informed consent
I came across an interesting paper entitled “The Ethics of Tawas and Other Rituals in Medical Practices“. Here is its abstract:
Rituals in medical practice have either been seen as an anthropological aspect of current biomedical processes or as a pre-scientific aspect of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In either tendency, the literature has since failed to account for these rituals as rituals—conveyors of meaning, expressions of identity, and even as a rite of passage from illness to wellness. As an alternative to current discussions, this paper presents the case study of tawas, a diagnostic ritual from Philippine traditional medicine that determines personalistic and mystical causes of illnesses. As a non-intrusive procedure, tawas involves incantations and some ritual objects, e.g., rice, candle, axe, etc., that do not pose any direct harm nor benefit to the patient. While complete reliance on tawas at the expense of proper medical procedures could harm patients, the very ritual of tawas itself occupies a limbo within non-beneficence and non-maleficence. Following a Wittgensteinian perspective of treating rituals as meaning-laden human activities, this paper argues that rituals like tawas, much like other rituals embedded in biomedical practices, should be understood as rituals and not as empirical cures, thereby allowing their tolerance in medical practice in general.
The author seems to advocate for the cultural integration of traditional practices like tawas into a broader medical framework. They categorize tawas not as a physiological intervention, but define it as a conveyor of meaning. By addressing the “meaning-laden” aspect of illness, the ritual may address the psychological and social dimensions of a patient’s health, even if it has no effect on their physical pathology.
It is claimed that, since tawas involves non-intrusive objects (candles, rice), it is physically benign. At the same time it is acknowledged that “complete reliance” on tawas could harm patients. From a clinical safety standpoint, the “limbo” is only maintained if the ritual is strictly adjunctive rather than alternative.
The text uses a Wittgensteinian perspective, focusing on rituals as expressions rather than theories. Modern neuroscience suggests that the “ritual” of care—the white coat, the focused attention, the diagnostic process—triggers real neurobiological changes (e.g., dopamine and endorphin release). Aacknowledging the symbolic healing power that rituals have on patient anxiety and the “meaning response,” which can objectively improve health outcomes by reducing cortisol and stress.
The author identifies tawas as a diagnostic ritual which might well be the most contentious point. In science, a “diagnosis” must be reliable and valid. Tawas clearly fails the scientific criteria for validity. The author’s defence is that tawas shouldn’t be judged by those criteria at all. While this might be philosophically sound, in a clinical setting, a “mystical diagnosis” must conflict with a biological one, potentially leading to patient non-compliance with life-saving treatments.
The Indian Ministry of Ayush was established in 2014 with a vision of reviving the profound knowledge of India’s ancient systems of medicine and ensuring the optimal development and propagation of the Ayush systems of healthcare. Earlier, the Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy (ISM&H) formed in 1995, was responsible for the development of these systems. It was then renamed as the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga, and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (Ayush) in November 2003 with focused attention towards education and research in these therapies.
In the global landscape of public health, India’s Ministry of AYUSH stands as a profound anomaly. While most middle‑ and high‑income countries have converged around evidence‑based, scientifically grounded medicine, India has instead expanded this large, state‑run administrative apparatus where cultural nationalism and traditionalist narratives dominates over clinical efficacy and scientific rigor. The Ministry’s current trajectory reveals a troubling pattern: the systematic promotion of unproven therapies, flawed research, and notorious breaches of ethical principles, particularly with respect to the treatment of India’s most vulnerable populations.
The Homeopathy Anomaly
The most glaring anomaly must be the Ministry’s continued, high‑level support for homoeopathy. India is currently the only country in the world that maintains a dedicated national ministry and a statutory regulatory framework – via the National Commission for Homoeopathy – specifically to promote a system widely regarded as implausible, ineffective and harmful. Global assessments, including those by no less than 28 independent organisations worldwide, have concluded that there is no reliable evidence that homeopathic remedies work beyond placebo. Yet the AYUSH Ministry funds and publicizes a central research council (the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, CCRH) as well as a network of homoeopathic hospitals and teaching institutions, with annual budget allocations now exceeding ₹4,400 crore (roughly 470–480 million US dollars at current exchange rates). By directing substantial taxpayer funds to homoeopathic research and infrastructure, the state effectively endorses a “placebo‑as‑medicine” model, elevating it to the status of a national health strategy. This is not merely an academic dispute; it is a policy outlier that places India’s healthcare posture at odds with well‑established chemical and physical principles, as well as with the recommendations of leading international scientific bodies.
The Facade of Rigor
The Ministry tends to defend its approach by claiming a pivot toward “evidence‑based” or “scientific” AYUSH medicine, but an examination of its research output suggests a facade of rigor rather than its substance. Much of the work produced by bodies such as the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda (CCRA) and their counterparts in Unani and Siddha consists of investigations that are methodologically weak and wide open to bias. Key methodological flaws recur:
- Small sample sizes: Many trials involve fewer than 50–100 participants, rendering them statistically underpowered.
- Lack of blinding: A large proportion of studies is open‑label, where both clinicians and patients know the assigned intervention, amplifying placebo effects and observational bias.
- Selective reporting and publication bias: Negative findings – where AYUSH interventions fail to demonstrate benefit – are rarely published.
By branding such useless studies as “scientific proof,” the Ministry engages in a form of “science‑washing.” This practice misleads the public, uncritical clinicians, and policymakers into believing that AYUSH therapies have undergone the same rigorous, independent scrutiny as conventional therapies.
The Ethical Violations
In my view, the most serious concern is ethical. Under the banner of “Self‑Reliant India” (Atmanirbhar Bharat), the Ministry has aggressively promoted AYUSH products, for instance, during the COVID‑19 pandemic. This push could be viewed as an exercise in cultural pride and national self‑reliance but, in fact, it carries serious risks.
Medical ethics rely on two core principles: informed consent and non‑maleficence. When a state body, backed by cabinet‑level authority, “flogs” unproven and potentially dangerous treatments to a largely rural population with limited health literacy, it undermines both. Many patients are not able to distinguish between an ancient tradition and a clinically validated drug, yet they may be led by government‑sponsored messaging to defer or abandon evidence‑based treatments.
This is particularly dangerous in chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension, where effective pharmacological control and regular monitoring are both available and potentially life‑saving. If patients substitute proven allopathic regimens with state‑endorsed AYUSH alternatives of uncertain efficacy, the consequences can be dire. They include uncontrolled blood glucose, stroke‑risk elevation, organ damage, and avoidable mortality. The Ministry’s conduct, in effect, offloads these risks onto the most vulnerable while shielding itself behind appeals to tradition and national identity.
Conclusion
The Ministry of AYUSH has become the institutional vehicle for a “pluralistic” health model that, in practice, functions as a state‑funded rejection of the scientific method. This constitutes a regression in public‑health governance rather than a progressive pluralism. Until the Ministry subjects its therapies to the same scrutiny as any other medicine, and until it accepts transparent, independent evaluations without recourse to political or cultural vindication, it will remain less a health body and more a department of cultural preservation and doctrine.
Angel’s Trumpet, also called ‘Devil’s Breath’ or Brugmansia, is a seemingly innocent herbal remedy – however, innocent only to a degree because it contains scopolamine. Although scopolamine has genuine medicinal uses, it can be abused as a date-rape drug that can incapacitate victims and inhibit free will. It is thought that Epstein took a keen interest in and cultivated Brugmansia plants. In an email dated March 3, 2014, Epstein wrote to someone named ‘Ann Rodriguez’: ‘ask chris about my trumpet plants at nursery’
The Epstein case necessitates an examination of how his abuse was operationalized. Survivor accounts describing profound disorientation, memory loss, and impaired volitional control suggest mechanisms that extend beyond conventional grooming. This post evaluates allegations that psychoactive herbal remedies may have been used to facilitate abuse, focusing on tropane alkaloids and their well-documented effects on cognition and memory. The aim is to assess plausibility and consequences within established scientific frameworks.
Tropane alkaloids—most notably scopolamine, atropine, and hyoscyamine—are anticholinergic compounds that act as competitive antagonists at muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. In clinical settings, scopolamine is employed in tightly regulated doses for motion sickness and perioperative care. Outside such parameters, these compounds are associated with severe cognitive and behavioral disruption. Scopolamine is of particular relevance due to its potent effects on memory formation. Even moderate doses can impair encoding of new information while leaving basic consciousness and motor function relatively intact (Klinkenberg & Blokland, 2010).
Two effects documented in the neuropharmacological literature align closely with survivor descriptions reported in secondary analyses of the Epstein case:
- Anterograde Amnesia
Scopolamine reliably disrupts hippocampal-dependent memory encoding, resulting in the inability to form new episodic memories during intoxication (Ebert & Kirch, 1998). Individuals may later appear to have “lost time” without loss of consciousness. - Delirium and Suggestibility
Unlike serotonergic hallucinogens, tropane alkaloids induce true delirium, characterized by impaired reality testing, confusion, and reduced executive control (Perry et al., 2007). In such states, resistance, informed consent, and coherent recall are profoundly compromised.
These effects provide a biologically plausible explanation for reports of compliance paired with subsequent amnesia, without invoking unconsciousness or physical restraint.
Correspondence and property records referenced in investigative reporting indicate that Epstein cultivated Brugmansia plants at his residences and was interested in their effects on health. While such evidence is circumstantial, its significance increases when considered alongside consistent survivor narratives describing trance-like states, fragmented memory, and coerced participation in activities later only partially recalled. The alleged use of a substance that simultaneously enables compliance and erases memory would represent a highly premeditated strategy of control, extending abuse beyond psychological manipulation into direct neurochemical incapacitation.
Trauma research has long recognized dissociation and stress-induced memory fragmentation. Chemically induced amnesia, however, presents distinct challenges. Victims may be unable to provide linear narratives not due to deception or repression, but because the underlying memories were never encoded (van der Kolk, 2014). Failure to account for pharmacological factors risks misinterpreting survivor testimony through inappropriate credibility frameworks. Recognizing chemical coercion as a potential variable is therefore essential for both investigative rigor and ethical adjudication. Yet,this analysis is constrained by the absence of direct toxicological evidence and relies on retrospective testimony and documentary inference.
Allegations involving tropane alkaloids in the Epstein case compel a reconsideration of how extreme abuse may be facilitated and concealed. If substantiated, they demonstrate that coercion can operate not only through social power and psychological manipulation, but through targeted disruption of memory and volition using something as seemingly harmless as a herbal remedy.
References
Ebert, U., & Kirch, W. (1998). Scopolamine model of dementia: Electroencephalogram findings and cognitive performance. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 28(11), 944–949.
Klinkenberg, I., & Blokland, A. (2010). The validity of scopolamine as a pharmacological model for cognitive impairment: A review of animal behavioral studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(8), 1307–1350.
Perry, E. K., Perry, R. H., Smith, C. J., Purohit, D., Bonham, J. R., Dick, D. J., Candy, J. M., & Fairbairn, A. (2007). Cholinergic receptor alterations in dementia with Lewy bodies, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neural Transmission, 114(2), 219–224.
van der Kolk, B. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. Viking.
I am often asked what the future might bring for so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Yet, I have to admit that I am not a good fortune teller; despite my long-standing interest in the subject, I feel quite unsure how things might develop.
Does anyone know?
I don’t think so!
How about AI? Surely it must know!
I did – and the result was for several reasons reassuring:
- It showed that AI can produce a lot of BS.
- It proved to me that AI does not know more about SCAM than I do.
- It demonstrated that AI is also not a fortune teller.
- It confirmed that, even when AI does not know, it will give you lengthy answers.
So, AI nor anyone else does not know what 2026 will bring for AI. In this situation, I thought I might list a few things that SHOULD happen in an ideal world. Here are a few thoughts:
- Journalists should stop the irresponsible promotion of SCAM and report about it more critically warning patients of the dangers of charlatans.
- SCAM practitioners should behave more ethically, for instance, in terms of informed consent telling patients the truth about the evidence of their therapies.
- SCAM researchers should test hypothesis rather than try to prove their hunches right.
- Journal editors should be much more critical and stop publishing every odd rubbish masquarading as science.
- Patients should stop being naive and consider that the many claims made in the realm of SCAM might be exaggerated, wrong or dangerous.
Speaking of naive – I am aware of the fact that it would be naive if I assumed that any of the above will actually happen. I don’t! But, as it is the beginning of a new year, you might allow me to get carried away and to dream a little.
The Indian government, in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, initiated campaigns to use complementary therapies for its prevention and control, such as large-scale distribution of the homeopathic medicine, Arsenicum album 30C, as potential prophylactic for COVID-19. This study estimated the individual adherence to using this homeopathic prophylactic within the Indian urban population.
A multi-center, cross-sectional, study was conducted across 23 cities in 19 Indian states and union territories from September to November 2022. Participants aged 18 years and above, who had received Arsenicum album 30C within the past month, were included. Adherence was assessed through self-reports. Data were collected in a structured data collection form. Factors influencing adherence were analysed using logistic regression.
A total of 23,101 participants completed the survey. Among the participants, 79.89% (n = 18,457) completed the prescribed three-dose regimen, demonstrating high adherence. Older adults (≥61 years) exhibited the highest adherence (84.63%), whereas younger individuals had lower adherence rates. Employment status, gender and socio-economic class were significant predictors of adherence. Participants with a lower perceived risk of COVID-19 showed higher adherence (adjusted odds ratio = 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.73 to 1.99; p < 0.0001). Adverse events were reported by 0.1% (n = 22) of participants, with no serious effects observed.
The authors concluded that the high adherence to Arsenicum album 30C highlights the effectiveness of a structured government distribution program and the potential of homeopathy as a welcomed medication in aiming to enhance public health.
Let’s be clear: during the recent pandemic, the Indian governement initiated a campaign to persuade Indians to use a totally implausible and ineffective therapy for COVID prevention. Instead of then demonstrating that placebos cannot prevent COVID, some homeopathy fans and government employees subsequently applaud themselves that their campaign was effective in misleading a sizable proportion of the population to adhere to this ill-conceived advice.
This is not science, but arguably it’s a crime and certainly it amounts to a huge violation of medical ethics. Informed consent would have required amongst other things to tell the public that homeopathy is girstly implausible and secondly of un- or even disproven effectiveness. The absence of this information is a monumental breach of ethics.
Which planet do these weirdos come from?
Here are their affiliations:
- 1Department of Epidemic Cell, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, Janakpuri, New Delhi, India.
- 2Department of Clinical Research, Dr. D.P Rastogi Central Research Institute of Homoeopathy, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
- 3Regional Research Institute of Homoeopathy, Vikrampuri, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
- 4Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
- 5Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Puri, Odisha, India.
- 6Drug Proving Unit, Dr. A.C. Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital Unit-III, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
- 7Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy Guwahati, Guwahati, India.
- 8Central Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
- 9Homoeopathy Research Institute for Disabilities, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
- 10Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Siliguri, Chhota Pathuram Jote, Darjeeling, West Bengal, India.
- 11Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Gudivada, Dr GGH Medical College Campus, Gudivada, Andhra Pradesh, India.
- 12Dr Anjali Chatterjee Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
- 13Clinical Research Unit (H), Puducherry, Puducherry, India.
- 14Central Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
- 15Clinical Research Unit (H), Tirupati, India.
- 16Clinical Research unit (H), Port Blair, India.
- 17Clinical Research Unit (H), Gangtok, Sikkim, India.
- 18Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Imphal East, Manipur, India.
- 19Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, Agartala, Tripura, India.
- 20National Homoeopathy Research Institute in Mental Health, Kottayam, Kerala, India.
- 21Clinical verification unit (H) Patna, Shree Gurugovind Singh Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India.
- 22Clinical Research Unit (H), Civil Hospital, Dawrpui Aizawl, Mizoram, India.
- 23Regional Research Institute for Homoeopathy, New Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India.
And which journal supports such unethical activity by publishing their triumphant account? Yes, you probably guessed it, it’s the journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’.
SAY NO MORE!
On Aug. 15, 2023, the defendant is said to have failed to elicit a proper medical history from the plaintiff, including current medications used. The chiropractor also is claimed to have failed to provide him with a sufficient pre-treatment screening and assessment. Thirdly, the plaintiff claimed that the chiropractor gave him a manipulation that was contraindicated for him, which caused bleeding into the epidural space, progressive spinal compression, and need for emergency decompression surgery.
Immediately after the chiropractic manipulation, the plaintiff felt nauseous and started vomitting. He went home and began to feel right-sided weakness in his leg. Subsequently, he went to his local emergency department. The patient was immediately transferred to another hospital for an urgent laminectomy. There he remained hospitalized for a week and received physical therapy. The patient made a satisfactory recovery and was able to return to work eight weeks later.
Florence A. Carey of Crowe & Harris, Boston, the plaintiff’s expert, was of the opinion that, if the defendant had appropriately elicited information from the patient, in accordance with the accepted standard of medical care and treatment, he would have learned that the plaintiff was on anticoagulation therapy and, more likely than not, the defendant would not have performed a high velocity, low amplitude manipulation on him.
The case was settled for an amount of US $ 700,000.
This seems a fairly typical example of a serious injury caused by chiropractic spinal manipulation combined with insufficient informed consent. Such incidents do often not show up in the medical literature – instead, they are settled via legal actions which often precludes the publication of the case in a medical journal. As these cases remain undocumented in medical terms, and as chiropractors have managed to avoid creating a comprehensive monitoting system of such events, the chiropractic profession uses this situation as an opportunity to (falsely) claim that the risks of chiropractic are negligibly small or even non-existent.
And what might be the solution?
Simple!
Avoid consulting a chiropractor or any other healthcare professional who wants to manipulate your neck. Such treatments do no good and can cause serious harm.
Informed consent in healthcare, including homeopathy, requires clear communication of specific topics to ensure patients understand the treatment and can make autonomous decisions. Based on ethical standards and guidelines, the following topics must be included:
- Nature of the Treatment: A clear explanation of what homeopathy entails, including its principles (e.g., “like cures like,” use of remedies bar of active molecules) and mode of action as well as how it differs from conventional medicine.
- Proposed Benefits: Any potential benefits of the treatment, including the acknowledgment that homeopathy’s efficacy is not supported by robust scientific evidence beyond placebo effects.
- Risks and Side Effects: Any known or potential risks, including the possibility that homeopathy may delay or replace more effective treatments for serious conditions.
- Alternatives: Information about other treatment options, including conventional medical approaches, their benefits, and risks, to allow comparison.
- Expected Outcomes: A realistic discussion of what the patient can expect, including the likelihood of success based on available evidence or lack thereof.
- Voluntary Participation: Assurance that the patient’s decision to proceed is voluntary, with the right to refuse or withdraw from treatment at any time without consequences.
- Confidentiality: Explanation of how the patient’s personal and health information will be handled, including any limits to confidentiality.
- Costs and Duration: Details about the cost of treatment, session frequency, and expected duration of care.
- Practitioner Qualifications: Information about the homeopath’s training, certification, or regulatory status to establish trust and transparency.
- Questions and Clarifications: An opportunity for the patient to ask questions and receive clear, understandable answers.
It seems clear to me that lay homeopaths are unable to provide this information in full. For instance, they are not trained or educated to offer the information about other treatment options, including conventional medical approaches, their benefits, and risks, to allow comparison.
But what about doctor homeopaths? They have studied medicine and should know all these things! I am nevertheless certain that they cannot provide all of the above. Can they, for instance, explain what the mode of action of homeopathy is?
No, they can’t!
Why?
Because nobody knows!
Yes, there are theories, I know of 4 of them:
- Vital force: Hahnemann postulated that his remedies work via stimulating a ‘vital force’. Since then, we have long abandoned the nonsense of ‘vitalism’.
- Water memory: This theory suggested that water can retain a “memory” of substances it has come into contact with, even after they’re no longer present. However, this idea is not supported by physics or chemistry.
- Nanoparticles: Some researchers propose that nanoparticles of the original substance might remain in the remedy, even after extreme dilution. However, this theory is entirely speculative.
- Biofield therapy: Some proponents suggest that homeopathy interacts with a biofield or energy field surrounding living organisms. This concept is even more speculative.
Whichever we turn and twist this story, the result is hard to deny:
homeopaths cannot possibly obtain informed consent from their patients.
And guess what – without informed consent,
homeopathy is unethical!
Kay Allison “Kate” Shemirani (born 1965) is, according to Wikipedia, a British conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccine activist and former nurse who lost her licence to practise in 2020 for misconduct. She is best known for promoting conspiracy theories about COVID-19, vaccinations and 5G technology. Shemirani has been described by The Jewish Chronicle as a leading figure of a movement that includes conspiracy theorists as well as far-left and far-right activists.
When Kate’s daughter, Paloma was diagnosed with cancer, doctors told her she had a high chance of survival with chemotherapy. But in 2024, seven months later, she died – having refused the treatment. Now Marianna Spring for the BBC reported that Paloma’s brothers blame their mother’s anti-medicine conspiracy theories for Paloma’s death aged 23. Here are a few excerpts of this excellent article:
Kate and her ex-husband, Paloma’s father Faramarz Shemirani, wrote to the BBC saying they have evidence “Paloma died as a result of medical interventions given without confirmed diagnosis or lawful consent”. Paloma’s elder brother Sebastian disagrees: “My sister has passed away as a direct consequence of my mum’s actions and beliefs and I don’t want anyone else to go through the same pain or loss that I have.” Both brothers believe social media companies should take stronger action against medical misinformation – which the BBC has found is being actively recommended on several major sites. “I wasn’t able to stop my sister from dying. But it would mean the world to me if I could make it that she wasn’t just another in a long line of people that die in this way,” says Gabriel.
It is getting harder to fight medical misinformation because of the prominence of figures such as Robert F Kennedy Jr, who have previously expressed unscientific views – says oncologist Dr Tom Roques, vice-president of the Royal College of Radiologists. When you have a US health and human services secretary “who actively promotes views like the link between vaccines and autism that have been debunked years ago, then that makes it much easier for other people to peddle false views,” he says. “I think the risk is that more harmful alternative treatments are getting more mainstream. That may do people more active harm.”
Paloma brothers say it was their father who first got into conspiracy theories, which piqued their mother’s interest. The children absorbed outlandish ideas, including that the Royal Family were shape-shifting lizards, says Gabriel. “As a young child, you trust your parents. So you see that as a truth,” he says.
According to her sons, Kate Shemirani’s anti-medicine views were accelerated in 2012, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Even though she had the tumour removed through surgery, she credits alternative therapies for her recovery. On social media, she explains how she used juices and coffee enemas, i.e. the Gerson therapy.
In late 2023, Paloma began to have chest pains and breathing difficulties. Eventually, her doctors gave her the diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Untreated, this type of cancer can be fatal, but doctors told Paloma she had an 80% chance of recovery if she had chemotherapy.
Kate Shemirani texted Paloma’s boyfriend, Ander, to say: “TELL PALOMA NOT TO SIGN [OR] VERBALLY CONSENT TO CHEMO OR ANY TREATMENT.” Medical staff discussed safeguarding concerns about Paloma among themselves and wrote that they had “a concern regarding parental influence” on her. But they also thought that she did have the capacity to make her own decisions.
For advice, Paloma reached out to a former partner of Kate Shemirani called Patrick Vickers, an alternative health practitioner. When Paloma asked him about the “80% chance of cure” the doctors had said chemotherapy would offer, Mr Vickers said that was “exaggerated”. He encouraged her to start Gerson therapy and to maybe consider chemotherapy if her symptoms did not improve after six weeks. Mr Vickers told the BBC that any “assertions that I played a role in her [Paloma’s] death are legally inaccurate”.
Paloma made up her mind. She decided not to pursue chemotherapy – at least for the time being – and would try Gerson therapy to start with. Some of her friends noticed how she became more and more unwell. On one video call, Paloma said she had a new lump in her armpit, and her mother had told her it meant that the cancer was going out of her body. Sebastian and Gabriel were so worried that Gabriel started a legal case. He was not arguing Paloma did not have capacity, but he wanted an assessment of the appropriate medical treatment for her.
But events overtook them and the case ended without a conclusion in July – because Paloma had died. She had suffered a heart attack caused by her tumour. She was taken to hospital, but after several days, her life support was switched off.
_________________________
Another tragic and avoidable death brought about by the dreadful Gerson therapy. We have discussed this treatment many times before, e.g.:
- Gerson diet almost killed a former model
- The Gerson Therapy: possibly the worst cancer quackery of them all
- ‘Censored for curing cancer’: the Gerson therapy re-visited
- Gerson therapy: a treatment to avoid at all cost
If only Paloma had looked at my blog! I could have easily met up with her and tried to persuade her to save her own life.
Watch out for one of my next posts; it will focus on the above-cited Patrick Vickers.
A Winnipeg woman is suing her chiropractor, claiming he injured her by tearing an artery during treatment and that she suffered a stroke as a result. The woman had been a patient at Maples Chiropractic in Winnipeg for some time, and she had previously indicated that she did not want the chiropractor treating or adjusting her neck. In May 2023, the patient suffered a right vertebral artery dissection as a result of treatment. “Due to this injury from the treatment, [the plaintiff] suffered a stroke,” says the statement of claim, filed late last month in Court of King’s Bench at Winnipeg.
Maples Chiropractic is claimed to have failed to give the patient immediate care to minimize the effects of her injury. The patient was admitted to hospital at the Health Sciences Centre. The allegations have not been tested in court and statements of defence have not yet been filed. The lawsuit names as defendants the chiropractor, Gilbert Miranda, and his company, Everybody Health Inc., which operates Maples Chiropractic. The lawyer for the plaintiff declined to comment on the case.
The claim states that the patient will need ongoing therapy, psychological treatment and medical attention. It seeks an unspecified amount in damages for the patient’s alleged pain and suffering, loss of income and loss of enjoyment of life. The chiropractor allegedly failed to warn the patient about the risks associated with the chiropractic treatment, “specifically failing to warn her that a stroke could occur from the treatment or from any injury caused by the treatment”. The claim states that the chiropractor was negligent for not obtaining informed consent from the plaintiff about the treatment in general, and specifically for the treatment that allegedly resulted in injury.
__________________
Let me be clear: this case report – like so many similar ones – lacks important details and thus cannot be interpreted properly. Chiropractors will therefore claim – as they did so many times before – that the case does not amount to evidence. They will also pretend that chiropractic manipulations are safe and that there is no sound evidence to prove otherwise. They can make this claim because the chiropractic profession has – since ~120 years! – resisted adopting an adequate monitoring system for registering events like the one above.
And let me be clear again: such claims by chiropractors are based on self-interest and willful ignorance, polite expressions for ‘dishonesty’.
Homeopathy is harmless – except when it kills you!
Death by homeopathy has been a theme that occurred with depressing regularity on my blog, e.g.:
- Death by homeopathy
- Another death by homeopathy
- Death by homeopathy?
- The case of a boy tortured to death with homeopathy
- Homeopathy is the death of the patient suffering from gangrene
Now, there is yet another sad fatality that must be added to the list. This case report presents a 61-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer who opted for homeopathic treatments instead of standard oncological care. She presented to the Emergency Department with bilateral necrotic breasts, lymphedema, and widespread metastatic disease. Imaging revealed extensive lytic and sclerotic lesions, as well as pulmonary emboli. Laboratory results showed leukocytosis, lactic acidosis, and hypercalcemia of malignancy.
During hospitalization, patient was managed with anticoagulation and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Despite disease progression, patient declined systemic oncological treatments, leading to a complicated disease trajectory marked by frailty, sarcopenia, and functional quadriplegia, ultimately, a palliative care approach was initiated, and she was discharged to hospice and died.
This case highlights the complex challenges in managing advanced cancer when patients choose alternative therapies over evidence-based treatments. The role of homeopathy in cancer care is controversial, as it lacks robust clinical evidence for managing malignancies, especially metastatic disease.
Although respecting patient autonomy is essential, this case underscores the need for healthcare providers to ensure patients are fully informed about the limitations of alternative therapies. While homeopathy may offer emotional comfort, it is not a substitute for effective cancer treatments. Earlier intervention with conventional oncology might have altered the disease course and improved outcomes. The eventual transition to hospice care focused on maintaining the quality of life and dignity at the end-of-life, emphasizing the importance of integrating palliative care early in the management of advanced cancer to enhance patient and family satisfaction.
Even though such awful stories are far from rare, reports of this nature rarely get published. Clinicians are simply too busy to write up case histories that show merely what sadly must be expected, if a patient refuses effective therapy for a serious condition and prefers to use homeopathy as an “alternative”. Yet, the rather obvious truth is that homeopathy is no alternative. I have pointed it out many times before: if a treatment does not work, it is dangerously misleading to call it alternative medicine – one of the reasons why I nowadays prefer the term so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
But what about homeopathy as an adjunctive cancer therapy?
In 2011, Walach et al published a prospective observational study with cancer patients in two differently treated cohorts: one cohort with patients under complementary homeopathic treatment (HG; n = 259), and one cohort with conventionally treated cancer patients (CG; n = 380). The authors observed an improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment.
Walach and other equally deluded defenders of homeopathy (such as Wurster or Frass) tend to interpret these findings as being caused by homeopathy. Yet, this does not seem to be the case, as they regularly forget about the possibility of other, more plausible explanations for their results (e.g. placebo or selection bias). I am not aware of a rigorous trial showing that adjunctive homeopathy has specific effects when used by cancer patients (if a reader knows more, please let me know; I am always keen to learn).
So, is there a role for homeopathy in the fight against cancer?
My short answer:
No!
