A pro-homeopathy site (to be taken with a pinch of salt) claims that today 300 homeopathic MDs belong to the “Unio Homoeopathica Belgica” and 4,000 MDs (about 10% of all doctors) are prescribing homeopathics at least occasionally.
One-fourth of the Belgian population uses homeopathy. As of 1998, only MDs can legally practice homeopathy. But now it seems that the free ride for Belgian homeopathy is coming to an end. Belgium has joined the long list of countries (e.g. UK, US, Spain, France, Sweden, Russia) where the usefulness of homeopathy is being questioned.
‘Test Achats’ is a Belgian not-for-profit organization which promotes consumer protection. It was founded in 1957 and publishes research in a subscription magazine. It has been reported that this organiation has issued a crushing report on homoeopathy, describing it as “unacceptable” that homeopathic remedies are allowed to be described by practitioners as medication.
Il est inacceptable que des médicaments homéopathiques et des médicaments traditionnels à base de plantes puissent être vendus en tant que “médicament” en pharmacie sans que leur efficacité n’ait été démontrée. Il en va de même pour un certain nombre de médicaments classiques et de médicaments ordinaires à base de plantes, pour lesquels nous avons également de gros doutes quant à leur efficacité et/ou leur sécurité. Le statut de “médicament” leur confère une aura de crédibilité qu’ils ne méritent absolument pas. Notre banque de données de médicaments met un terme à cette tromperie et distingue les médicaments utiles de ceux qui ne le sont pas…
Pour les 55 médicaments homéopathiques avec indication, ces pourcentages sont … 84 % à “utilité contestable” et 16 % “à déconseiller”.
‘Test-Achats’ describes homoeopathy as “quack medicine,” and states that “there are conditions where the patient really has no time to lose on products whose effectiveness has not been demonstrated. People who are suffering from very real heart and vascular conditions should immediately seek treatment by a doctor, and with truly effective medication.”
Homeopathy has had a long and profitable ride in France; nowhere else in Europe is it more popular, nowhere in Europe are the profit margins higher, and nowhere have I seen pharmacists pushing so hard to earn a few extra Euros on useless homeopathic remedies.
But, since a few months, sceptics have started to raise their voices and object to homeopathic reimbursement (currently at the rate of 30%) and to homeopathy in general.
- A group of doctors protested against homeopathy by publishing an open letter in ‘Le Figaro’.
- The French Academies of Medicine and Pharmacy published a report confirming the lack of evidence for homeopathy.
- The medical school in Lille suspended its degree in homeopathy.
The French health secretary, the oncologist Dr Agnès Buzyn, reacted wisely, in my view. She initially stated that the effect of homeopathy is ‘probably a placebo effect‘. Subsequently, she asked the regulator, La Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS), to look into the matter and prepare a full analysis of the evidence. This report has now been published.
An article in ‘FRANCE INFO’ reports that HAS found no good evidence in support of the ~ 1 200 homeopathic remedies currently on the French market. The document is currently being considered by Dr Buzyn who will announce her decision about reimbursement in June. It is considered to be highly likely that she will stop reimbursement.
If so, consumers will soon have to pay in full for homeopathic preparations out of their own pocket. In addition, they would have to pay the VAT, and it is foreseeable that this change would signal the end of the French consumers’ love affair with homeopathy. This development is bound to seriously hurt Boiron, the world’s largest producer of homeopathics. The firm has already announced that they suspended its trading on the stock market and is now arguing that the move would endanger its sizable workforce.
The question I now ask myself is whether Boiron is powerful enough to do something about all this. Personally, I have been impressed by the rational approach of Dr Buzyn. She will no doubt see through Boiron’s bogus argument of saving a form of obsolete quackery in the name of employment. Therefore, I expect that the days of homeopathy’s reimbursement in France are counted.
(For those who can read French, I add the original ‘ FRANCE INFO’ article below.)
Avis définitif en juin
Cet avis avait été réclamé par la ministre de la Santé il y a plusieurs mois face à la montée de la polémique entre médecins pro et anti-homéopathie. 124 médecins avaient relancé le débat l’an dernier en qualifiant les homéopathes de “charlatans”.
Désormais, lors d’une phase contradictoire, les laboratoires vont pouvoir répondre à la HAS, qui rendra son avis définitif en juin. La ministre de la Santé, Agnès Buzyn, avait par le passé annoncé qu’elle se rangerait à cet avis.
1 000 emplois menacés, selon Boiron
Les pro-homéopathie eux, s’insurgent. Selon eux, les granules ne coûtent que 130 millions d’euros par an à la Sécurité sociale, contre 20 milliards pour les médicaments classiques. Et il existe d’après eux, au minimum, un effet placebo. Pour les laboratoires Boiron, leader mondial du secteur, si l’homéopathie n’est plus remboursée, ce sont 1 000 emplois qui sont directement menacés.
Par ailleurs, dans un communiqué commun, trois laboratoires (Boiron, Lehning et Weleda) s’émeuvent de découvrir à travers un média la teneur d’un avis d’une agence indépendante qui devait être tenu confidentiel. Les laboratoires Boiron précisent à franceinfo qu’ils n’ont pas encore reçu le projet d’avis de la Haute autorité de santé. Boiron, entreprise française cotée, annonce “suspendre” son cours de bourse.
‘Rationable’ has recently published a remarkable article on homeopathy. Its author starts admitting that for most of my life, I have taken it for granted that homoeopathy worked. I didn’t know how or why, I just knew that my parents and most other people swore by it, so there had to be something to it. I was treated with homoeopathy several times. In one case, it actually made things worse. The homoeopathic doctor responded with, “Things sometimes have to get worse before they get better.” I have to admit, as much as I wasn’t impressed with that answer, I liked the taste of the medicines. Always sugary and sweet or even with that little bit of alcohol. What more does a kid need in his life than to eat something sugary sweet for medicine!
The article is lengthy but well worth reading. I take the liberty of merely quoting its conclusion:
Here I am, a decade later, seeing homoeopathy from a completely different perspective than what I used to. It’s probably one of the most profound discoveries in my life and has been one of the factors that have led me to question everything, including, most importantly, myself.
Now, homoeopathy has become one of the most studied fields in the world, with an impenetrable mountain of evidence that has piled up against its claims. These studies have been done by many independent teams and analysed and reviewed by some of the most reliable scientific organisations in the world. There’s just no denying it. There is no evidence for it working…ever. Why? Because it’s just water. And if it’s brought into contact with sugar, it somehow transfers its memories to it. The more I think about it, the more implausible it sounds.
And it’s not just me. Many governmental bodies like UK’s National Health Service (NHS), The American Medical Association, the FASEB and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, have stated that there is no evidence to support the use of homoeopathic treatments. Even representatives of the WHO have said that homoeopathic remedies should not be used to treat tuberculosis or diarrhoea.
So, what do you think? Is it worth your time and money to buy water and sugar pills that have shown no evidence of working, or would you instead go to a regular doctor and get real medication that has a good chance of treating you? I, for one, will be going to the latter.
As promised, here’s the short version of this topic:
Homoeopathy is an ancient practice created in the 1700s as a counter treatment to bloodletting and other rather horrific medical practices
Homoeopathy is a process of diluting a small amount substance in more water than the whole earth can contain to treat your ailment
There has been no evidence to show that it works any better than a placebo, even after hundreds of clinical trials have been conducted.
I am always delighted to see how individuals who start thinking critically can change things for themselves and others. The evidence suggests that people who are strong on either intelligence or critical thinking experience fewer negative events, but critical thinkers tend to do better. I hope that, one day, all readers of this blog manage to benefit from the great potential of critical thinking.
Prince Charles is visiting Germany. According to the British press, he will say (or, by now, probably has said):
“… Our countries and our people have been through so much together… As we look towards the future, I can only hope that we can also pledge to redouble our commitment to each other and to the ties between us… For some of us, of course, these connections are particularly personal…”
And right he is!
Charles is Britain’s staunchest supporter of and meddler in SCAM, while the Germans seem to be the most prolific innovators of SCAM.
Just think of
- von Bingen, Hildegard – inventor of a form of herbal medicine;
- Hahnemann, Samuel – inventor of homeopathy;
- Hamer, Ryke Geerd – inventor of New German Medicine;
- Huneke, Ferdinand – inventor of neural therapy;
- Kneipp, Sebastian – co-inventor of naturopathy;
- Mesmer, Anton – inventor of hypnotherapy;
- Morlell, Franz – inventor of bioresonance;
- Reckeweg, Hans -inventor of homotoxicology;
- Schimmel, Helmut – co-inventor of the Vega test;
- Schulz, Heinrich – inventor of autogenic training;
- Steiner, Rudlof – inventor of anthroposophical medicine;
- Voll, Reinhold – inventor of a form of electroacupuncture;
- Wegman, Ita – co-inventor of anthroposophical medicine.
Why did I compile this list?
Actually, I am not quite sure. But now that it is in front of me, a few thoughts go through my mind:
- Germany seems to be the promised land for quacks; in addition to the list above, think of the Heilpraktiker or the German alternative cancer clinics.
- On this blog, we have discussed most of these SCAMs, yet the list gave me several ideas for future posts;
- With only three exceptions, these SCAMs are fairly recent. They were invented when conventional medicine was already making big strides towards progress. There was no need for them. Why then were they invented?
- Almost all of these treatments were the brainchild of a single person. Could this be a hallmark for quackery?
- With only two exceptions, the inventors were male. Is the innovation of SCAM a male prerogative?
- With just one or two exceptions, these SCAMs are ineffective, useless and superfluous. Not attributes, of course, that would link them to Charles!
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted warning letters to 4 US companies producing homeopathic products for significant violations of current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations, including a letter to King Bio Inc. of Asheville, N.C. The FDA previously warned the public about the agency’s serious concerns with the quality of drug products produced by King Bio.
Please allow me to copy the FDA’s announcement unaltered and without comment:
“In late 2017, the FDA proposed a comprehensive, risk-based enforcement approach to drug products labeled as homeopathic and marketed without the required FDA approval. While the agency continues to examine this approach, the homeopathic industry has continued to grow, and we need to continue to address, consistent with our current enforcement policies, situations where products labeled as homeopathic are being marketed for serious diseases and/or conditions where the products haven’t been shown to offer clinical benefits. We’re committed to continue taking appropriate actions when we believe patients are being put at risk by products that contain potentially harmful ingredients or have significant quality issues. One company that continues to concern us because of the low quality of their operation and the threat their products pose to consumers is King Bio. Despite previous actions we’ve taken, our concerns remain. The warning letter we’re sending is a formal notice to King Bio outlining a number of ongoing, serious violations with their manufacturing operations that must be corrected,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. “Today we’ve also posted warnings letters to three other homeopathic drug manufacturers for additional concerns we’ve observed – from the use of toxic substances like snake venom that has the potential to cause harm and does not have demonstrated benefit, to other firms whose products we’ve found to be contaminated. These actions build on similar steps we’ve taken over the past year, as we continue to see products labeled as homeopathic that are being marketed without approval for a wide array of diseases and conditions, from chronic pain to cancer. In addition to our concerns with contamination, some products labeled as homeopathic may not deliver any benefit and may have the potential to cause harm. That’s why we’ve proposed a new regulatory approach to prioritize additional enforcement and regulatory actions against certain products labeled as homeopathic. We’re focused on products that have the greatest potential to cause risk to patients, including products for vulnerable populations like children. The actions we’ve taken recently, and over the course of the past year are further warning to all companies that these types of products must be manufactured and labeled appropriately. We’re working to finalize our draft guidance in the coming months to help ensure that products that reach consumers are not harmful to their health.”
Products labeled as homeopathic have not been approved by the FDA for any use and may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness and quality. Products labeled as homeopathic can be made from a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals and chemicals. These products are often marketed as natural, safe and effective alternatives to approved prescription and nonprescription products and are widely available in the marketplace. These unapproved drugs may cause significant and even irreparable harm if they are poorly manufactured, which can lead to contamination, or may contain active ingredients that aren’t adequately tested or disclosed to patients, such as belladonna, which the agency has previously warned against.
The warning letter to King Bio Inc. provides details of flaws in manufacturing operations and quality assurance systems found during a July 2018 FDA inspection of the facility. Beyond the violations found during the inspection, the FDA collected and tested samples of finished homeopathic drug products; results revealed inordinately high microbiological contamination. Additionally, evidence collected during the FDA’s inspection indicated recurring microbial contamination associated with the water system used to manufacture drugs. The microbiological contamination of the water system led, in part, to a voluntary recall of more than 900 potentially homeopathic drug products manufactured by King Bio. Following the July 2018 inspection, the FDA alerted consumers and pet owners not to use drug products, including homeopathic drug products, made by King Bio and labeled as Dr. King’s, as these products may pose a safety risk to people (especially infants, children, pregnant women and those with compromised immune systems), as well as pets due to the high levels of microbial contamination identified at the manufacturing site. The company recalled all drug products made with water marketed for humans and animals.
King Bio manufactures a range of products including those for children, adults and pets. Since August 2018, more than 900 potentially contaminated products manufactured by King Bio have been recalled, including those labeled as Aquaflora, Canada, Dr. King’s Natural Medicine(s), Natural Pet, People’s Best and SafeCare. Additionally, other products manufactured by King Bio and distributed by other companies under different brand names were also recalled due to contamination. These include products sold under the brand names Sprayology, Silver Star Brand, HelloLife, Beaumont Bio Med and BioLyte Laboratories.
Today, the FDA also posted warning letters to additional companies for products labeled as homeopathic due to various quality and misbranding violations.
- Red Mountain Incorporated, Oakland Park, Fla. — warning letter for lacking quality oversight while manufacturing homeopathic drug products containing ingredients with potentially toxic effects for consumers, including snake venom.
- Tec Laboratories Incorporated, Albany, Ore. — warning letter for releasing products marketed for use with children, without conducting testing to ensure they were free from objectionable levels of microbial contamination. The company also did not adequately investigate test results that found high microorganism levels in its water system
- B. Jain Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rajasthan, India — warning letter after FDA investigators observed insects in the facility and in ingredients used to make its products.
The FDA has taken similar actions this year, including a warning letter to Nutra Pharma Corp., Boca Raton, Fla.; as announced earlier this month, the FDA issued a warning letter regarding the company illegally marketing unapproved products labeled as homeopathic with claims about their ability to treat addiction and chronic pain; the agency also alerted consumers to this health fraud scam. In February, the FDA issued a warning letter to Pure Source LLC, Doral, Fla. for distributing drugs made with contaminated raw materials.
In December 2017, the FDA proposed a risk-based enforcement approach that prioritizes enforcement and regulatory actions involving drug products labeled as homeopathic and marketed without the required FDA approval that have the greatest potential to cause risk to patients. Given the concerns about the proliferation of potentially ineffective and harmful products labeled as homeopathic, the FDA stated when it issued the draft guidance that it would consider taking additional enforcement and/or regulatory actions, consistent with its current compliance policies, in the interest of protecting the public. We expect to finalize this guidance soon.
The FDA encourages healthcare professionals and consumers to report adverse events or quality problems experienced with the use of any of these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.
A series of article in The Times yesterday (to which I had made several minor contributions) focussed on the dangers of homeoprophylaxis/homeopathic vaccinations. Sadly, the paper is behind a paywall. I therefore will try to summarise some of the relevant points.
A courageous Times-reporter went under cover to extract some of the anti-vaccination views from a lay homeopath. This particular homeopath happened to charge £330 from customers who want to protect themselves or their family from infectious diseases (£130 for a homeopathic remedy kit, plus £200 for the compulsory instructions via skype that automatically come with the kit). Here are some of the most obvious porkies uttered by that homeopath:
- Only 30% of healthcare professionals get vaccinated.
- Rubella is a very mild disease.
- Cancer patients don’t get fever.
- Measles mainly kills children with severe disease.
- Anything which messes with natural immunity could contribute to autism.
- Health officials devised a seven-step recipe to scare consumers into vaccinating their kids.
- Fevers should be celebrated.
This new undercover research by the Times is reminiscent of our own investigation of 2002. At the time, we contacted 168 homoeopaths, of whom 104 (72%) responded, 27 (26%) withdrawing their answers after debriefing. We also contacted 63 chiropractors, of whom 22 (44%) responded, six (27%) withdrawing their responses after debriefing. Only 3% of professional homoeopaths and 25% of the chiropractors advised in favour of the MMR vaccination. Almost half of the homoeopaths and nearly a fifth of the chiropractors advised against it. (This tiny and seemingly insignificant study almost cost me my job: some homeopaths complained to my peers at Exeter University who then, in their infinite wisdom, conducted a most unpleasant investigation into my allegedly ‘unethical’ research; full details of this amazing story are provided in my memoir.)
But perhaps you think that homeoprophylaxis might be effective after all? In this case, you would be mistaken! As discussed a couple of weeks ago, a recent study demonstrated that such treatments are ineffective. Its authors concluded that homeopathic vaccines do not evoke antibody responses and produce a response that is similar to placebo. In contrast, conventional vaccines provide a robust antibody response in the majority of those vaccinated.
The Times article stated that about half of all new parents have been exposed to anti-vaxx propaganda. Consequently, global measles cases have risen by 300% in the first three months of this year compared to last year. Faced with measles outbreaks across the world, it is hard to deny that homeopaths who promote homeopathic vaccinations are a significant risk to public health.
The Times considered the issue sufficiently important to add an editorial. Its opening sentence sums up the issue well, I think: The evidence supporting claims that homeopathic remedies offer an effective alternative to the measles vaccine can be summarised in one word: zero. And its concluding sentences are even clearer: Tobacco companies are obliged to carry prominent public health warnings on their products. Homeopaths should too.
If one agrees with this sentiment, I suggest, we also consider the same for some:
- doctors of anthroposophical medicine;
- doctors practising integrative medicine.
And furthermore I suggest we disregard the many pro-vaccination statements by the professional organisations of these clinicians – they are nothing but semi-transparent fig-leaves and a politically-correct lip services which they neither enforce nor even truly mean.
Exactly 20 years ago, I published a review concluding that the generally high and possibly growing prevalence of complementary/alternative medicine use by children renders this topic an important candidate for rigorous investigation. Since then, many papers have emerged, and most of them are worrying in one way or another. Here is the latest one.
This Canadian survey assessed chiropractic (DC) and naturopathic doctors’ (ND) natural health product (NHP) recommendations for paediatric care. It was developed in collaboration with DC and ND educators, and delivered as an on-line national survey. NHP dose, form of delivery, and indications across paediatric age ranges (from newborn to 16 years) for each practitioner’s top five NHPs were assessed. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and non-parametric tests.
Of the 421 respondents seeing one or more paediatric patients per week, 172 (41%, 107 DCs, 65 NDs) provided 440 NHP recommendations, categorized as:
- vitamins and minerals (89 practitioners, 127 recommendations),
- probiotics (110 practitioners, 110 recommendations),
- essential fatty acids (EFAs: 72 practitioners, 72 recommendations),
- homeopathics (56 practitioners, 66 recommendations),
- botanicals (29 practitioners, 31 recommendations),
- other NHPs (33 practitioners, 34 recommendations).
Indications for the NHP recommendations were tabulated for NHPs with 10 or more recommendations in any age category:
- 596 total indications for probiotics,
- 318 indications for essential fatty acids,
- 138 indications for vitamin D,
- 71 indications for multi-vitamins.
Good evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing for NHP use in children is scarce or even absent. Therefore, the finding that so many DCs and NDs recommend unproven NHPs for use in children is worrying, to say the least. It seems to indicate that, at least in Canada, DCs and NDs are peddling unproven, mostly useless and potentially harmful children.
In an earlier, similar survey the same group of researchers had disclosed that the majority of Canadian DCs and NDs seem to see infants, children, and youth for a variety of health conditions and issues, while, according to their own admission, not having adequate paediatric training.
Is this a Canadian phenomenon? If you think so, read this abstract:
This systematic review is aimed at estimating the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)-use by paediatric populations in the United Kingdom (UK).
AMED, CINAHL, COCHRANE, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for English language peer-reviewed surveys published between 01 January 2000 and September 2011. Additionally, relevant book chapters and our own departmental files were searched manually.
Eleven surveys were included with a total of 17,631 paediatric patients. The majority were of poor methodological quality. Due to significant heterogeneity of the data, a formal meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate. Ten surveys related to CAM in general, while one was specifically on homeopathy. Across all surveys on CAM in general, the average one-year prevalence rate was 34% and the average lifetime prevalence was 42%. In surveys with a sample size of more than 500, the prevalence rates were considerably lower than in surveys with the sample size of lower than 500. Herbal medicine was the most popular CAM modality, followed by homeopathy and aromatherapy.
Many paediatric patients in the UK seem to use CAM. Paediatricians should therefore have sufficient knowledge about CAM to issue responsible advice.
This means, I fear, that children are regularly treated by SCAM practitioners who are devoid of the medical competence to do so, and who prescribe or recommend treatments of unknown value, usually without the children needing them.
Why are regulators not more concerned about this obvious abuse?
The aim of this new systematic review was to evaluate the controlled trials of homeopathy in bronchial asthma. Relevant trials published between Jan 1, 1981, and Dec 31, 2016, were considered. Substantive research articles, conference proceedings, and master and doctoral theses were eligible. Methodology was assessed by Jadad’s scoring, internal validity by the Coch-rane tool, model validity by Mathie’s criteria, and quality of individualization by Saha’s criteria.
Sixteen trials were eligible. The majority were positive, especially those testing complex formulations. Methodological quality was diverse; 8 trials had “high” risk of bias. Model validity and individualization quality were compromised. Due to both qualitative and quantitative inadequacies, proofs supporting individualized homeopathy remained inconclusive. The trials were positive (evidence level A), but inconsistent, and suffered from methodological heterogeneity, “high” to “uncertain” risk of bias, incomplete study reporting, inadequacy of independent replications, and small sample sizes.
The authors of this review come from:
- the Department of Homeopathy, District Joint Hospital, Government of Bihar, Darbhanga, India;
- the Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, Sri Sai Nath Postgraduate Institute of Homoeopathy, Allahabad, India;
- the Homoeopathy University Jaipur, Jaipur, India;
- the Central Council of Homeopathy, Hooghly,
- the Central Council of Homeopathy, Howrah, India
They state that they have no conflicts of interest.
The review is puzzling on so many accounts that I had to read it several times to understand it. Here are just some of its many oddities:
- According to its authors, the review adhered to the PRISMA-P guideline; as a co-author of this guideline, I can confirm that this is incorrect.
- The authors claim to have included all ‘controlled trials (randomized, non-randomized, or observational) of any form of homeopathy in patients suffering from persistent and chronic bronchial asthma’. In fact, they also included uncontrolled studies (16 controlled trials and 12 uncontrolled observational studies, to be precise).
- The authors included papers published between Jan 1, 1981, and Dec 31, 2016. It is unacceptable, in my view, to limit a systematic review in this way. It also means that the review was seriously out of date already on the day it was published.
- The authors tell us that they applied no language restrictions. Yet they do not inform us how they handled papers in foreign languages.
- Studies of homeopathy as a stand alone therapy were included together with studies of homeopathy as an adjunct. Yet the authors fail to point out which studies belonged to which category.
- Several of the included studies are not of homeopathy but of isopathy.
- The authors fail to detail their results and instead refer to an ‘online results table’ which I cannot access even though I have the on-line paper.
- Instead, they report that 28 studies were included and ‘thus, the level of evidence was graded as A.’
- No direction of outcome was provided in the results section. All we do learn from the paper’s discussion section is that ‘the majority of the studies were positive, and the level of evidence could be graded as A (strong scientific evidence)’.
- Despite the high risk of bias in most of the included studies, the authors suggest a ‘definite role of homeopathy beyond placebo in the treatment of bronchial asthma’.
- The current Cochrane review (also authored by a pro-homeopathy team) concluded that there is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. Yet the authors of this new review do not even attempt to explain the contradiction.
- Allium cepa 3C HPUS
- Apis mellifica 15C HPUS
- Eupatorium perfoliatum 3C HPUS
- Gelsemium sempervirens 6C HPUS
- Kali bichromicum 6C HPUS
- Nux vomica 3C HPUS
- Phytolacca decandra 6C HPUS
- Pulsatilla 6C HPUS
3C = a dilution of 1:1000000
6C = a dilution of 1:1000000000000
15C = a dilution of 1:1000000000000000000000000000000
The ingredients are, according to this website, claimed to have the following effects:
- Allium cepa 3C HPUS – Relieves sneezing and runny nose
- Apis mellifica 15C HPUS – Relieves nasal congestion
- Eupatorium perfoliatum 3C HPUS – Relieves aches associated with colds
- Gelsemium sempervirens 6C HPUS – Relieves headaches associated with colds
- Kali bichromicum 6C HPUS – Relieves nasal discharge
- Nux vomica 3C HPUS – Relieves sneezing attacks
- Phytolacca decandra 6C HPUS – Relieves mild fever
- Pulsatilla 6C HPUS – Relieves colds with a loss of taste and smell
The formula could easily make Hahnemann turn in his grave! It goes against most of what he has been teaching. But I found these claims interesting nevertheless.
Are they true? To find out, I did some research. Here is what I found (in case anyone can find more evidence, I’d be most grateful to let me know):
- Allium cepa 3C HPUS – Relieves sneezing and runny nose NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM
- Apis mellifica 15C HPUS – Relieves nasal congestion NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM
- Eupatorium perfoliatum 3C HPUS – Relieves aches associated with colds NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM
- Gelsemium sempervirens 6C HPUS – Relieves headaches associated with colds NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM
- Kali bichromicum 6C HPUS – Relieves nasal discharge NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM
- Nux vomica 3C HPUS – Relieves sneezing attacks NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM
- Phytolacca decandra 6C HPUS – Relieves mild fever NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM
- Pulsatilla 6C HPUS – Relieves colds with a loss of taste and smell NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM
I am confused! If there is no good evidence, how come Boiron, the manufacturer of the product, is allowed to make these claims? And how come the product just was given an award?
The Mom’s Choice Awards® (MCA) evaluates products and services created for children, families and educators. The program is globally recognized for establishing the benchmark of excellence in family-friendly media, products and services. The organization is based in the United States and has reviewed thousands of items from more than 55 countries…
An esteemed panel of evaluators includes education, media and other experts as well as parents, children, librarians, performing artists, producers, medical and business professionals, authors, scientists and others.
MCA evaluators volunteer their time and are bound by a strict code of ethics which ensures expert and objective analysis free from any manufacturer association.
The evaluation process uses a proprietary methodology in which items are scored on a number of elements including production quality, design, educational value, entertainment value, originality, appeal and cost. Each item is judged on its own merit.
MCA evaluators are especially interested in items that help families grow emotionally, physically and spiritually; are morally sound and promote good will; and are inspirational and uplifting…
Now I am even more confused!
A benchmark of excellence?
A strict code of ethics?
I must have misunderstood something! Or perhaps the award was for achieving a maximum of 8 false claims for one single product!? Can someone please enlighten me?
Whenever there are discussions about homeopathy (currently, they have reached fever-pitch both in France and in Germany), one subject is bound to emerge sooner or later: its cost. Some seemingly well-informed person will exclaim that USING MORE HOMEOPATHY WILL SAVE US ALL A LOT OF MONEY.
Of course, homeopathic remedies tend to cost, on average, less than conventional treatments. But that is beside the point. A car without an engine is also cheaper than one with an engine. Comparing the costs of items that are not comparable is nonsense.
What we need are proper analyses of cost-effectiveness. And these studies clearly fail to prove that homeopathy is a money-saver.
Even researchers who are well-known for their pro-homeopathy stance have published a systematic review of economic evaluations of homeopathy. They included 14 published assessments, and the more rigorous of these investigations did not show that homeopathy is cost-effective. The authors concluded that “although the identified evidence of the costs and potential benefits of homeopathy seemed promising, studies were highly heterogeneous and had several methodological weaknesses. It is therefore not possible to draw firm conclusions based on existing economic evaluations of homeopathy“.
Probably the most meaningful study in this area is an investigation by another pro-homeopathy research team. Here is its abstract:
This study aimed to provide a long-term cost comparison of patients using additional homeopathic treatment (homeopathy group) with patients using usual care (control group) over an observation period of 33 months.
Health claims data from a large statutory health insurance company were analysed from both the societal perspective (primary outcome) and from the statutory health insurance perspective (secondary outcome). To compare costs between patient groups, homeopathy and control patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Predictor variables for the propensity scores included health care costs and both medical and demographic variables. Health care costs were analysed using an analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline costs, between groups both across diagnoses and for specific diagnoses over a period of 33 months. Specific diagnoses included depression, migraine, allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and headache.
Data from 21,939 patients in the homeopathy group (67.4% females) and 21,861 patients in the control group (67.2% females) were analysed. Health care costs over the 33 months were 12,414 EUR [95% CI 12,022-12,805] in the homeopathy group and 10,428 EUR [95% CI 10,036-10,820] in the control group (p<0.0001). The largest cost differences were attributed to productivity losses (homeopathy: EUR 6,289 [6,118-6,460]; control: EUR 5,498 [5,326-5,670], p<0.0001) and outpatient costs (homeopathy: EUR 1,794 [1,770-1,818]; control: EUR 1,438 [1,414-1,462], p<0.0001). Although the costs of the two groups converged over time, cost differences remained over the full 33 months. For all diagnoses, homeopathy patients generated higher costs than control patients.
The analysis showed that even when following-up over 33 months, there were still cost differences between groups, with higher costs in the homeopathy group.
A recent analysis confirms this situation. It concluded that patients who use homeopathy are more expensive to their health insurances than patients who do not use it. The German ‘Medical Tribune’ thus summarised the evidence correctly when stating that ‘Globuli are m0re expensive than conventional therapies’. This quote mirrors perfectly the situation in Switzerland which as been summarised as follows: ‘Globuli only cause unnecessary healthcare costs‘.
But homeopaths (perhaps understandably) seem reluctant to agree. They tend to come out with ever new arguments to defend the indefensible. They claim, for instance, that prescribing a homeopathic remedy to a patient would avoid giving her a conventional treatment that is not only more expensive but also has side-effects which would cause further expense to the system.
To some, this sounds perhaps reasonable (particularly, I fear, to some politicians), but it should not be reasonable argument for responsible healthcare professionals.
Because it could apply only to the practice of bad and unethical medicine: if a patient is ill and needs a medical treatment, she does certainly not need something that is ineffective, like homeopathy. If she is not ill and merely wants a placebo, she needs assurance, compassion, empathy, understanding and most certainly not an expensive and potentially harmful conventional therapy.
To employ the above analogy, if someone needs transport, she does not need a car without an engine!
So, whichever way we twist or turn it, the issue turns out to be quite simple:
WHITHOUT EFFECTIVENESS, THERE CAN BE NO COST-EFFECTIVENESS!