King Charles
It is already 7 years ago that I listed several ‘official verdicts on homeopathy‘, i.e. conclusions drawn by independent, reputable bodies evaluationg the evidence for or against homeopathy:
“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
“These products are not supported by scientific evidence.”
Health Canada, Canada
“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
“We recommend parents and caregivers not give homeopathic teething tablets and gels to children and seek advice from their health care professional for safe alternatives.”
Food and Drug Administration, USA
“There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition”
National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health, USA
“There is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition”
National Health Service, UK
“Homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and that the principles on which homeopathy is based are “scientifically implausible””
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, UK
Since then, there have been many more statements from similar organisations (does someone know of a complete list? if so, please let me know). One such statement is from French veterinarians: Avis 2021- 3 sur l’Homéopathie vétérinaire. Aloow me to translate the crucial passages for you:
Opinion 2021- 3 on Veterinary Homeopathy. The Report of a Working Group on Veterinary Homeopathy, an Opinion on Veterinary Homeopathy adopted in the academic session on May 6, 2021. The report ecommends that :
no medical discipline or practice claiming to be a medical discipline should be exempt from the ethical duty of testing its claims;
in this respect, clinical studies on the individual, reconciling scientific rigor and practical constraints, be explored, and in particular the N of 1 trials described in human medicine;
veterinary medicine be defined as evidence-based medicine, and not as allopathic medicine;
it is reaffirmed that veterinary medicine must above all be holistic, and that consequently the label of holistic veterinary medicine cannot be monopolized by particular practices;
homeopathy in veterinary medicine, as in human medicine, is not currently recognized nor can it be claimed as an exclusive veterinary medical activity;
institutional communication provides ongoing information on the scientific approach, evidence-based medicine and complementary medicine, tailored respectively to veterinarians, the general public and, in particular, animal keepers;
veterinary surgeons who, in the absence of recognized scientific proof of the efficacy of homeopathy in particular, wish to pursue this activity, particularly as a complementary medicine, should be fully aware of their increased responsibilities due to the current lack of scientific confirmation of efficacy;
it is possible to use homeopathic preparations, insofar as the medical decision to use a complementary and non-alternative therapy systematically requires informed consent, and does not result in a loss of opportunity by delaying the diagnostic procedure and/or the establishment of a recognized effective treatment;
that, in order to provide the information needed to obtain informed consent, a prescription for a homeopathic preparation should be accompanied, on any suitable medium, by a statement to the effect that, in the current state of knowledge, veterinary homeopathy has a contextual effect;
that the term “homeopathic medicine” be eventually replaced by “homeopathic preparation” in national and European legislation, that labelling state that “the efficacy of the preparation has not been demonstrated in accordance with current standards”, and that homeopathic preparations cannot claim the properties of vaccines or replace them, without incurring criminal sanctions;
in veterinary medicine, no university diploma in homeopathy be awarded by schools and other public establishments, and that training in homeopathy only take place within the framework of training that takes into account the realities of the scientific approach;
as part of their initial training, veterinary schools are places for debate and training in critical thinking, by offering interdisciplinary seminars on non-conventional approaches;
_____________________________
So, the next time someone claims “homeopathy has been proven to work in animals”, let’s show them what the experts think of this notion.
More reason to worry about our royal family? Apparently, Camilla (I apologise for calling her thus, as I am never entirely sure whether she is Queen or Queen Consort: Camilla, the wife of Prince Charles, will be formally known as Queen Consort now that her husband is King12. When Camilla and Charles married in a civil ceremony in 2005, it was announced Camilla would become known as Princess Consort – rather than Queen Consort – due to public sensitivity3. However, Queen Elizabeth II granted her the title of Queen Consort in February last year during the Platinum Jubilee45.) has been urged to take more time to recover after a bout of pneumonia.
At the start of November it was announced that she had been diagnosed with a ‘chest infection’ and was under doctors’ supervision. The 77-year-old Camilla was forced to withdraw from her engagements so she could rest at home. She has now revealed that she was suffering from a form of pneumonia.
It is understood Camilla’s condition was viral. She seems to be suffering significantly diminished reserves of energy following her chest infection. This led to her having to pull out of a number of events over recent weeks. Even though the lung infection has now cleared, she says she is still feeling tired. She has been advised by her doctors to take more time to recover. It was confirmed yesterday on the eve of the state visit that the Queen was also reducing her role at the glam state banquet later on Dec. 3 in light of her health.
So, is there anything special that might have triggered this unfortunate turn of events? To answer this question, I refer you to my post of 31 October this year:
… King Charles arrived in Bengaluru directly from Samoa, where he attended the 2024 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting from October 21-26. His visit to Bengaluru was strictly kept under wraps, and he was directly taken to Soukya International Holistic Health Centre (SIHHC), where he was also joined by his wife, Camilla.
According to sources, the couple’s day begins with a morning yoga session, followed by breakfast and rejuvenation treatment before lunch. After a brief rest, a second round of therapies follows, ending with a meditation session before dinner and lights out by 9 pm. They have been enjoying long walks around the campus, visiting the organic farm and cattle shed. Considering the high-profile secret visit, a high-security ring was thrown around SIHHC.
The health centre, founded by Dr. Issac Mathai, is located in Samethanahalli, Whitefield, on Bengaluru’s outskirts. This integrative medical facility combines traditional systems of medicine, including Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Yoga, and Naturopathy, along with over 30 complementary therapies like reflexology, acupuncture, and dietetics.
… The royal couple has earlier taken wellness treatments, including anti-ageing, detoxification and rejuvenation. On November 14, 2019, the couple celebrated the then Prince Charles’ 71st birthday at SIHHC, an event that attracted a lot of publicity, unlike this visit.
Yes, you may well ask: isn’t Ayurvedic medicine supposed:
- to strengthen the immune system,
- to fortify you against infections,
- to replenish your reserves of energy,
- to enable you to recover swiftly from infections?
Of course, I know, correlation is not causation! Perhaps the recent Ayurvedic pampering in India and Camilla’s inability to make a timely recovery from what started merely as a ‘chest infection’ are not at all linked in any way. Yet, it does seem tempting to speculate that the stay in the SIHHC with all the Ayurvedic medicine did her not a lot of good.
Whatever might be the case, I would like to take this opportunity to wish Camilla a full recovery for her condition.
THE TIMES recently published an interview with (my ex-friend) Michael Dixon, a person who has featured regularly on this blog. Here is a short passage relevant to our many discussions about homeopathy:
“Can I say on the record I’ve never studied homeopathy,” he says. “I’ve never even offered homeopathy. What I have done is said that if patients feel they’ve benefited from homeopathy, what’s the problem?”
The problem, scientists would argue, is that homeopathy undermines trust in real, evidence-based medicine. Homeopathic remedies are made by diluting active ingredients in water, often so that none of the original substance remains. Homeopathy has been banned on the NHS since 2017, because it is “at best a placebo”.
For Dixon, however, this “trench warfare” divide between alternative and conventional medicine is too binary. Even if something is scientifically impossible, as long as it helps his patients that is all that matters, Dixon says. “Many years ago, a Christian faith healer started seeing some of my patients. She made a lot of them better. I didn’t care a damn if it’s placebo — they got better,” he says.
While he thinks homeopathy can serve a purpose on the NHS, he draws a line at the “madness of some of the more wayward complementary practitioners” who will argue for using homeopathy to vaccinate children. “I would always advocate against anyone going for complementary medicine if there’s good evidence-based conventional medicine.”
Apart from
- the hilarious implication that a faith healer is NOT a “wayward practitioner”,
- the fact that, as far as I know, nobody ever claimed that Dixon studied homeopathy,
- the fact that Dixon does not understand what, according to scientists, the problems with homeopathy are,
his statements seem very empathetic at first glance.
Dixon’s key argument – if patients feel they’ve benefited from homeopathy, why not prescribe it – is an often-voiced notion. But that does not make it correct!
A physician’s duty is not primarily to please the patient. His/her duty foremost is to behave responsibly and to treat patients in the most effective way. And this includes, in a case where the patient feels to have benefitted from a useless or dangerous treatment, to inform the patient about the current best evidence. To me, this is obvious, to others, including Dixon, it seems not. Let me therefore ask you, the reader of these lines: what is the right way to act as a GP?
SCENARIO DIXON
Patient wants a treatment that is far from optimal and claims to have experienced benefit from it. The GP feels this is enough reason to prescribe it, despite plenty of evidence that shows the treatment in question has at best a placebo effect. Thus the doctor agrees to his/her patient taking homeopathy.
SCENARIO ERNST
Patient wants a treatment that is far from optimal and claims to have experienced benefit from it. The doctor takes some time to explain the the therapy is not effective and that, for the patient’s condition, there are treatments that would be better suited. The patient reluctantly agrees and the doctor prescribes a therapy that is backed by sound evidence (in case the patient resists, he/she is invited to see another doctor).
I admit that risking to lose a patient to another colleague is not an attractive prospect, particularly if the patient happens to be your King. But nobody ever said that medicine was easy – and it certainly is not a supermarket were customers can pick and choose as they please.
What do you think?
In the past, I have supervised dozens of degree students – I estimate the total number to be around 50! Most of them were in Munich, a few in Hannover, some in Vienna and around 10 in Exeter. Almost without exception, I enjoyed this work, mostly perhaps because each thesis had a time limit and at its end there was a joyful outcome. I remeber only two degree projects that were started but failed to conclude.
The degrees we managed at Exeter were particularly fun. Many of the students came with their own funds from abroad, and we were able to learn from them as much as they learned from us.
Here are just some examples of the papers that came out of these efforts:
- Ernst E, Pittler MH. Alternative therapy bias. Nature. 1997 Feb 6;385(6616):480. doi: 10.1038/385480c0. PMID: 9020351.
- Pittler MH, Vogler BK, Ernst E. Feverfew for preventing migraine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(3):CD002286. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002286. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD002286. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002286.pub2. PMID: 10908545.
- Park J, White A, Stevinson C, Ernst E, James M. Validating a new non-penetrating sham acupuncture device: two randomised controlled trials. Acupunct Med. 2002 Dec;20(4):168-74. doi: 10.1136/aim.20.4.168. PMID: 12512790.
- Kanji N, White AR, Ernst E. Autogenic training reduces anxiety after coronary angioplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Am Heart J. 2004 Mar;147(3):E10. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2003.10.011. PMID: 14999212.
- Habacher G, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Effectiveness of acupuncture in veterinary medicine: systematic review. J Vet Intern Med. 2006 May-Jun;20(3):480-8. doi: 10.1892/0891-6640(2006)20[480:eoaivm]2.0.co;2. PMID: 16734078.
Today, I regualry receive emails from foreign researchers who want to join my team.
- Some say they want to do a PhD.
- Others already have a higher degree and just want to join us for a specific research project.
Almost all offer to bring their own funds.
I used to respond enthusiastically and encourage all suitable candidates to come and work with us. Over the years, we thus welcomed in Exeter numerous researchers from all corners of the planet. A good proportion of our published papers is based on the research that originated from these initiatives.
When I retired some 10 years ago, the emails from students who were keen to join us did not stop. Obviously, I now had to disappoint all the applicants. For the next ~7 years, I wrote individual replies to all the applicants explaining that my department had been closed. Since about three years, I have stopped doing this.
Why?
I certainly do not want to offend anyone. Yet I figure that, if an applicant finds my published research and thus decides that he or she would like to join my team, but is unable to do even the most minimal research telling him/her that the Exeter department had been closed, he or she cannot be a serious contender for conducting decent research.
So, indead of all these individual emails to people who want to join my team, I hope that publishing this blog post and statedment will do the trick:
I am sorry to not be able to accommodate students any longer.
My department closed years ago!
PS
Details about the closure can even be found on Wikipedia:
Ernst was accused by Prince Charles’ private secretary of having breached a confidentiality agreement regarding the 2005 Smallwood report. After being subjected to a “very unpleasant” investigation by the University of Exeter, the university “accepted his innocence but continued, in his view, to treat him as ‘persona non grata’. All fundraising for his unit ceased, forcing him to use up its core funding and allow its 15 staff to drift away.”[15]
Writing in 2022, after Charles’ accession to the throne, Ernst said, “There never was a formal confidentiality agreement with signature etc. But I did feel bound to keep the contents of the Smallwood report confidential. The investigation by my University was not just ‘very unpleasant’, it was also far too long. It lasted 13 months! I had to take lawyers against my own University! In addition, it was unnecessary, not least because a University should simply establish the facts and, if reasonable, defend its professor from outside attacks. The facts could have been established over a cup of tea with the Vice Chancellor in less than half an hour. When my department had been destroyed in the process, I retired voluntarily and was subsequently re-employed for half a year to help find a successor. In retrospect, I see this move as a smart ploy by the University to keep me sweet and prevent me from going to the press. A successor was never hired; one good candidate was found but he was told that he had to find 100% of the funds to do the job. Nobody of high repute would have found this acceptable, and thus the only good candidate was not even tempted to accept the position.”[27]
He retired in 2011, two years ahead of his official retirement.[9][28] In July 2011, a Reuters article described his “long-running dispute with the Prince about the merits of alternative therapies” and stated that he “accused Britain’s heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles and other backers of alternative therapies on Monday of being ‘snake-oil salesmen‘ who promote products with no scientific basis”, and that the dispute “had cost him his job – a claim Prince Charles’s office denied”.[13][29] According to Ernst, “The snake oil salesman story is an entirely separate issue”, which “happened years later.” He added, “It is true that Charles’s office denied that Charles knew about his 1st private secretary writing to my Vice Chancellor asking him to investigate my alleged breach of confidence.” Ernst claims that as Sir Michael Peat wrote his letter in his capacity as the Prince’s private secretary, Ernst finds that “exceedingly hard to believe.”[27]
Ernst’s book, Charles, the Alternative Prince: An Unauthorised Biography, was published in February 2022. It focuses on Charles’s interest in alternative medicine, with a critical assessment of his views.[30] In 2009, Ernst’s name appeared on a list of supporters of Republic – an organisation which campaigns for the abolition of the British monarchy.[31] However, writing on his website in 2022, Ernst clarified his position: “Even though Charles did a sterling job in trying, I did not become a republican. I do have considerable doubts that Charles will be a good King (his reign might even be the end of the monarchy), and I did help the republican cause on several occasions but I never formally joined any such group (in general, I am not a joiner of parties, clubs or interest groups).”[27]
THE SUN (…yes, I know! …) reported last Sunday that figures from 20 trusts show they forked out for questionable treatments for more than 3,000 patients. Treatments also including acupuncture and aromatherapy cost a total of £269,000. If the figure is applied across all 120-plus trusts the true cost could be well over £1.5 million. Hull University Teaching Hospitals spent the most, at £170,000.
The Taxpayers’ Alliance, which did the analysis, said: “With long waiting lists, quack remedies cannot be allowed to divert precious resources.” Alternative medicine expert Dr Edzard Ernst said: “The NHS often uses complementary medicine rarely based on good evidence but on lobbying of proponents of quackery.”
End of quote
Whenever I am asked by journalists to provide a critical comment on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I find it important to get a rational message out, particularly into certain papers. On the other hand, I dread what they might do with my comment, particularly certain papers. If I had £5 for every time I have been misquoted, I could probably buy a decent second-hand car! This is why I nowadays tend to give my comments in writing via e-mail.
To my relief, THE SUN quoted me (almost) correctly. Almost correctly, but not fully! Here is the question I was asked to respond to: NHS statistics show the health service spending more than £250,000 on complementary and alternative medicines last year. Do you think this is a sensible use of NHS funding? Are the benefits well proven enough to spend taxpayer money on these therapies?
And here is my attempt to respond in a concise way that SUN readers might still understand:
Complementary medicine is an umbrella term for more than 400 treatments and diagnostic techniques. Some of them work but many don’t; some are safe but many are not. If the NHS would spend £250000 – a tiny amount considering the overall expenditure in the NHS – on those few that do generate more good than harm, all might be fine. The problem, I think, is that the NHS currently uses complementary medicine rarely based on good evidence but often based on the lobbying of influential proponents of quackery.
As you see, it is good to deal with requests from journalists in writing!
Alternative cancer clinics (I’d prefer to call them SCAM cancer clinics), that provide treatments associated with hastening death, actively seek to create favorable views of their services online. An unexplored means where such clinics can shape their public appeal is their Google search results.
For this study, a team of researchers retrieved the Google listing and Google reviews of 47 prominent SCAM cancer clinics. They then conducted a content analysis to assess the information cancer patients are faced with online.
The results show that Google listings of alternative treatment providers rarely declare that the clinic is a SCAM clinic versus a conventional primary cancer treatment provider (12.8% declared; 83.0% undeclared). The clinics were highly rated (median, 4.5 stars of 5). Reasons for positive reviews included:
- treatment quality (n = 519),
- care (n = 420),
- outcomes (n = 316).
288 reviews claimed that the clinics cured or improved cancer. Negative reviews presented SCAM clinics to:
- financially exploit patients with ineffective treatment (n = 98),
- worsen patients’ condition (n = 72),
- provide poor care (n = 41),
- misrepresent outcomes (n = 23).
The authors concluded that the favorable Google listing and reviews of alternative clinics contribute to harmful online ecosystems. Reviews provide compelling narratives but are an ineffective indicator of treatment outcomes. Google lacks safeguards for truthful reviews and should not be used for medical decision-making.
These findings suggest that the Google listings and reviews of SCAM cancer clinic create a favorable online impression to prospective patients. Google listings and reviews are thus part of a most effective multi-level propaganda network promoting SCAM even for the most desperately ill of all patients. As discussed some time ago, in the UK, such misinformation can even be traced back to King Charles. In nearly all cases, these clinics were labeled as speciality primary cancer options. Only a few clinics were marked as an ‘alternative’ option. Positive reviews stated that alternative treatments can cure cancer or prolong life, even in terminal cases. Positive reviews also undermine evidence-based cancer treatments in favor of SCAM. They generate an impression that dangerously misleads patients. As we have seen repeatedly on this blog, the results can be devastating, e.g.:
- SCAM: So-Called Alternative Medicine (Societas): Amazon.co.uk: Ernst, Edzard: 9781845409708: Books
- So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for cancer: does it prolong survival?
- Leah Bracknell (1964-2019): another victim of cancer quackery?
- Germany, the ‘promised land’ for cancer quacks
- Use of alternative medicine hastens death of cancer patients
- Fatalities in a German alternative medicine clinic caused by 3BP?
- Suzanne Somers has died – another victim of so-called alternative medicine?
As I am currently not in the UK, I (almost) missed the news about my ex-friend Michael Dixon (can you forgive me please, Michael?). I am going to report it here as published in the Independent without any comments of my own (which would inevitably have an after-taste of sour grapes):
The King has personally honoured his top medical team amid his treatment for cancer. Dr Michael Dixon, head of the Royal Medical Household, and Charles’s GP Dr Fiona Butler – otherwise known as the Apothecary to the King – have been recognised by Charles for their personal service to the monarch and the royal family…
Dr Dixon has been made a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO) and Dr Butler is now a Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order (LVO), with the accolades announced on the King’s official birthday. Awards of the Royal Victorian Order are in the King’s gift and are bestowed independently of Downing Street to people who have served the monarch or the royal family in a personal way. Dr Dixon and the King have known one another for decades, and he is responsible for overseeing the eminent members of the medical profession entrusted to care for the royal family.
His appointment as head of the Royal Medical Household following Charles’s accession drew criticism due to his outspoken support for alternative therapies, such as faith healing and herbalism. In 2023, Buckingham Palace set out the doctor’s beliefs to The Sunday Times, saying: “Dr Dixon does not believe homeopathy can cure cancer. His position is that complementary therapies can sit alongside conventional treatments, provided they are safe, appropriate and evidence-based.”
As the Prince of Wales, Charles was a passionate campaigner for integrated health, raising the profile of combining evidence-based, conventional medicine with an holistic approach to healthcare. Dr Dixon’s previous roles include a practising GP, a fellow of the Royal College of GPs, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, former chairman of NHS Alliance and the chairman of the College of Medicine…
_____________________
In case you are not familiar with the relevant history and wonder about the “ex-friendship”, there are numerous posts on this blog about Dixon that might explain. Alternatively, you could read my memoir, A Scientist in Wonderland.
A recent post of mine seems to have galvanized concerns about my image and general attitude towards so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Here are the comments I am referring to:
Hanjo Lehmann
…you should take care of your image: not being a man who just hates anything that smells like “alternative medicine” but rather an experienced scientist and physician who sees things with appropriate skepticism.
Eelco_G
Edzard preaches for his own parish and does not reach the people he would like to reach. A little more wisdom and ability to put things into perspective would earn him much more respect.
Mike Grant
Hanjo made some valid points Edzard. Perhaps you should suppress your ego?
Socrates
If you want to persuade people it’s not enough just to be right. There are times to be antagonistic and times to be more understanding. And sweeping generalisations can get people’s backs up unnecessarily.
Please allow me to take this opportunity to explain my attitude, motivation, image, etc. a little better.
After SCAM and SCAM-research had previously been a mere hobby of mine, I took the Exeter chair in ‘complementary medicine’ in 1993. Ever since, I spent my time studying the subject. Between 1993 and 2012, I headed the worldwide most productive department of SCAM research. My team published several books for healthcare professionals and well over 1 000 peer-reviewed papers on SCAM. I personally gave about 500 lectures on SCAM to all sorts of audiences all over the world. None of these books, papers, lectures, etc. are in any way dismissive of SCAM. They are, I hope, rigorously scientific.
What I am trying to point out is this: for 20 odd years I have done more that anyone else to persuade, to be understanding, to promote sound evidence, to abstain from opinion, to suppress my “ego”, to reach people interested in SCAM, to see things with “appropriate skepticism”, to be polite, to avoid stepping on anyone’s toes, to be politically correct – while conducting the best science that the circumstances allowed.
What did it get me?
Was my work acclaimed by the SCAM community?
No.
Did my research receive the funding I had been promised?
No.
Did I manage to persuade the SCAM-community to think more critically?
No.
Did even my own university show any appreciation?
No, more than once, my peers even tried to influence the nature and/or direction of my research.
In 2012, I retired from my Exeter post because Charles’ intervention had been allowed to completely destroy my department.
Was I disappointed?
Yes, the only department worldwide that independently and critically investigated SCAM had ceased to exist. This certainly is disappointing!
Was I bitter?
No, on the contrary, I had voluntarily taken the decision to retire and I soon felt relieved to no longer have anyone breathing down my neck. I was looking forward to carrying on my work, free of the pressures and irritating voices trying to tell me what outcomes were expected of me. I was delighted to be free of the tedious task to fund-raise. I was happy to be relieved of all the tedious amount of admin.
Now, more than 10 years later, my work gives me great fun every day and often laugh tears about certain aspects of SCAM. Those who think or hope that I am a bitter old fool I must disappoint bitterly.
After retiring, I wrote a series of books and started this blog. On the very first post, dated 14/10/2012, I explained my decision:
Why another blog offering critical analyses of the weird and wonderful stuff that is going on in the world of alternative medicine? The answer is simple: compared to the plethora of uncritical misinformation on this topic, the few blogs that do try to convey more reflected, sceptical views are much needed; and the more we have of them, the better.
I am telling you all this to explain that
- I have little patience with people who feel compelled to tell me what to do.
- For me a blog is something entirely different than a peer-reviewed paper – the former is written quickly and tends to be be light-hearted, ironic, sarcastic, provocative, exaggerated, journalistic, etc., while the latter usually is carefully worded, scientific and bone-dry.
- With my blog, I try to create an entertaining counterbalance to the plethora of uncritical misinformation on SCAM.
- Therefore, I am deliberately critical of SCAM.
- I do not hate anyone or anything.
- I am not in the slightest concerned about my image.
- I know very well what I am doing and quite confident that, during the last 30 years, I have reflected on issues around SCAM more deeply than most.
So, to those who still are concerned about my image or my approach to SCAM I say THANKS for your advice – but no thanks. And of those who doubt my science I ask, please study my peer-reviewed papers.
PS
Of course, none of this means that I make no mistakes, or that am not frequently troubled by self-doubt. So, please do carry on criticising me and my work, but don’t assume that I worry about my image.
If I had a £ for each time I was asked during the last few days whether King Charles is going to treat his cancer with homeopathy, I would have my pockets full of cash. The question seems reasonable because he has been singing the praise of homeopathy for decades. But, as I have pointed out previously, he is unlikely to use homeopathy or any other unproven cancer cure; on the contrary he will certainly receive the most effective therapies available today.
In any case, the homeopathic treatment of cancer is currently a most popular topic. As if on command, an article appeared on my screen that promises to address the subject:
“Homoeopathy and Cancer – An Alternative Approach towards the path of Healing”
Here is the abstract of this remarkable paper:
Homoeopathy is a holistic system of medicine rooted on the principle of “Similia Similibus Curentur”. It has gained attention for its potential therapeutic benefits. It offers a holistic approach that addresses both the physical symptoms and emotional well-being of individuals. While this alternative approach of healing has been explored in various health contexts, a notable gap remains in understanding its application in the realm of cancer care. This review seeks to fill this void by exploring the broader landscape of homoeopathy’s principles and applications. Through a critical examination of existing research and evidence, it aims to offer valuable insights into the potential role of homoeopathy as a complementary approach in cancer care and symptomatic relief. This review underscores the need for further research and a more nuanced understanding of homoeopathy’s place in healthcare, particularly in the context of cancer patients and their well-being.
I am sure you are as impressed as I am and keen to learn more. In the article itself, the authors offer some brand-new, cutting-edge science to back up their views:
According to Samuel Hahnemann, “When a person is ill, it is originally merely the spirit-like, autonomic life force (life principle), which is always there in the organism, that is mistuned by the dynamic effect of a morbific agent inimical to life.Only the life principle, tuned incorrectly to such an anomalyis capable of causing irregular functions the body. Cancer may initially be treated as a one-sided disease because the expanded pathology weakens the Vital Force. According to Hahnemann, “Diseases that seem to have just a few symptoms are called one-sided because only one or two prominent symptoms are indicated. This makes these diseases, which primarily fall under the category of chronic diseases, harder to cure. According to Arthur Hill Grimmer, the biggest challenge in treating advanced cancer cases is getting therapeutic individualization of symptoms. Even with all the typical symptoms, it is quite difficult to create a potent homoeopathic prescription. Burnett considered both the characteristic aspects of the patient as well as the ‘action’ or‘organ affinity’ of the remedy he prescribed.
Eventually, the authors (who are affiliated with prestigeous institutions: Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur; Swasthya Kalyan Homoeopathic Medical College & Research Centre, Jaipur) arrive at the following conclusion:
In the scientific literature, homoeopathy’s use in the treatment of cancer is still largely unexplored. Pioneers have offered intriguing perspectives on disease origins and treatment challenges. The miasmatic perspective offers a distinctive approach that emphasises individualised strategies based on symptoms and characteristics. Some studies suggest an improvement in quality of life of the individuals suffering from cancer. In the dynamic landscape of cancer treatment, more studies are warranted to enhance the scope of holistic, patient-centered care through homoeopathy.
Yes, homeopathy is a joke. This paper (and the many similar publications out there) could thus be intensely funny – except for the fact that these charlatans are playing with the lives of many vulnerable and desperate patients. I sincerely hope Charles manages to stay well clear of homeopathy and its irresponsible practitioners which clearly is one precondition for making a full recovery.
Yestderday, it was announced that King Charles has cancer. He had been in hospital for surgery for his enlarged prostate. Initially, the news was positive, as it was confirmed not to be prostate cancer. However, during the investigations, a cancer was discovered that apparently is unrelated to the prostate. Since the announcement, many journalists and other people have written to me asking what I think about it and what treatment Charles is likely to receive. I therefore decided to write a short post about the matter.
As a physician and human being I am very sorry whenever I hear that anyone has fallen ill, particularly if the condition is serious and potentially life-threatening. That this includes Charles goes without saying. Equally it is self-evident that I wish that all goes well for him, that the treatment he reportedly has already started is not too arduous, that he keeps in good spirit, that he has empathetic support from all his family and recovers quickly and fully.
Charles will, I am sure, have the best treatment anyone could wish for. Will he use so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), for example, the Gerson therapy, one of the SCAMs he once promoted as a cure of cancer? Of course not! He will receive the most effective, evidence-based care that is currently available. Will he thus not try any SCAM at all? I am confident that he will use SCAM wisely, namely not as a cure but as a supportive measure. In my book on this very subject, I go through all the relevant evidence and conclude that, while SCAM is most certainly not a cancer cure, it can have a place in supportive cancer care. Depending on the symptoms that develop during and after the conventional treatments, certain SCAMs can, according to fairly sound evidence, be helpful in improving wellness and quality of life.
Going through a battle against cancer is often a most humbling experience. Therefore, I am hopeful that, as he recovers from his ordeal, Charles will see that modern medicine – he once described it as being out of balance like the leaning tower of Pisa – is not just effective, empathetic and caring but also not nearly as unbalanced and unholistic as he often proclaimed it to be. In that sense, the experience might reform our king, and – who knows? – he might, after all, turn out to be not the self-proclaimed enemy but a true friend of the Enlightenment.
