These days, I am often not sure what puzzles me more, Boris Johnson or homeopathy. Come to think of it, our PM seems, in fact, to have a lot in common with homeopathy/homeopaths. With my tongue lodged firmly in my cheek, I can see some communalities:
- They are both popular in the UK but have their origins elsewhere.
- They were both laughed at by people who are serious.
- They have both been around for far too long.
- They both are useless.
- They both have plenty of charisma.
- They both, however, have little more than that.
- They have a long history of misleading the public.
- They have both been taken to court.
- They both failed to accept the judgement when it went against them.
- They are both particularly successful with the female section of the population.
- They both thrive on personal attacks.
- They both make far-reaching claims which turn out to be false.
- They both claim to want only the best for the public.
- They both consider themselves as progressive.
- In truth, however, they are both deeply regressive.
- They both do not to think that ethics are all that important.
- They both irritate people who are rational thinkers.
- They both negate the evidence and act in overt contradiction to the evidence.
- They both tend to think that popularity is a measure of efficacy.
- They both managed to mislead even the Queen.
- Nevertheless, they both enjoy royal support (at least for the time being).
- They both seem to think that the laws (of the land/of nature) do not apply to them.
- They are both only bearable when highly diluted.
- They are both a complete waste of money.
- They are both dangerous when the public follow their advice.
Have I forgotten anything?
Do tell me, please.
In Germany there are about 150,000 doctors, and around 7,000 specialize in homeopathy. Multiple surveys confirm that Germans do like their SCAMs, particularly homeopathy. Two examples:
- A 2016 cross-sectional analysis conducted among all patients being referred to the Department of Internal and Integrative Medicine at Essen, Germany, over a 3-year period showed that 35% of the 2,045 respondents reported having used homeopathy for their primary medical complaint. 359 (50.2%) patients reported benefits and 15 (2.1%) reported harm.
- More recently, a questionnaire survey concerning current and lifetime use of SCAM was distributed to German adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The results suggested that 45% of the respondents were currently using or had used at least one SCAM modality in their life. Homeopathy and acupuncture were most frequently used SCAMs, followed by mind-body interventions.
But since a few years, the German opposition to homeopathy has become much more active. In particular the INH, the GWUP, and the Muensteraner Kreis have been instrumental in informing the public about the uselessness and dangers of homeopathy. The press has now taken up this message and, as this article explains, now the debate about homeopathy has finally reached the political level.
The head of the main doctors’ association and the SPD’s health specialist have called for an end to refunds for homeopathy treatments in Germany. The head of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV), which represents 150,000 doctors and psychotherapists in Germany, recently urged health insurance companies to stop funding homeopathic services. “There is insufficient scientific evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic procedures,” Andreas Gassen told the Rheinische Post. “If people want homeopathic remedies, they should have them — but not at the expense of the community.“
Gassen’s comments follow those of the Social Democrat (SPD) health issues specialist and lawmaker Karl Lauterbach who has pressed for a law banning refunds for homeopathy. “We have to talk about it in GroKo,” Lauterbach said earlier this month, suggesting a discussion in the government grand coalition. He said the benefits paid for by insurers should be medically and economically sensible. He has the support of the Federal Joint Committee which decides on what is covered by payments from the statutory health funds.
So, what is going to happen?
As I have written previously, one can only be sure of this:
- The German homeopathy lobby will not easily give up; after all, they have half a billion Euros per year to lose.
- They will not argue on the basis of science or evidence, because they know that neither are in their favour.
- They will fight dirty and try to defame everyone who stands in their way.
- They will use their political influence and their considerable financial power.
AND YET THEY WILL LOSE!
Not because we are so well organised or have great resources – in fact, as far as I can see, we have none – but because, in medicine, the evidence is invincible and will eventually prevail. Progress might be delayed, but it cannot be halted by those who cling to an obsolete dogma.
It is not that long ago that I published a post entitled HOMEOPATHY IN FRANCE: A TRIUMPH OF PROFIT OVER REASON. Today, I am pleased to post one with the reverse title.
It has taken a few years (compared to the UK where it has taken a few decades, it was nevertheless fast), but now it is done. Very briefly, this is what happened:
- In 2014, our book was published in French. I might be fooling myself, but I do hope that it helped starting a ball rolling in France where, up to then, homeopathy had enjoyed a free ride.
- Subsequently, French sceptics began raising their voices against quackery in general and homeopathy in particular.
- In 2018, they got organised and 124 doctors published an open letter criticising the use of alternative medicine as dangerous practised by charlatans of all kinds.
- In the same year, the Collège National des Généralistes Engseignants, the national association for teaching doctors, pointed out that there was no rational justification for the reimbursement of homeopathics nor for the teaching of homeopathy in medical schools stating that It is necessary to abandon these esoteric methods, which belong in the history books.
- Also in 2018, the University of Lille announced its decision to stop its course on homeopathy. The faculty of medicine’s dean, Didier Gosset, said: It has to be said that we teach medicine based on proof – we insist on absolute scientific rigour – and it has to be said that homeopathy has not evolved in the same direction, that it is a doctrine that has remained on the margins of the scientific movement, that studies on homeopathy are rare, that they are not very substantial. Continuing to teach it would be to endorse it.
- In 2019, the French Academies of Medicine and Pharmacy have published a document entitled ‘L’homéopathie en France : position de l’Académie nationale de médecine et de l’Académie nationale de pharmacie’. It stated that L’homéopathie a été introduite à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, par Samuel Hahnemann, postulant deux hypothèses : celle des similitudes (soigner le mal par le mal) et celle des hautes dilutions. L’état des données scientifiques ne permet de vérifier à ce jour aucune de ces hypothèses. Les méta-analyses rigoureuses n’ont pas permis de démontrer une efficacité des préparations homéopathiques. The academies concluded that no French university should offer degrees in homeopathy, and that homeopathy should no longer be funded by the public purse: “no homeopathic preparation should be reimbursed by Assurance Maladie [France’s health insurance] until the demonstration of sufficient medical benefit has been provided. No university degree in homeopathy should be issued by medical or pharmaceutical faculties … The reimbursing of these products by the social security seems aberrant at a time when, for economic reasons, we are not reimbursing many classic medicines because they are more or less considered to not work well enough …”
- Only weeks later, the French health regulator (HAS) has recommended with a very large majority (only one vote against) for the discontinuation of the reimbursement of homeopathic products.
- The health minister, Agnès Buzyn, announced “Je me tiendrai à l’avis de la Haute Autorité de santé”.
- Consequently, the powerful French homeopathy lobby created political pressure in multiple ways, including a petition with over 1000000 signatures and the last minute press-release below.
- President Macron allegedly was hesitant and considered a range of options, including a reduction of the percentage of reimbursement.
- Apparently, the minister stood up for science and, it was rumoured, even put her job on the line to turn this affaire into the triumph of reason it now has become.
- Yesterday, she announced the end of reimbursement and was quoted saying “J’ai toujours dit que je suivrais l’avis de la Haute Autorité de santé (HAS), j’ai donc décidé d’engager la procédure de déremboursement total“
It is important, I think, to use this occasion for considering the main arguments of the homeopathy lobby in their defence of homeopathy.
- Homeopathy is effective. This argument is demonstrably false and can only be made, if one abuses the published evidence. One way to demonstrate this is to look at the official verdicts from around the globe.
- Homeopathy may only be a placebo, but it prevents patients taking dangerous drugs instead. This argument is tricky but wrong. If patients are ill, they need an effective therapy and not homeopathy. If they are not ill, they need reassurance and not a placebo. We need to educate the public and doctors to understand this simple message rather than pulling wool over their eyes.
- Discontinuing homeopathy is an undesirable curtailment of our freedom of choice. This is a pseudo-argument, because nobody forbids anyone using homeopathy. All we advocate is that the public purse should only pay for effective treatments. Any other strategy means that we jeopardise funds for effective therapies.
- Homeopathy employs over 1000 workers, and any cut in reimbursement would jeopardise these jobs. This argument is also tricky (and it is probably the one that created a headache for politicians). It is, however, spurious. Firstly, job preservation is only a good thing, if the jobs in question are worth preserving. If they serve no good service to the public, they are probably not worth preserving. (We don’t need to all start smoking, for instance, in order to preserve the jobs in the tobacco industry.) Secondly, the argument contradicts the other arguments of the homeopathy lobby. If homeopathy were effective and helpful, people would carry on buying homeopathics regardless of any cut in reimbursement. Thirdly, I suspect the figure of > 1000 will turn out to be hugely exaggerated. Fourthly, arguments of this kind are deeply regressive; they have historically stood in the way of progress whenever an innovation was inescapable (think of the industrial revolution, for instance), and they have never succeeded.
To contemplate these arguments carefully is important, I feel, because this will help other rational thinkers to fight for progress, optimal healthcare and good science. There is still plenty of quackery out there. So, let’s celebrate the French triumph (à votre santé, Agnès Buzyn!!!) – and then roll up our sleeves and get cracking!
A few days ago, I reported that the German homeopathy manufacturer Hevert has taken legal action against German critics of homeopathy. This caused a storm of protests on twitter, in the press and even on TV. Hevert has remained silent in all this, but now a spokesperson and part owner of the firm, Mr Mathias Hevert, has given an interview to ‘Pharma Relations’ in an attempt to explain and justify Hevert’s position.
The interview does not tell us much, except for one particular passage:
Frau Grams hat sich meines Wissens nach gar nicht konkret auf die Produkte der Firma Hevert bezogen. Warum fühlten Sie sich dennoch aufgerufen, sozusagen stellvertretend für die Branche juristische Schritte einzuleiten?
Da homöopathische Arzneimittel neben pflanzlichen und schulmedizinischen Präparaten einen wichtigen Teil des breiten Hevert-Sortiments darstellen, fühlen wir uns bereits seit der Firmengründung 1956 eng mit der durch Pastor Emanuel Felke begründeten Komplexmittel-Homöopathie verbunden. Seit Monaten beobachten wir, wie die Homöopathie von Meinungsbildnern in den Sozialen Medien, der Presse und dem Fernsehen undifferenziert und ohne wissenschaftliche Grundlage denunziert wird. In Großbritannien wurden bereits einflussreiche Lobbygruppen aktiv, um die Homöopathie als Ganzes und ohne differenzierte Betrachtung der Datenlage zu verunglimpfen. Mit ihren Bemühungen schafften sie es sogar, die Politik zu gesetzlichen Einschränkungen des Feldes zu drängen. Um ähnliches in Deutschland – dem Mutterland der Homöopathie – zu verhindern, geht Hevert entschlossen gegen ungerechtfertigte und nicht fundierte Diskreditierungen der Homöopathie durch Lobbygruppen und andere Meinungsbildner vor.
Here is my translation of the bit that concerns me:
Q: Frau Grams has, as far as I know, not even concretely referred to the products of Hevert. Why do you still feel compelled to start legal procedures, so to speak for the sector?
A: … We observe since months how homeopathy is being denounced in an undifferentiated manner and without a scientific basis by opinion leaders in social media, the press, an on TV. In England, influential lobby groups have been active to denigrate homeopathy as a whole and without differentiated consideration of the data. Through their efforts, they have even managed to force politicians to implement legal restrictions in this area…
I must admit, I find this response quite extraordinary!
I am not aware of anyone or any group in England denigrating homeopathy without differentiated consideration of the data. All we did was to point out what the best available evidence tells us, exercise our critical thinking abilities, and report facts. And I do strongly object anyone claiming otherwise. In fact, I ask myself whether the above remarks by a representative of a manufacturer of homeopathics are not libellous and thus actionable.
What do you think?
But perhaps I have misunderstood something; in this case, could Mr Hevert please name the UK critics he had in mind when he made these comments?
I am sure this press-release of today will be of interest:
Good Thinking, a charity which aims to promote science and challenge pseudoscience, is bringing the action after the PSA acknowledged that multiple members of the Society of Homeopaths continue to offer CEASE therapy – a purported treatment for autism which is targeted particularly at children and which relies on the false notion that autism is caused by vaccination, and can be cured with homeopathic treatments, high-dosage Vitamin C, and dietary restriction.
The PSA has acknowledged that CEASE therapy is potentially harmful and conflicts with the advice of the NHS in several respects, including with regard to the childhood vaccinations for potentially life-threatening conditions. Nevertheless, the PSA decided on April 1st to approve the Society of Homeopaths’ accreditation for a further year.
Michael Marshall, Project Director of Good Thinking, said: “By being part of the PSA’s Accredited Voluntary Register scheme, the Society of Homeopaths and its members – including those who practice CEASE therapy – can point to the PSA’s logo on their websites and marketing materials as a sign that they are competent, trustworthy and safe. But that badge, and the credibility and legitimacy it confers, only carries any meaning if the PSA takes seriously their duty to protect the public from harmful practices.
“For the PSA to acknowledge that members of the Society of Homeopaths are offering a treatment that the PSA themselves recognise as harmful, and which is targeted at a particularly vulnerable group, and to then reaccredit them all the same makes a mockery of the PSA’s whole accreditation scheme. For PSA accreditation to mean anything at all, the public needs to be confident that when the PSA identify potentially harmful therapies, they take the necessary steps to protect the public, rather than accepting it and, effectively, endorsing it”.
The Society of Homeopaths has been part of the PSA’s Accredited Voluntary Register scheme since 2014. The PSA’s decision to accredit the Society of Homeopaths and its subsequent decisions to re-accredit have been the subject of criticism from both autism rights campaigners and those who support evidence-based medicine.
Marshall said: “The PSA encourage members of the public to choose healthcare practitioners which belong to one of its accredited registers, and even have a tool on their site to find accredited practitioners. That advice is fundamentally undermined by the fact that a patient could, via the PSA’s list of accredited practitioners, find themselves consulting with a homeopath who discourages vaccination and believes they can cure children of autism.”
Good Thinking’s action has drawn support from autism campaigners, such as Emma Dalmayne: “We as autistic people, are bombarded with the discriminatory rhetoric that we are in need of a cure. CEASE is not a cure for our neurological difference, and it is proven to be extremely harmful. The PSA should not endorse the Society of Homeopaths while their members offer this harmful therapy. The Society of
Homeopaths are at present allowing their members to mislead the public, which in turn puts vulnerable autistic children in harm’s way.”
If Good Thinking’s Judicial Review is successful, the PSA will likely be required to revisit their decision to reaccredit the Society of Homeopaths, this time paying proper regard to the need to protect the public and in particular autistic children who are the main targets for CEASE therapy.
As a small charity, Good Thinking have appealed for support in funding their Judicial Review, and are urging supporters to contribute to their crowdfunding campaign, at crowdjustice.com/case/gts-cease-psa/.
· Simon Singh, Science Writer and Chair of Good Thinking: “Only this week we saw Prince Charles become a patron of the Faculty of Homeopathy. We have become accustomed to Prince Charles endorsing dangerous quackery, but we expect more of the PSA. The credibility of the PSA is at stake when it allows the Society of Homeopaths to retain accredited status despite their members offering this clearly harmful therapy.”
· Laura Thomason, Project Manager, Good Thinking: “Since 2017 we have raised concerns with the PSA about Society of Homeopaths members practicing CEASE therapy, and how we felt the actions they took to protect the public were wholly inadequate. We were therefore shocked and dismayed to see the PSA reaccredit the Society of Homeopaths, and believe their decision to do so, in the absence of any real sign from the Society that they are taking the protection of autistic children seriously, to be unlawful.”
· Professor Edzard Ernst: “According to the ‘like cures like’ principle of homeopathy, Dr Tinus Smits, the Dutch homeopath who invented CEASE, claimed that autism must be cured by applying homeopathic doses of the substances which allegedly caused the condition. CEASE therapists thus ‘detoxify’ all assumed causative factors – vaccines, regular medication, environmental toxic exposures, effects of illness, etc. – with homeopathically prepared substances that were administered prior to the onset of autism. The assumptions of CEASE therapy fly in the face of science. There is also no clinical evidence that CEASE therapy is effective in curing autism or alleviating its symptoms. By misleading desperate parents that CEASE therapy works, homeopaths can do untold harm.”
Time for celebrations and congratulations!
‘Doctor’ Colleen Huber (DCH) is the US naturopath who is currently suing Britt Hermes. For me, this is enough reason to do a bit of reading and find out who DCH is and what motivates her. Here is what I found out (I added some * to the quotes [all in italics] and comments below).
DCH has an impressive presence on the Internet. One website, for instance, tells us that DCH is a Naturopathic Medical Doctor* in Tempe, Arizona. Her clinic, Nature Works Best Cancer Clinic, has had the most successful results of any clinic in the world reporting its results over the last 9 years **.
Dr. Huber authored the largest and longest study*** in medical history on sugar intake in cancer patients, which was reported in media around the world in 2014. Her other writing includes her book, Choose Your Foods Like Your Life Depends On Them ****, and she has been featured in the books America’s Best Cancer Doctors and Defeat Cancer. Dr. Huber’s academic writing has appeared in The Lancet *****, the International Journal of Cancer Research ***** and Molecular Mechanisms *****, and other medical journals ******. Her research interests are in the use of therapeutic approaches targeting metabolic aspects of cancer…
*I am puzzled by this title. Is it an official one? I only found this, and it omits the ‘medical’: Currently, 20 states, five Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed laws regulating naturopathic doctors. Learn more about licensure from the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges. It seems that Arizona is the only state where the ‘medical’ is allowed. However, don’t take this to mean that DCH went to medical school.
** ‘most successful results of any clinic in the world’? Really? Where are the comparative statistics?
*** the study had all of 317 patients and was published in an obscure, non-Medline listed journal.
**** currently ranked #1,297,877 in Books on Amazon.
***** no such entries found on Medline.
****** sorry, but my Medline search for ‘huber colleen’ located only 2 citations, both on arthritis research conducted in an US Pfizer lab and therefore probably not from ‘our’ DCH.
Another website on or by DCH informs us that her outfit Nature Works Best is a natural cancer clinic located in Tempe, Arizona, that focuses on natural, holistic, and alternative cancer treatments. Our treatments have proved to be an effective alternative to traditional chemotherapy and radiation, which we do not use in our treatments. Rather, we have developed a natural method of treating cancers based on intravenous vitamin therapy which may include Vitamin-C, Baking Soda, and other tumor fighting agents as well as a simple food plan. *
Our team of naturopathic medical doctors have administered an estimated 31,000 IV nutrient treatments, used for all stages and types of tumors. As of July 2014, 80% of patients who completed our treatments alone went into remission, 85% of patients who completed our treatments and followed our food plan went into remission. **
* Give me a break! Vitamin-C and Baking Soda are claimed to have proved to be an effective alternative to traditional chemotherapy and radiation ? I would like to see the data before I believe this!
** Again, I would like to see the data before I believe this!
Finally, a further website proudly repeats that her academic writing has appeared in The Lancet and Cancer Strategies Journal, and other medical journals. It even presents an abstract of her published work; here it is:
Recent recommendations for the more widespread prescription of statin drugs in the U.S. have generated controversy. Cholesterol is commonly thought to be the enemy of good health. On the other hand, previous research has established the necessity of cholesterol in production of Vitamin D and steroid hormones, among other purposes, some of which have been shown to have anti-cancer effect. We compare total serum cholesterol (TC) in cancer survivors vs cancer fatalities, and we assess the value of deliberately lowering TC among cancer patients. We also examined diet in the survivors as well as those who then died of cancer.
In this original previously unpublished research, we conducted a double-blind retrospective case series, in which we looked back at data from all 255 cancer patients who came to and were treated by our clinic with either current dietary information, and/or a recent serum TC level, measured by an unaffiliated laboratory or an unaffiliated clinic over the previous seven years, comparing TC in the surviving cancer patients versus those cancer patients who died during that time.
Surviving cancer patients had 24.0 points higher mean total cholesterol than the mean for deceased cancer patients. A number of dietary differences between cancer survivors and those who then died of cancer were also found to be notable.
Caution is advised before attempting to lower cholesterol in cancer patients with close to normal TC levels. Those cancer patients with higher TC were more likely to survive their cancer.
I don’t know about you, but I am not impressed. Surviving cancer patients had 24.0 points higher mean total cholesterol than the mean for deceased cancer patients. Has DCH thought of the possibility that moribund patients quite simply eat less? In which case, the observed difference would be a meaningless epiphenomenon.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, DCH is currently suing Britt Hermes for libel…
Yesterday Britt Hermes reported that she has won the court case:
On May 24, 2019, the District Court (Landgericht) of Kiel, Germany ruled against naturopathic cancer quack Colleen Huber in a defamation lawsuit she brought against me. Huber filed suit in September 2017 over my opinions about the dubious treatments and human subjects research at her cancer clinic in Tempe, Arizona (USA), and also over my suspicions that Huber was cybersquatting domains in my name…
In a blog post from December 2016, I theorized that Huber or someone in her close orbit had registered domains using my first and last names to misrepresent my position on naturopathic “doctors.” You can view the archive of brittmariehermes.com from 31 March 2016 here. In my post, I also wrote about Huber’s dubious cancer treatments of intravenous baking soda, mega-doses of intravenous vitamin C, and a strict sugar-free diet. Huber advocates against state-of-the-art oncology, especially chemotherapy and radiation, because she thinks these therapies strengthen cancer…
I am sure that many readers of the blog want to join me in congratulating Britt.
VERY WELL DONE INDEED!
The purpose of this recently published survey was to obtain the demographic profile and educational background of chiropractors with paediatric patients on a multinational scale.
A multinational online cross-sectional demographic survey was conducted over a 15-day period in July 2010. The survey was electronically administered via chiropractic associations in 17 countries, using SurveyMonkey for data acquisition, transfer, and descriptive analysis.
The response rate was 10.1%, and 1498 responses were received from 17 countries on 6 continents. Of these, 90.4% accepted paediatric cases. The average practitioner was male (61.1%) and 41.4 years old, had 13.6 years in practice, and saw 107 patient visits per week. Regarding educational background, 63.4% had a bachelor’s degree or higher in addition to their chiropractic qualification, and 18.4% had a postgraduate certificate or higher in paediatric chiropractic.
The authors from the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic (AECC), Bournemouth University, United Kingdom, drew the following conclusion: this is the first study about chiropractors who treat children from the United Arab Emirates, Peru, Japan, South Africa, and Spain. Although the response rate was low, the results of this multinational survey suggest that pediatric chiropractic care may be a common component of usual chiropractic practice on a multinational level for these respondents.
A survey with a response rate of 10%?
An investigation published 9 years after it has been conducted?
Who at the AECC is responsible for controlling the quality of the research output?
Or is this paper perhaps an attempt to get the AECC into the ‘Guinness Book of Records’ for outstanding research incompetence?
But let’s just for a minute pretend that this paper is of acceptable quality. If the finding that ~90% of chiropractors tread kids is approximately correct, one has to be very concerned indeed.
I am not aware of any good evidence that chiropractic care is effective for paediatric conditions. On the contrary, it can do quite a bit of direct harm! To this, we sadly also have to add the indirect harm many chiropractors cause, for instance, by advising parents against vaccinating their kids.
This clearly begs the question: is it not time to stop these charlatans?
What do you think?
I have just been in Sao Paulo to give a lecture at the opening of a new university institute, ‘Question of Science‘. Under the leadership of Natalia Pasternak, the institute will promote scepticism in Brazil, particularly in the area of alternative medicine. Brazil currently has no less than 29 types of alternative medicine paid for with public money, and even homeopathy is officially being recognised and taught at all Brazilian medical schools.
But the most peculiar case of Brazilian quackery must surely be phosphoethanolamine. Gilberto Chierice, a Chemistry Professor at the University of São Paulo, used resources from a campus laboratory to unofficially manufacture, distribute, and promote the chemical to cancer patients claiming that it was a cheap cure for all cancers without side-effects. Remarkably, this was in the total absence of through clinical testing. In September 2015, university administrators therefore began preventing him from continuing with this practice. However, in October 2015, several courts in Brazil ruled in favour of plaintiffs who wanted the compound to remain available. In an unusual move of defence of common sense, a state court overturned the lower courts’ decision a month later, and the secretary for Brazil’s science and technology ministry promised to fund further research on the compound. In 2016, a law was passed in Brazil allowing the sale of synthetic phosphorylethanolamine for cancer treatment. Due to opposition from the Brazilian Medical Association, the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology, and the regulatory agency ANVISA, the country’s Supreme Court then suspended the law. I was told that a stepwise plan of clinical testing had been implemented. As the drug even failed to pass the most preliminary tests, the program had to be aborted.
This story seems like a re-play of many similar tales of bogus cancer cures of the past. They all seem to follow a similar pattern:
- Someone dreams up a ‘cure’ for all cancers that is cheap and free of side-effects.
- This appeals to many desperate cancer patients who are fighting for their lives.
- It also attracts several entrepreneurs who are hoping to make a fast buck.
- The story is picked up by the press and consequently a sizable grass-roots movement of support emerges.
- Populist politicians jump on the vote-winning band-waggon.
- The experts caution that the bogus cancer ‘cure’ is devoid of evidence and might put patients’ lives at risk.
- The legislators get involved.
- Law suits start left, right and centre.
- Eventually, the cancer ‘cure’ is scientifically tested and confirmed to be bogus.
- Eventually, the law rules against the bogus ‘cure’.
- A conspiracy theory emerges stating that the cancer ‘cure’ was unjustly suppressed to protect the interests of Big Pharma.
- A few years later, the subject re-surfaces and the whole cycle starts from the beginning.
Such stories remind us that fighting bogus claims is hugely important, even if it does not always succeed or turns out to be merely an exercise of damage limitation. Every life saved by the struggle against quackery makes it worthwhile.
I wish the new Institute ‘Question of Science‘ all the luck it richly deserves and desperately needs.
On 29 August, I published a post discussing a case report of a patient who had suffered multiple unilateral pre-retinal haemorrhages immediately following chiropractic neck manipulation suggesting that chiropractic spinal adjustments can not only affect the carotid artery, but also could lead to pre-retinal haemorrhages. Two days ago (over one month after my blog-post), the story was reported in the Daily Mail. They (originally) quoted me both in their on-line and print version as follows: “Edzard Ernst, an expert in alternative medicine, said chiropractic treatments were too dangerous and not sufficiently effective to be recommended for any condition.”
I think this is a statement that does not really relate well to the story. Crucially, it is a sentence that I do not identify with.
So, why did I say it?
The answer is simple: I didn’t!
What happened is this:
The ‘science correspondent’ of the Mail emailed me asking whether she could speak to me. I replied that I am currently in Brittany and that it would be better to send me questions which I promised to answer swiftly. She then send a press-release about the above-mentioned case report and asked for a quote. The paragraph I swiftly sent her read as follows:
“Chiropractors frequently manipulate patients’ neck in such a way that the joints are taken beyond their physiological range of motion. This can lead to all sorts of problems, sometimes even death. This new report suggests that chiropractic neck manipulations can also damage the eyes. As the ensuing problems tend to be temporary, it is likely that such eye-damage occurs often after chiropractic treatments. Chiropractic neck manipulations are not convincingly effective for any condition; as they can cause a lot of harm, their risk/benefit balance is clearly negative. In other words, we should not use or recommend them.”
The science correspondent thanked me and replied that my quote was too long and had to be shortened; would I be happy, she asked, with the following text:
“Edzard Ernst, an expert in the study of alternative medicine and former professor at the University of Exeter, said: ‘Chiropractors frequently manipulate patients’ neck in such a way that the joints are taken beyond their physiological range of motion.
‘The ensuing problems tend to be temporary but it is likely that this kind of eye damage occurs often after chiropractic treatments.
‘Chiropractic neck manipulations are not convincingly effective for any condition as they can cause a lot of harm. Therefore we should not use or recommend them.’ ”
I made a slight alteration (exchanging ‘the ensuing problems’ for ‘the ensuing eye-problems’) and replied that this was fine by me.
When I saw what was eventually published (the nonsense printed in bold above), I was baffled and irritated. Therefore I instantly complained to the science correspondent. She apologised saying that my quote had been “paraphrased from [my] full quote, probably for reasons of space during the production process”. She also changed the quote in the on-line version to what it says currently.
I replied: “of course, I accept your apology personal, as I knew it was not your doing. nevertheless, I find it totally unacceptable that someone at the DM can just go ahead and change direct quotes. you say he/she paraphrased me; I disagree! the published sentence has an entirely different meaning. this is not journalism! I want an apology from the person who is responsible.”
The science correspondent then promised to take care of it; but, so far, nothing has happened.
One could easily view this episode as trivial. However, I believe that decent journalism should stick to the rules. And one of the most fundamental one is that journalists cannot put words into people’s mouths just because it fits their story-line (Boris Johnson did this when he was a journalist, and look what a formidable mess he is now creating!). If we let journalists get away with such behaviour, we cannot have trust in journalism. And if we cannot trust journalism, it has lost its purpose.
So, should I continue insisting on an adequate apology from the person responsible or not?
What do you think?
Did you know that I falsified my qualifications?
Neither did I!
But this is exactly what has been posted on Amazon as a review of my book HOMEOPATHY, THE UNDILUTED FACTS. The Amazon review in question is dated 7 August 2018 and authored by ‘Paul’. As it might not be there for long (because it is clearly abusive) I copied it for you:
Edzard Ernst falsified his qualifications to get a job as a professor. When the university found out they fired him. This book is as false as the Mr Ernst
Over the years, I have received so many insults that I stared to collect them and began to quite like them. I even posted selections on this blog (see for instance here and here). Some are really funny and others are enlightening because they reflect on the mind-set of the authors. All of them show that the author has run out of arguments; thus they really are little tiny victories over unreason, I think.
But, somehow, this new one is different. It is actionable, no doubt, and contains an unusual amount of untruths in so few words.
- I never falsified anything and certainly not my qualification (which is that of a doctor of medicine). If I had, I would be writing these lines from behind bars.
- And if I had done such a thing, I would not have done it ‘to get a job as a professor’ – I had twice been appointed to professorships before I came to the UK (Hannover and Vienna).
- My university did not find out, mainly because there was nothing to find out.
- They did not fire me, but I went into early retirement. Subsequently, they even re-appointed me for several months.
- My book is not false; I don’t even know what a ‘false book’ is (is it a book that is not really a book but something else?).
- And finally, for Paul, I am not Mr Ernst, but Prof Ernst.
I don’t know who Paul is. And I don’t know whether he has even read the book he pretends to be commenting on (from what I see, I think this is very unlikely). I am sure, however, that he did not read my memoir where all these things are explained in full detail. And I certainly do not hope he ever reads it – if he did, he might claim:
This book is as false as the Mr Ernst