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

holistic

As I am not an avid reader of the UK honours lists, I totally missed the fact that Robin Daly has been awarded an MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire) in the 2025 New Year Honours list. The honour was for his outstanding contributions to the field of integrative cancer care as the founder of the charity, “Yes to Life”. The “Yes to Life” website reported the event as follows:

We are thrilled to announce that our Chairman and Founder, Robin Daly, has been awarded an MBE in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the field of integrative cancer care and his tireless work through Yes to Life. This prestigious honour celebrates Robin’s unwavering dedication to supporting those affected by cancer and promoting holistic approaches to well-being. Congratulations, Robin, on this well-deserved accolade! …

On this blog, we have encountered “Yes to Life” before, e.g.:

I had again a good look at what “Yes to Life” is currently offering and am glad to report that they clearly cleaned up their act. The charity used to promote outright dangerous quackery to desperate cancer patients. Today they still do this but they do it less overtly, e.g.:

  • “Whether you’re seeking improved mental clarity, glowing skin, weight loss, detoxification, or support in battling diseases like cancer, juicing offers a customisable approach to achieving your wellness goals. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll explore how to adapt your juicing routine to address specific health needs, from overall well-being to targeted concerns like skin health, mental well-being, weight loss, detoxification, menopause, heart health and cancer support.”
  • “From the moment of diagnosis through treatment and beyond, cancer patients face plenty of challenges that extend far beyond the physical symptoms. Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), also known as tapping, have emerged as a promising support offering a gentle yet profound approach to addressing emotional and psychological well-being. At its core, EFT is a modality that combines elements of ancient Chinese acupressure with modern psychology. The technique involves gently tapping on specific acupressure points on the body while focusing on and verbalizing emotional issues, negative thoughts, or physical symptoms. By stimulating these energy meridian points and addressing emotional blockages, EFT aims to restore balance to the body’s energy system and promote healing on a holistic level.”
  • “Turmeric, often referred to as the “golden spice,” contains curcumin, a compound with powerful anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Curcumin has been linked to enhanced immune function and may help the body defend against infections. You can incorporate turmeric into your diet by adding it to curries, soups, or even warm turmeric milk for a comforting and immune-boosting treat.”
  • “Stress, anxiety, and emotional distress as well as physical pain and discomfort may be present along the entire cancer care pathway. These factors may impact treatment outcomes and recovery time. Most importantly, they present a significant burden of suffering to those affected by cancer and their loved ones. EFT is an effective, efficient management tool that can meet these needs and can be self- administered as well as used in a therapeutic relationship. The physical and emotional need for support can vary timewise along the cancer pathway and sometimes surprisingly patients can have significant mental and emotional needs as they recover, so well beyond their treatment phase (see the accompanying graph). Meeting these needs can contribute to long term well-being.”
  • “The slightly strange sounding ‘Essiac’ tea is, in fact, simply a reversal of the surname of the woman who made it famous. In 1922, a young Canadian nurse, Rene Caisse, was given certain herbs by an old woman who had cured herself of breast cancer and had been handed down the recipe by the Ojibawa Native Americans who had used it for generations.”

Are we sure that the promotion of a whole lot of caner quackery merits a gong?

No!

Oddly, as I was writing this, I came across this on social media:

Ken Loach refused one of Betty’s gongs, in 1977, saying: ‘I turned down the OBE because its not a club you want to join when you look at the villains who’ve got it. It’s all the things I think are despicable: patronage, deferring to the monarchy and the name of the British Empire, which is a monument of exploitation and conquest’.

Perhaps we should add QUACKERY to Ken Loach’s list?

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of Reiki applied to women in the postmenopausal period on menopausal symptoms and depression levels.

This randomized trial was conducted with postmenopausal women registered in a family health center. The sample of the study consisted of 82 women (Reiki=41, control=41). While four sessions of Reiki were applied to the women in the Reiki group, once a week for 4 weeks. All participants in the control group received routine care provided by health professionals at the family health center. The Menopause Rating Scale and Beck Depression Inventory were used to collect data. The data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0, with independent and dependent t-tests, and effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. The analysis was conducted using the per-protocol approach, where only participants who fully completed the intervention and adhered to the protocol were included in the analysis.

The mean scores of menopausal complaints (17.31 vs. 21.73; p<0.01), somato-vegetative complaints (2.70 vs. 3.85; p<0.01), and psychological complaints (10.07 vs. 12.60; p<0.05) were significantly reduced in the Reiki group compared to the control group. Similarly, the mean score of depression (9.63 vs. 15.90; p<0.001) was significantly decreased in the Reiki group compared to the control group.

The authors concluded that Reiki practice significantly reduced menopausal symptoms and depression levels in postmenopausal women. These findings suggest that Reiki may be an effective complementary treatment option for women going through menopause.

The study was designed to compare Reiki plus standard care with standard care alone. Thus it followed the infamous A+B versus B design about which I have written repeatedly. It is popular amongst researchers of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) because it invariably produces positive results, even if the tested therapy is a mere placebo.

How come?

Simple, because the placebo effect of most SCAMs can be expected to be sizable and is not controlled by this design. If Reiki itself is ineffective, i.e. not effective beyond placebo [which is true], it would in such a study still produce a positive outcome that makes it look like an effective therapy. In other words, the A+B versus B design is guaranteed to generate a positive result regardless of the uselessness of the tested treatment.

And now, I hope, you understand why so many SCAM researchers choose to adopt the A+B versus B design. Sadly, this will not stop SCAM researchers to continue using it with a view of misleading the public.

 

Have you heard about the “Trivedi Effect”?

No?

Let me tell you all about it.

This study aimed to compare the growth, meat quality, nutrition, consumer preference, and shelf life of biofield-treated birds with those of the unblessed/untreated control (UBCONG).

Commercial genotypes (Cobb 430Y) of white broiler eggs/chicks were used. The eggs were split into two groups: an UBCONG and a biofield (blessings) energy-treated group. Body weight and feed intake were recorded weekly, and meat quality was assessed using nutritional and sensory parameters.

The mean feed conversion ratio was found to be significantly better in the groups of biofield-treated eggs (BTEG; p < 0.01), biofield-treated chicks (BTCG; p < 0.001), and BTEG and chicks [Double biofield (blessing) energy treatment on both eggs and chicks group (DBECG); p < 0.001] than in the UBCONG. Edible meat weight was significantly increased in both BTCG (p < 0.05; 62.69%) and DBECG (p < 0.001; 77.19%) compared with that in UBCONG. Carbohydrate was significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 189.47% and 363.16% in BTEG and DBECG, respectively, compared to UBCONG. Vitamin B3 was significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 26.45% in BTEG compared with UBCONG. Minerals such as iron and copper were significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 2614.92% and 316.67%, respectively, in DBECG compared to UBCONG. The levels of unsaturated fats, monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), C18:1-oleic acid, C18:2-linoleic acid, and C18:3-linolenic acid were significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 96.06%, 111.39%, 72.92%, 88.91%, 66%, and 145.35%, respectively, compared with those of UBCONG. The scoring of sensory parameters (color, flavor, taste, tenderness, juiciness, and overall quality/acceptability) was significantly improved (p < 0.001) in the biofield treatment groups compared with the UBCONG. The shelf-life examination of raw chicken meat indicated that it was safe for storage for up to 21 days.

The authors concluded that the biofield (blessing) energy treatment significantly improved growth-related parameters compared with the UBCONG. This treatment also improved the meat quality compared to the increased levels of carbohydrate, PUFA, MUFA, and few minerals such as Ca, Fe, Zn, and Cu than UBCONG.

The trouble here, it seems to me, is that biofield energy is an invention; IT DOES NOT EXIST!

Perhaps, we need to ask how this study came into being. Its authors (1st author Mahendra Kumar Trivedi) come from ‘TRIVEDI GLOBAL INC’. Mahendra Kumar Trivedi has a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and managed to publish around 50 Medline-listed studies on the ‘Trivedi Effect’, all showing that it is effective as a panacea.

Trivedi Global, Inc. is a US-based company founded by Mahendra Kumar Trivedi. The company is centered around The Trivedi Effect, which they describe as an evidence-based phenomenon in which an individual can harness an inherently intelligent energy from nature and transmit it to living organisms and non-living materials, anywhere in the world through thought intention, to significantly enhance potency and beneficially alter their characteristics. Mahendra Kumar Trivedi claims to have discovered his ability to induce this effect in 1995.

The apparently substantial revenue for Trivedi Global, Inc.  is primarily generated from commercializing the “Trivedi Effect”:

  • Collaborating with companies to “energize” or “treat” their products using the Trivedi Effect before they are sold to the public.
  • Offering energy transmissions or “Consciousness Energy Healing Treatments” and hosting associated wellness events or programs for individuals.
  • Training other individuals as “Biofield Energy Healers” to utilize the Trivedi Effect.

Key products and services of the company include:

  • Mahendra Kumar Trivedi and other “Trivedi Healers” transmitting the Biofield Energy to individuals or materials remotely.
  • Paid, structured training program to develop a person’s “innate healing abilities.” 
  • Applying the “Trivedi Effect” to ingredients, food, or consumer products.

Detailed and specific pricings for these services seem to be not publicly available.

So, what should we make of the above-mentioned, new study? Let me express it as politely as I can: I do not trust its findings until I see an independent replication.

While numerous studies have examined the efficacy of homeopathic treatments, very few have explored patients’ experiences during these consultations. The objective of this study was to analyze and understand how patients perceive this period of care, through a qualitative study conducted at the Integrative Care Day Hospital for oncology outpatients at Toussaint Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews between February and April 2022 with patients living with advanced cancer. Participants were referred by oncologists or supportive care providers to the hospital, where they received various integrative therapies, including homeopathy, acupuncture, aromatherapy, dietetics, osteopathy, mindfulness, art therapy, socio-aesthetic care, and psychological support. Interviews focused on patients’ lived experiences. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached, which occurred after 20 anonymized interviews.

Seventeen of the 20 patients spontaneously commented on the homeopathic consultations, revealing seven key themes:

  1. attentive listening;
  2. sufficient time;
  3. trust and understanding;
  4. a holistic and person-centered approach;
  5. clear and detailed explanations;
  6. open-minded dialogue;
  7. comprehensive clinical and paraclinical assessment.

Consultations were perceived as moments of calm, openness and humanity. The care was described as non-intrusive, providing clarity and meaningful explanations.

The authors concluded that their findings align with prior qualitative research: homeopathic consultations in integrative oncology were positively received, appreciated for their holistic and empathetic nature. These results highlight the meaningful contribution of homeopathy in integrative oncology.

I think, this paper deserves a few comments:

  1. Its authors took all of three years to publish their data. If we assume that their findings are in any way important, this delay would arguably be unethical. If we assume they are unimportant, we must ask why conduct and publish them in the first place?
  2. The researchers seem to think that the listed perceived benefits are specific to homeopathy. In fact, they are the benefits of any good healthcare. If in Strassbourg only homeopaths are capable of having empathy, then something is seriously wrong with their cancer service, and this deficit would need addressing urgently.
  3. The researchers seem to think that their results prove a positive contribution of homeopathy to cancer care. In fact, interviewing 20 patients about their experience proves nothing at all. If anything, it shows that these patients were polite and thus answered kindly – the phenomenon is called social desirability and has nothing to do with homeopathy.

All this does matter little, except that it (yet again) demonstrates how far removed the planet is on which homeopaths seem to live.

Many consumers hold a positive or neutral view of homeopathy. This is primarily because they don’t fully understand what it is, how absurd its assumptions really are, and how dangerous the homeopathic approach to healthcare truly is. A very common misconception, for instance, is that homeopathy is a natural and/or herbal treatment. However, both assumptions are mistaken. Homeopathic remedies are often not derived from natural or herbal substances (see below), and most are so highly diluted they contain no active substance at all. For those who value rational thought, this characteristic alone renders homeopathy utterly absurd.

The “absurdity” of homeopathy stems from several aspects:

  • Claims that defy basic scientific principles: Proponents often assert a belief in “water memory” as the mechanism for remedies diluted beyond Avogadro’s number, meaning not a single original molecule remains. This operates outside the realm of scientific reality.
  • Attributing any positive outcome to homeopathy: Homeopathy is often credited with curing serious conditions, despite lacking a plausible mechanism. This ignores natural recovery, the placebo effect, or concurrent conventional treatments.
  • Dismissing scientific criticism as “Big Pharma conspiracy”: Some proponents frequently use this trope to invalidate negative scientific findings rather than engaging with evidence.
  • Making outlandish claims about what homeopathy can cure: Some proponents claim efficacy for virtually everything, including severe infectious diseases, cancer, or even as a substitute for vaccinations. This is widely considered irresponsible and dangerous.
  • Using pseudoscientific jargon: Terms like “energetic vibrations,” “quantum fields,” or “miasms” are often employed without clear, testable scientific definitions.

While it’s difficult and perhaps even unfair to name prominent exponents of these absurdities, certain types of proponents and their arguments are easily identified:

  • Those who reject conventional medicine entirely for homeopathy: These individuals promote a “gentle” and “holistic” approach, often viewing conventional medicine as harsh and reductionist. This stance can tragically lead patients to forgo evidence-based treatments for serious illnesses (e.g., cancer, severe infections, diabetes) in favor of homeopathy, which has no proven specific effect. The belief that homeopathy alone suffices for all ailments, regardless of severity, is dangerously unscientific.
  • Proponents of “new” or “extreme” provings and remedies: These homeopaths expand the materia medica to include unusual substances. Some conduct “provings” (testing remedies on healthy individuals) with incredibly abstract or implausible “substances” like emotions, dreams, vacuum, X-rays, cosmic energies, or even highly diluted Coca-Cola or parts of the Berlin Wall. The idea that these could be potentized into remedies with specific effects moves into the realm of fantasy rather than scientific inquiry.
  • Those making grand claims about “water memory” or “quantum healing”: These individuals attempt to provide a theoretical basis for homeopathy that goes beyond the known laws of physics and chemistry. Their explanations often involve misinterpretations or misapplications of complex scientific concepts (like quantum mechanics or the structure of water) to justify a mechanism for which there is no evidence. They frequently speak of “information transfer” or “energetic imprints” without any empirical way to measure or verify these phenomena. The scientific consensus is that such claims are pseudoscientific.
  • Promoters of homeopathic “vaccinations” or alternatives to proven public health measures: Offering what they claim are “natural” and “safer” alternatives to conventional vaccines is perhaps one of the most dangerous forms of advocacy. Promoting “homeopathic nosodes” (highly diluted disease products) as equivalents to vaccines is scientifically unfounded and can put individuals and communities at risk by fostering vaccine hesitancy and reducing herd immunity. Public health bodies universally condemn such practices.

Many homeopaths are, in my experience, entirely sincere in their beliefs and genuinely hope to help people (they will even feel ‘hard done by’ when reading this post). However, it’s crucial to remember, I think, that sincerity does not make a charlatan less, but more, dangerous. I have long felt that, if consumers truly understood what homeopathy is all about, their attitude towards it would dramatically change.

Oil pulling is a traditional Ayurvedic technique that has gained renewed attention for its alleged efficacy in maintaining oral hygiene and preventing diseases.
This review aims to “emphasize the significance of oil pulling, an ancient Ayurvedic oral hygiene technique, in reducing plaque deposition and supporting oral health, while highlighting its advantages as a natural and side-effect-free alternative to modern medicine”.
The terms “oil pulling,” “alternative medicine in dentistry,” “ayurvedic medicine,” and “antibacterial in dentistry” were used in a digital search of the PubMed database, which focused on peer-reviewed publications till November 2024. The results were 157, 9097, 57, and 14035 items, respectively. Following a careful examination, pertinent material was also added from other electronic sources.
The oil-pulling technique, using sunflower, sesame, coconut, or olive oils, was found to be effective in reducing microbial load in the oral cavity. These oils, rich in antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal properties, interact with the cell membranes of microorganisms, leading to a significant reduction in plaque deposition. Regular use demonstrated improvements in oral hygiene and minimized adverse effects commonly associated with synthetic medications.
The authors concluded that oil pulling is a safe, cost-effective, and efficient traditional technique for maintaining oral health and reducing plaque deposition. It is natural properties and minimal side effects make it a promising alternative in contemporary dentistry for promoting oral hygiene and overall health. Emphasizing its adoption can contribute to a holistic approach to oral care in the future.
This is not a “comprehensive overview” but a comprehensively misleading paper. As to the conclusion that oil pulling is a safe, cost-effective, and efficient, I should point out that:
  • the safety of oil pulling is assumed but has not actually been tested;
  • the cost-effectiveness of oil pulling is assumed but has not actually been tested;
  • efficiency means the quality of achieving the largest amount of useful work using as little energy as possible and is meaningless in this context. I suspect the authors meant “effectiveness” which is also wrong because it is not evidence-based.

In case you want an evidence-based text about oil pulling, I refer you to a previous post of mine which, in fact, refers to my book in which the treatement was discussed together with 201 further modalities:

So, what is oil pulling? It is the use of oil for swishing it around your mouth for alleged health benefits. Here are several short points that might explain it more fully:

  • Oil pulling is said to have roots that reach back to ancient Hindu texts. Coconut or sesame oils are usually employed for this therapy.
  • The mechanism of action (if there is one at all) is poorly understood, and several theories have been put forward:

Alkali hydrolysis of fat results in saponification or “soap making” process. Since the oils used for oil pulling contain fat, the alkali hydrolysis process emulsifies the fat into bicarbonate ions, normally found in the saliva. Soaps then blend in the oil, increase the surface area of the oil, and thus cleanse the teeth and gums.

A second theory suggests that the viscous nature of the oil inhibits plaque accumulation and adhesion of bacteria.

A third theory holds that the antioxidants present in the oil prevent lipid peroxidation, resulting in an antibiotic-like effect helping in the destruction of microorganisms.

  • Oil pulling is recommended to be carried out in the morning on an empty stomach. About 10 ml of oil is swished between the teeth for a duration of approximately 15-20 min and spat out. This ritual should be followed by rinsing and tooth brushing. The practice should be repeated regularly, even three times daily for acute diseases.
  • To my surprise, oil pulling has been tested in clinical trials. Some of these investigations seem reasonably sound and suggest that coconut oil pulling reduces potentially harmful bacteria in the mouth.[1] This effect has been shown to lead to a reduction in dental plaque formation[2] , halitosis (bad breath) [3] and gingivitis. [4]
  • The evidence for these oral effects is by no means strong, but I have not found studies that show negative results.
  • Dentists – even the bizarre species of ‘holistic dentists‘ – do not seem to be balled over by oil pulling (some malicious minds might speculate that this is so because they cannot earn much money with it).
  • The claimed benefits of oil pulling are, however, not limited to the oral cavity. It is advocated also for the prevention and treatment of conditions such as headaches, migraines, thrombosis, eczema, diabetes and asthma.[5] Some proponents also claim that oil pulling is a detox therapy. Unsurprisingly, none of these claims are supported by good evidence.
  • As long as you don’t swallow the oil, there are no serious risks associated with oil pulling.

So, what is the conclusion? To me, the evidence looks promising as far as oral health is concerned. For all other indication, oil pulling is neither plausible nor evidence-based.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27891311

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18408265

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21911944

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19336860

[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5654187/

Donald Trump has recently made a range of appointments in the health sector of the US. They will strongly influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US as well as worldwide. It therefore seems worth to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and critically evaluate their fit for leadership roles in healthcare.

In this series of posts, I intend to scrutinize them two by two:

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)

  1. RFKJr. is an environmental lawyer, former presidential candidate, vocal vaccine skeptic, critic of the pharmaceutical industry, and advocate of the long-debunked assumption that autism is caused by MMR vaccinations. He has no scientific, medical or public health education or training and is a prominent figure in the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, emphasizing chronic disease reduction and agency reform.

He lacks experience managing large bureaucracies or healthcare systems. He has no experience or expertise in running agencies like HHS, which oversees a $1.7 trillion budget and 80,000 employees.

Kennedy’s leadership undermines public trust in immunization programs, potentially increasing preventable disease outbreaks. He aims to purge staff at FDA and NIH and redirect half of NIH’s $48 billion budget to preventive, alternative, and holistic approaches. This will inevitably disrupt scientific research and weaken evidence-based policy-making.  His lack of public health experience and unscientific views pose risks to healthcare access, reproductive rights, and innovation.

In summary, Kennedy’s lack of relevant experience and history of promoting misinformation make him a high-risk choice for HHS. His actions so far indicate that he will significantly disrupt US healthcare and cause long-term damage to the US and beyond. His appointment was not in the best interest of progress and the US public.

Dave Weldon – Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Weldon is an internist, former Republican congressman, and Army veteran. He has 40 years of medical practice but limited public health leadership experience. Weldon’s congressional tenure focused on fiscal and social issues. He has no record of managing public health crises or large agencies.  He has in the past endorsed debunked claims linking thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative for vaccines, to autism thus raising alarms about his alignment with anti-vaccine sentiments and hindering the CDC’s task of promoting immunization. Paul Offit has therefore criticized Weldon’s nomination, noting his lack of traditional public health training.

Trump’s statement that Weldon will “restore the CDC to its true purpose” suggests a focus on transparency and combating corruption. However, as there’s no compelling evidence of systemic corruption in the CDC, this seems akin to the promotion of a conspiracy theory.

In summary, Weldon’s lack of relevant experience and history of promoting misinformation make him an odd choice for the directorship of the CDC. It is to be feared that his appointment will weaken medical progress and the US healthcare system.

On Easter Sunday, it seems reasonable to look at a recent paper about religious factors that might determine the usage of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). This article examined the vitalistic/holistic foundation of SCAM.

The two Ukranian authors explain that, according to the principles of holistic medicine, health is associated with the harmonization of the elements and forces that constitute human nature on both the physical and spiritual levels of existence. Regarding the religious foundations of SCAM practices of Eastern origin, the systems such as yoga, Daoism, and Ayurveda perceive energy as an impersonal force that an individual can accumulate, balance, and influence through physical and spiritual exercises to achieve health, longevity, and personal self-improvement. These systems are vitalistic, as they recognize impersonal energy as the fundamental basis of existence. In contrast, the conceptual foundation of SCAM practices of Western origin differs fundamentally from Eastern approaches. These practices are not rooted in Christianity, despite having emerged in countries belonging to Christian civilization. This is because, in Christianity, the source of existence is God-Person, which significantly diminishes the ontological status of impersonal energy. As a result, Western SCAM practices have developed an instrumental approach to vitalistic methods, adapting many Eastern techniques to the Western cultural and anthropological context. Additionally, they are based on various personal quasi-scientific systems, such as Mesmer’s magnetism, Hahnemann’s homeopathy, Palmer’s chiropractic methods, and others. To an external observer, these methods may appear impressive. However, whether a physician chooses to incorporate them into their practice depends entirely
on their personal experience and convictions.

The authors concluced that “both Eastern and Western SCAM practices consider energy an important factor in health, and their holistic approach integrates work with the body, mind, and spirit. Regarding the religious foundation of Eastern SCAM practices, systems such as Yoga, Daoism, Ayurveda consider energy to be an impersonal force that individuals can accumulate, balance, and influence through physical and spiritual exercises to
achieve health, longevity, and personal self-improvement. These systems are vitalistic because they recognize energy as the fundamental basis of existence. In contrast, the conceptual foundation of Western SCAM practices is fundamentally different. These practices can not be rooted in Christianity, even though they originate from countries within Christian civilization. This is because, in Christianity, the source of existence is God-Person,
which diminishes the significance of energy. With some exceptions, Christianity lacks a holistic view of energy, and
human control over it is limited. As a result, Western SCAM practices have developed a more instrumental approach to vitalistic methods, including those borrowed from Eastern medicine. Furthermore, they rely on quasi-scientific systems developed by specific individuals, such as Mesmer’s magnetism, Hahnemann’s homeopathy, and Palmer’s chiropractic methods, and others.”

Convinced?

Me neither!

Happy Easter, nonetheless.

World Homeopathy Day is celebrated on April 10 every year. It aims at marking the importance of homeopathy and its contributions to medicine. It also honors the memory of Dr. Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann — the founder of homeopathy.

Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) was born in Meissen, Germany. He studied medicine in Germany and Austria and received his doctorate in 1779 from the university of Erlangen. He practised as a physician but soon became disenchanted with the medicine of his time which he felt was neither effective nor safe. Eventually, he stopped practising and lived from translating medical texts. In the course of this work, he came across a remark about the action of Cinchona bark which prompted him to do experiments on himself. These experiments eventually led to the creation of homeopathy. Hahnemann’s new therapy was controversial but soon became a worldwide success. When Hahnemann was about to retire at the age of 75, he was visited by a young women from Paris. The two were soon married and Hahnemann started a new career in the French metropole where he died in 1843.

Hahnemann’s followers have suffered one defeat after the next, in recent years. More and more countries have stopped reimbursing homeopathy, and the fact that homeopathics are pure placebo has become undeniable. For some of them, this is reason to retreat into their traditional position claiming that homeopathy is, in this or that way, so special that it cannot be squeezed into the straight jacket of science. Here is a very recent article that might serve as an apt example of this notion:

Integrating homeopathy into mainstream medical practice requires a thorough understanding of how the medicine works and what it involves. However, homeopathy, a highly individualized and philosophically alternative medicine, may not be accurately captured by the existing EBM hierarchy. Despite the utility EBM may have as a systematic tool for recognizing evidence-laden treatment options, it overlooks the relevant complexities related to homeopathy. The EBM hierarchy’s narrow focus on statistical significance and empirical data may not be sufficient to capture the complexities and unique principles of homeopathic medicine. A more inclusive, unbiased, and flexible approach that values individualization, mechanistic reasoning, as well as historical and traditional evidence within homeopathy, is needed to develop a nuanced understanding of this alternative medical practice. To bridge this gap, it is crucial to develop an alternative epistemic framework that is consistent with the underlying principles of homeopathy. Such a framework should envelope a more diverse range of data such as mechanistic and experiential evidence. Collaboration between homeopathic practitioners, researchers, and experts in evidence-based methodology could help establish a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to evaluating the evidence for homeopathic treatments.

The article itself explains it as follows:

An appropriate design for assessing homeopathy would consider its unique healing philosophy, thus accurately reflecting the practice under study. To achieve this, we must assess the mechanistic underpinnings that contribute to the treatment’s effectiveness. Homeopathy’s healing philosophy emphasizes individualization and potentization. These practices rely on the practitioner’s assessment of the individual and the resulting design of the medicine prescribed. Furthermore, such a study would not conflate different homeopathic medicines; instead, it would elucidate the effectiveness of the mechanisms giving rise to homeopathy’s healing capacity. For instance, if a certain potency of Ignatia works for one individual, it may be ineffective if prescribed to another without considering their constitution. This relationship regarding the efficiency of homeopathy is backed by the treatment’s medical philosophy. Therefore, it is unfair to reject homeopathy as a medical treatment in its entirety based on a few cases of ineffectiveness, especially when the source of the ineffectiveness can’t be pinpointed.

These arguments sum up the somewhat delusional feelings of many homeopaths. These defenders of the indefensible seem to live on a different planet than the rest of us. Here on planet earth, we have many rational, fair, independent and thus reliable assessments of homeopathy – let me remind you of some of their conclusion:

• “The principles of homeopathy contradict known chemical, physical and biological laws and persuasive scientific trials proving its effectiveness are not available” (Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia)
• “Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.” (National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia)
• “Homeopathic remedies don’t meet the criteria of evidence-based medicine.” (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary)
• “The incorporation of anthroposophical and homeopathic products in the Swedish directive on medicinal products would run counter to several of the fundamental principles regarding medicinal products and evidence-based medicine.” (Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden)
• “There is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition” (National Health Service, England)

So, on the occasion of World Homeopathy Day, rational thinkers might conclude that:

  1. there is a wide consensus stating that homeopathy is a placebo therapy;
  2. only homeopaths do not agree with this consensus;
  3. those homeopaths who disagree use transparently bogus arguments in defence of their trade;
  4. closer inspection reveals that they are, in fact, members of a cult.

 

RUDOLF STEINER died 100 years ago today – a good reason, I think, to remember the utter nonsense he postulated (not only) in the realm of healthcare. Here is a slightly abbreviated section from my recent book:

Rudolf Steiner was born on 25 February 1861 in Kraljević, Austrian-Hungarian empire. At the age of 9, Steiner allegedly had his first spiritual experience; he saw the spirit of his deceased aunt. Realizing Rudolf’s potentials, his father sent his son first to a ‘Realschule’ in Wiener Neustadt and then to the ‘Technische Hochschule’ (Technical University) in Vienna where he studied mathematics, physics, chemistry, botany, biology, literature, and philosophy. While Steiner was still a student, he was appointed as the natural science editor of a new edition of Goethe’s works.

In 1890, Steiner moved to Weimar, Germany, where he was employed at the Schiller-Goethe Archives. Concurrently, he started working for his doctoral degree, which he received in 1891 from the University of Rostock; the title of his dissertation, later published as a book, was ‘Wahrheit und Wissenschaft’ (Truth and Science).
In 1897, Steiner moved to Berlin, where he joined esoteric circles and studied Eastern and occult religions. In 1899, he married Anna Eunicke. Subsequently, Steiner met Marie von Sivers, an actress from the Baltic region and also a devotee of anthroposophy. They got married in 1914.

Steiner had by then joined the Theosophical Society and, in 1902, was made its General Secretary. Years of disagreement with key members of the organisation prompted him to leave the society in 1912. On 28 December of that year, Rudolf Steiner, along with a group of prominent German theosophists, founded the Anthroposophic Society.

Anthroposophy, a term borrowed from the 19th-century Swiss philosopher and physician Ignaz Troxler, is based on the notion that there is a spiritual world that is accessible only to the highest faculties of mental knowledge. Steiner rejected experimentation as a means of gaining knowledge; instead, he relied on imagination, inspiration and intuition. He claimed that his anthroposophy centered on “knowledge produced by the higher self in man.” He believed that humans once participated more fully in spiritual processes of the world through a dreamlike consciousness, but had since become restricted by their attachment to material things.

In 1913 at Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland, Steiner built the first ‘Goetheanum’, which he called a “school of spiritual science.” The building was destroyed by a fire in 1922 and subsequently replaced by the new ‘Goetheanum’ that still exists today. Steiner also worked on various other projects, including education (Waldorf schools) and biodynamic agriculture.

In the late 1910s, Steiner and his mistress, Ita Wegman, started working with medical doctors to create his anthroposophic medicine. In 1920, they founded the ‘Klinisch-Therapeutische Institut’ in Arlesheim, and on 21 March 1921, they organised the first of a series of courses for doctors in Dornach. This day is now considered to be the birth of anthroposophic medicine. In the same year, pharmacists and physicians gathered under Steiner’s guidance to create the pharmaceutical company, ‘Weleda’. At around the same time, Wegman founded the first anthroposophic medical clinic, the ‘Ita Wegman Clinic’ in Arlesheim.

Anthroposophic medicine cannot be adequately described through a single therapeutic modality. It has been aptly called a ‘pluriversum of theories and practices under the umbrella of an anthroposophic worldview’. The anthroposophic concept comprises a range of medications many (but not all) of which are plant-based, as well as art therapy, eurhythy (dance therapy), special dietary approaches, physiotherapy and other modalities. According to Steiner, humans have four ‘bodies’: The physical body, the ‘etheric’ body – which is based on formative forces, the ‘astral’ body – which reflects a person’s emotions and inner drives, and a conscious body – which is the domain of the ego and self.

For non-anthroposophist, these concepts are hardly comprehensible. They are based on associations between planets, metals and organs, from which therapeutic rules are derived. These affinities also form the basis of the many anthroposophical medicines, which are produced by liquefaction, aeration, solidification, combustion, potentiation and other processes. The history of the constituents of anthroposophic remedies is often considered to be more important than their material composition. According to Steiner and his substantial writings, “the spirit of the plant, which is drawn out of the tree by the parasitic plant act on the astral”. During the years before his death, Steiner, who had no medical background, often saw patients himself. He would then stare at them and divine both the diagnosis and the treatment; in other words, he acted as a clairvoyant lay-healer.

The Nazi movement had an ambivalent attitude to Steiner and to anthroposophic medicine. On the one hand, several leading Nazis such as Hess were clearly in favour of anthroposophic medicine. Steiner’s wife, Marie Steiner-von Sivers (1867 – 1948) who made significant contributions to anthroposophic medicine had publicly expressed sympathy for the Nazi regime since its beginnings. On the other hand, a political theorist of the Nazi movement, Dietrich Eckart, criticised Steiner in 1919 and (wrongly) suggested that he was a Jew. In 1921, Adolf Hitler accused Steiner of being a tool of the Jews, while other Nazis even called for a “war against Steiner”. In 1922, Steiner gave a lecture in Munich which was disrupted by Nazi thugs. Such hostilities led Steiner to leave his home in Berlin and move to Dornbach; he stated that, if the Nazis came to power in Germany, it would no longer be possible for him to live in Germany.

From 1923 on, Steiner showed signs of increasing frailness. He nonetheless continued to lecture widely. His last lecture was given in late September 1924. Steiner died at Dornach on 30 March 1925 in the presence of Ita Wegman.

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