are said to be beneficial for chronic mechanical low back pain (CMLBP). However, further research focusing on intervention combinations is recommended. This study examined the effect of kinesio tape (KT) with LSEs on CMLBP adult patients.

A randomized blinded clinical trial was conducted. Fifty CMLBP patients of both genders were assigned into one of two groups and received 8 weeks of treatment:

  • group A (control): LSEs only,
  • group B (experimental): KT with LSEs.

The primary outcome was back disability, measured by the Oswestry disability index. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, trunk extensor endurance, and sagittal spinal alignment, as indicated by the visual analog scale, Sorensen-test, and C7–S1 sagittal vertical axis, respectively. The reported data was analyzed by a two-way MANOVA using an intention-to-treat procedure.

Multivariate tests indicate statistically significant effects for group (F = 4.42, p = 0.005, partial η2 = 0.148), time (F = 219.55, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.904), and group-by-time interaction (F = 3.21, p = 0.01, partial η2 = 0.149). Univariate comparisons between groups revealed significant reductions in the experimental group regarding disability (p = 0.029, partial η2 = 0.049) and pain (p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.102) without a significant difference in the Sorensen test (p = 0.281) or C7–S1 SVA (p = 0.491) results. All within-group comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.001).

The authors concluded that the combination of KT and LSEs is an effective CMLBP treatment option. Although patients in both groups displayed significant changes in all outcomes, the combined interventions induced more significant reductions in back disability and pain intensity.

One of the main reason for conducting a controlled clinical trial is to determine whether the intervention, rather than some other factor, was the cause of the observed outcome. Yet, these trials can be designed in such a way that they mislead us on precisely this point. The present study is an example for such a case.

The authors leave us in no doubt that the KT was the cause of the positive outcome. However, they might be entirely wrong. Here are some other possibilities:

  • the extra attention might have done the trick;
  • the ritual of applying KT must have an effect;
  • the expectation of the patient could have influenced the outcome;
  • verbal or non-verbal communication between the patient and the therapist would have had an effect.

I know, it is often difficult to control for such influences in clinical trials. But, if it proves to be impossible [and in the case of KT it probably is possible], one should at the very least be cautious when drawing conclusions from the results. I suggest something like this:

The combination of KT and LSEs generated better outcomes than LSE alone. Whether this is due to specific effects of KT or non-specific context effects remains unclear.

Whenever a journalist wants to discuss the subject of acupuncture with me, he or she will inevitably ask one question:

DOES ACUPUNCTURE WORK?

It seems a legitimate, obvious and simple question, particularly during ‘Acupuncture Awareness Week‘, and I have heard it hundreds of times. Why then do I hesitate to answer it?

Journalists – like most of us – would like a straight answer, like YES or NO. But straight answers are in short supply, particularly when we are talking about acupuncture.

Let me explain.

Acupuncture is part of ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine’ (TCM). It is said to re-balance the life forces that determine our health. As such it is seen as a panacea, a treatment for all ills. Therefore, the question, does it work?, ought to be more specific: does it work for pain, obesity, fatigue, hair-loss, addiction, anxiety, ADHA, depression, asthma, old age, etc.etc. As we are dealing with virtually thousands of ills, the question, does it work?, quickly explodes into thousands of more specific questions.

But that’s not all!

The question, does acupuncture work?, assumes that we are talking about one therapy. Yet, there are dozens of different acupuncture traditions and sites:

  • body acupuncture,
  • ear acupuncture,
  • tongue acupuncture,
  • scalp acupuncture,
  • etc., etc.

Then there are dozens of different ways to stimulate acupuncture points:

  • needle acupuncture,
  • electroacupuncture,
  • acupressure,
  • moxibustion,
  • ultrasound acupuncture,
  • laser acupuncture,
  • etc., etc.

And then there are, of course, different acupuncture ‘philosophies’ or cultures:

  • TCM,
  • ‘Western’ acupuncture,
  • Korean acupuncture,
  • Japanese acupuncture,
  • etc., etc.

If we multiply these different options, we surely arrive at thousands of different variations of acupuncture being used for thousands of different conditions.

But this is still not all!

To answer the question, does it work?, we today have easily around 10 000 clinical trials. One might therefore think that, despite the mentioned complexity, we might find several conclusive answers for the more specific questions. But there are very significant obstacles that are in our way:

  • most acupuncture trials are of lousy quality;
  • most were conducted by lousy researchers who merely aim at showing that acupuncture works rather that testing whether it is effective;
  • most originate from China and are published in Chinese which means that most of us cannot access them;
  • they get nevertheless included in many of the systematic reviews that are currently being published without non-Chinese speakers ever being able to scrutinise them;
  • TCM is a hugely important export article for China which means that political influence is abundant;
  • several investigators have noted that virtually 100% of Chinese acupuncture trials report positive results regardless of the condition that is being targeted;
  • it has been reported that about 80% of studies emerging from China are fabricated.

Now, I think you understand why I hesitate every time a journalist asks me:

DOES ACUPUNCTURE WORK?

Most journalists do not have the patience to listen to all the complexity this question evokes. Many do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend an exhaustive reply. But all want to hear a simple and conclusive answer.

So, what do I say in this situation?

Usually, I respond that the answer would depend on who one asks. An acupuncturist is likely to say: YES, OF COURSE, IT DOES! An less biased expert might reply:

IT’S COMPLEX, BUT THE MOST RELIABLE EVIDENCE IS FAR FROM CONVINCING. 

In recent weeks and months, I have been thinking quite a lot about the various types of scientists. This is partly due to me finishing a book entitled: Bizarre Medical Ideas: … and the Strange Men Who Invented Them. Partly it is related to the sorry tale of the GWUP that I have been boring you with repeatedly here. As a consequence of my contemplations, I have added more categories to the usual two types of scientists.

1. SCIENTIST

Scientists gather information through observation and experimentation, formulate hypothesis, and then test them. They work in vastly different areas but have certain attitudes or qualities in common, e.g. critial thinking and an open mind. As scientists tend to publish their findings, a very simple (but not fool-proof) way to identify a scinetist is to look him/her up, for example by finding his/her H-Index. (The H-Index is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given author/journal has published at least h papers that have each been cited at least h times. For instance, if someone has 10 papers that were cited 10 times, his H-Index would be 10. If another scientist has 50 papers that were cited 50 times, his H-Index would be 50.)

2. PSEUDO-SCIENTIST

Pseudo-scientists are people who pretend to produce science but, in fact, they generate pseudoscience. The demarkation of pseudo-science from science is sometimes difficult, as we have seen several times on this blog, e.g.:

The pseudo-scientist does have no or just a few publications in the peer-reviewed literature and no H-Index to speak of.

3. WOULD-BE SCIENTIST

The term ‘would-be scientist’ is not one that is commonly used, nor is it one that has an accepted definition. The way I see it, would-be scientists are aspiring to become scientist. They are on the way to become a scientist but have not quite arrived yet. To the would-be scientist I say: good luck to you; I hope you make it and I look forward to reading about your scientific achievements. The would-be scientist is, however, not the topic of my post.

4. THE PREDEND-SCIENTIST

The predent-scientist (PS) is the one who I want to focus on here. He – yes, the PS is usually male – talks a lot about science; so much so that outsiders would get the impression that he actually is a scientist. Crucially, the PS himself has managed to delude himself to the point where believes to be a scientist.

While scientists tend to be media-shy, the PS enjoys the limelight to generate the impression of being a scientist. He talks eloquently and at length about science. Much of what he says or writes might even be correct. The PS is often quite well-versed and knows (most of) his stuff.

The crucial difference between the PS and the scientist is that the PS produces no or very little science; neither does he intend to. To identify the PS, an easy (but not fool-proof) method is to him look up. Typically, he has published several articles in the popoular press or books for the lay public, but – as he does not conduct scientific research – he does not generate papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This void, however, has never stopped the PS from appearing in the media speaking about science, nor from occupying prominent positions in the world of science, nor from avidly rubbing shoulders with scientists. Few people see anything wrong with that, mainly because the PS has convinced them (most importantly himself) that he actually is a scientist. While the scientist is trained in doing science, the PS is trained in talking about science.

Don’t get me wrong, the PS can have his merits. He often presents science to the public more or less accurately and frequently is rhetorically superior to the scientist. I nevertheless have reservations about the PS (and the recent pandemic has shown us how dangerous PSs can beome). The questions to ask ourselves are the following:

  • Does PS have a truly open mind?
  • Can he set aside ideologies?
  • Will he change his opinion vis a vis new evidence?
  • Is he prepared to consider criticism?
  • Does he avoid ‘black and white’ thinking?
  • Is he sufficiently humble?
  • Is he honest with himself and others?

These questions refer to important attitudes that scientists learn – often the hard way – while doing science. If someone lacks this experience, such attitudes are likely to be under-developed. Perhaps, it all boils down to honesty: if a man who has never done any amount of science to speak of has convinced himself to be a scientist, he arguably is dishonest with himself and the public.

In order to make my points as clearly as possible, I admittedly caricaturized the extremes of a wider spectrum; my appologies for that. In reality, the different types of scientists rarely exist as entirely pure forms. Frequently, people are mixtures of two types, either because they did different things during different periods of their lives, or because they simply are hybrids.

To provide a few examples, let me show you 14 H-Indices (according to ‘Google Scholar’) of people (in alphabetical order) who you might have heard of, for instance, because they have featured on my blog. I leave it up to you to decide how well they fit in any of my three categories and who might qualify to be a PS.

  1. Fabrizio Benedetti – H-Index = 83
  2. David Colquhoun – H-Index = 78
  3. Ian Chalmers – H-Index = 84
  4. Michael Dixon – H-Index = 0
  5. David Gorski – H-Index = 30
  6. Holm Hümmler – H-Index = 0
  7. Ted Kaptchuk – H-Index = 103
  8. Jos Kleinjen – H-Index = 104
  9. Andreas Michalsen – H-Index = 0
  10. Michael Mosely – H-Index = 0
  11. Dana Ullman – H-Index = 0
  12. Dale Thompson (alias DC) – H-Index = 0
  13. Chris van Tulleken – H-Index = 0
  14. Harald Walach – H-Index = 9

My conclusion: the PS, a person who presents himself as a scientist without having done any meaningful amount of science himself, is a man who is not entirely honest. The H-Index can be helpful for identifying PSs. An index of zero, for instance, seems to send out a fairly clear message. In the case low indices, it is advisable to go one step further and study the actual articles That mede up the index. However, the H-Index tells us nothing about whether someone presents himself as a scientist; this information must be gleaned from the person him(her)self.

 

 

 

These days, it has become a rare event – I am speaking of me publishing a paper in the peer-reviewed medical literature. But it has just happened: Spanish researchers and I published a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy. Here is its abstract:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of craniosacral therapy (CST) in the management of any conditions. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases in August 2023, and extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness of CST. The PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool were used to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies. The certainty of the evidence of each outcome variable was determined using GRADEpro. Quantitative synthesis was carried out with RevMan 5.4 software using random effect models.

Fifteen RCTs were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that CST produces no statistically significant or clinically relevant changes in pain and/or disability/impact in patients with headache disorders, neck pain, low back pain, pelvic girdle pain, or fibromyalgia. For non-musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis showed that CST was not effective for managing infant colic, preterm infants, cerebral palsy, or visual function deficits.

We concluded that the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence suggest that CST produces no benefits in any of the musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions assessed. Two RCTs suggested statistically significant benefits of CST in children. However, both studies are seriously flawed, and their findings are thus likely to be false positive.

So, CST is not really an effective option for any condition.

Not a big surprise! After all, the assumptions on which CST is based fly in the face of science.

Since CST is nonetheless being used by many healthcare professionals, it is, I feel, important to state and re-state that CST is an implausible intervention that is not supported by clinical evidence. Hopefully then, one day, these practitioners will remember that their ethical obligation is to treat their patients not according to their beliefs but according to the best available evidence. And, hopefully, our modest paper will have helped rendering healthcare a little less irrational and somewhat more effective.

I had never heard of him – but after getting insulted by ‘Dr. Nick Campos’ I became interested and looked him up. What I found was interesting. Here is how he describes himself.

Dr. Nick Campos is a teacher of universal principles and truths as they pertain to the health, wellness and evolution of body, mind and spirit, particularly as they relate to human growth and potential.

As a healer trained in the art of chiropractic, and as a prominent chiropractic sports physician, he has helped thousands of people overcome physical injury and trauma, allowing them to regain their functional lives.

Dr. Campos believes that wellness encompasses more than just the physical body, so a balanced mental and spiritual life is also necessary for full expression of being. Therefore, Dr. Campos assists people with mental and spiritual challenges and misperceptions, while teaching them tools to empower themselves in all areas of life.

Dr. Campos teaches universal principles of health, wellness, growth and evolution as they pertain to body, mind and spirit. His work is carried out through several media including books, articles and a widely-read, syndicated blog (Optimal Health). His book The Six Keys to Optimal Health is the quintessential guide to achieving and maintaining optimal wellness in the twenty-first century. Dr. Campos’ mission is to inspire people to adopt a new way of thinking and living.

In 2010 Dr. Campos launched his evolutionary personal growth and development consulting business dedicated to helping people tune-into and manifest their most inspired dreams. As the Dream Designer™, Dr. Campos shows people how to uncover their life’s purpose, and how to implement powerful strategies designed to create the life of their dreams.

Dr. Nick Campos has a planetary vision of impacting billions of people for years to come. His inspired mission is to help people tap into their incredible self-healing, self-regulating powers. With certainty and gratitude, he aims to teach the world the power inherent in the human mind, and prepare humankind for the next phase of planetary evolution. As the world changes rapidly, those that adapt steadily and most-balanced will have the greatest advantage to navigating new horizons.

Dr. Campos is committed to discovering, understanding and sharing the tools that human beings will invariably need to be successful in a changing world—health, wellness, financial security, effective communication and interpersonal relations, leadership, business purpose and development, parenting, and education to name a few. Through research, collaborative exchange of information, and mass educational accessibility, Dr. Campos strives to empower human beings to be successful pioneers into a vast technological, informational and explorational age.
After this platitude-overload, I asked myself: what does Dr Campos actually do for a living?
The answer is simple: He is ‘Dream Designer’!
What?
Yes, did you not know? A dream designer helps people define and design their dream lives:

Many people limp through their lives following other people’s standards, and striving for achievement in areas not really inspiring to them. As a result, they end up suffering from frustration, lack of fulfillment and potentially depression. Does this sound like you?

By not following your innermost drives, or by repressing your true heart’s desires, you run the greatest risk of succumbing to physical and mental pressures, strain and ultimately illness. Life can be stressful enough without the added anxiety of not knowing who you are or where you are going.

Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia are modern manifestations of this lack of purpose,  but that doesn’t have to be your destiny.

Dream Design consulting services starts by helping you tune-in to your most authentic self—who you are, what you value, and how your body and mind work to direct you down your most inspired path. You will uncover the fears, resentments and infatuations that have been acting as barriers to your personal growth, and learn effective ways to overcome them.

And Dr Campos gives courses. On his website, we currently find Upcoming dates:

January 14, 2023                                                         Burbank, CA

January 26, 2023                                                          Palm Desert, CA

February 11, 2023                                                         Thousand Oaks, CA

February 23, 2023                                                         Palm Desert, CA

March 11, 2023                                                               Burbank, CA

March 25, 2023                                                              Palm Desert, CA

______________________________

Either this line of his business is not doing all that well or he offers time travel as part of the package.

On X 9formally Twitter), ,Dr’ Campos called me a LOSER – perhaps I should return the compliment?

 

 

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

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