MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

malpractice

1 2 3 14

Some chiropractors seem too uninformed, stupid or greedy to stop claiming that spinal manipulation boosts the immune system. In the current situation, this is not just annoying, it is positively dangerous.

Here is a fine example of such a person; he is even so convinced of his views that he felt like giving an interview:

How can/does chiropractic care improve your immune system? What happens to our bodies physiologically when we get chiropractic adjustments?

Chiropractic care addresses the vertebral subluxation. This occurs when a vertebra becomes misaligned. This misalignment can result in irritation to the spinal nerve roots, which exit the spinal cord.

When a spinal nerve root is irritated, it stresses the nervous system — thus the potential to weaken the immune system. When we evaluate the spine for these subluxations and identify a misalignment, chiropractors can adjust the spine to alleviate the irritation to the spinal nerve root. This in turn helps to remove the stress from the nervous system.

If people have problems with their immune systems, can chiropractic care help make them better?

Chiropractic care is not a panacea for disease. Its main role is to remove the interference on the nervous system. The three main stresses on the nervous system are thoughts, traumas, and toxins. These are mainly caused by poor lifestyle choices.

Negative thoughts and self-doubt, physical trauma, and environmental toxins all affect the body in ways that stress the nervous system, thus weakening the immune response. Chiropractic care can address the entire nervous system by not only creating a physiological change, but also inducing a reduction of stress, which results in emotional regulation.

Is there any particular research that gives evidence on how chiropractic care can improve your immune system?  

Three past studies suggest that manipulation consistently reduced the production of pro-inflammatory mediators associated with tissue damage and pain from articular structures. Two studies provide evidence that manipulation consistently reduced the production of pro-inflammatory mediators associated with tissue damage and pain from articular structures.

Two studies provide evidence that manipulation may induce and enhance production of the immunoregulatory cytokine IL-2 and the production of immunoglobulins as well.

There are a multitude of clinical studies demonstrating the effects of stress on the body and the correlation between stress and immune function. More double blind, randomized clinical trials need to be conducted on the direct relationship between spinal subluxation and the effect on the immune system. In private practice, we observe the impact that adjusting the spine has on overall wellness and its undeniable effect on boosting the body’s ability to adapt to stress and improve your immune system.

Is there anything else about the physiology of how chiropractic care impacts the immune system that you think is important for readers to know?

Our health is our wealth. Taking responsibility for our wellbeing and being preventative affords the body the best possible chance of protecting itself from illness and disease.

Chiropractic care is rooted in the fundamentals that our negative thoughts, traumas, and toxins can lead to disease. By properly evaluating every patient and addressing their physical and emotional challenges, we as a profession can be the leaders of preventative care and restore health naturally and effectively.

On the one hand this is embarrassing, as it exposes almost everything that is wrong with chiropractic. On the other hand, it is informative, as it demonstrates how deeply some chiropractors are entrenched in platitudes, half-truths and blatant lies. The inevitable question is: do these chiropractors really believe this nonsense, or do they merely promote it because it is good for business?

Whatever the answer may be, one thing is fairly obvious: the ones who are being harmed by such drivel are the patients who lack sufficient critical thinking abilities to look through it. They pay not just with their money, but also with their health.

SO, PLEASE LEARN TO THINK CRITICALLY, FOLKS!

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued warning letters to four companies for selling unapproved injectable drug products labelled as homeopathic that can pose serious risks to patient health and violate federal law, as part of the agency’s efforts to protect Americans from potentially harmful products that are labelled as homeopathic.

The FDA is particularly concerned about unapproved injectable drug products labelled as homeopathic because they are injected directly into the body, often directly into the bloodstream and bypass some of the body’s key natural defences against toxins, toxic ingredients and dangerous organisms that can cause serious and life-threatening harm. Additionally, unapproved drugs that claim to cure, treat or prevent serious conditions may cause consumers to delay or stop medical treatments that have been found safe and effective through the FDA review process.

“The FDA’s drug approval requirements are designed to protect patients by ensuring, among other things, that drugs are safe and effective for their intended uses. These unapproved injectable drugs are particularly concerning because they inherently present greater risks to patients because of how they are administered,” said Donald D. Ashley, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “These products are further concerning given that they are labelled to contain potentially toxic ingredients intended for injection directly into the body. These warning letters reflect our continued commitment to patient safety.”

No currently marketed drug products labelled as homeopathic have been approved by the FDA for any use and the agency cannot assure these drugs meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness and quality. Products labelled as homeopathic can be made from a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals and chemicals, and they can include known poisons or toxins. These drugs are often marketed as natural, safe and effective alternatives to approved prescription and non-prescription products and are widely available in the marketplace. Additionally, the lack of premarket quality review is particularly concerning for injectable drugs, which generally pose a greater risk of harm to users because the route of administration for these products bypasses some of the body’s natural defences.

The FDA issued the warning letters to Hevert Pharmaceuticals, LLCMediNatura, Inc.8046255 Canada, Inc., doing business as Viatrexx; and World Health Advanced Technologies, Ltd. The products included in the warning letters are new drugs because they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for their labelled uses, and FDA has not approved these products. Some drugs, such as “Enercel,” marketed by World Health Advanced Technologies, Ltd., are intended for serious diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis B and C.

Many of the drugs were labelled to contain potentially toxic ingredients such as nux vomica, belladonna (deadly nightshade), mercurius solubilis (mercury), and plumbum aceticum (lead). For example, nux vomica contains strychnine, which is a highly toxic, well-studied poison that is used to kill rodents. The agency is concerned that these potentially toxic ingredients present additional risks of serious harm when delivered directly into the body, including directly into the bloodstream.

Drugs labelled as homeopathic may also cause significant and even irreparable harm if they are poorly manufactured. Viatrexx was also cited for substandard manufacturing practices for sterile drugs.

The foreign manufacturers of the injectable drugs sold by Hervert Pharmaceuticals, LLC; MediNatura New Mexico, Inc.; and Viatrexx were also placed on import alert 66-41 to stop these drugs from entering the U.S.

The FDA has taken steps to clarify for both consumers and industry how the potential safety risks of these products are assessed. On Oct. 24, 2019, the FDA withdrew Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 400.400 “Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed,” because it was inconsistent with the agency’s risk-based approach to regulatory and enforcement actions. The FDA also issued a revision of its draft guidance, titled Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic: Guidance for FDA Staff and Industry, for public comment. When finalized, this guidance will explain the categories of homeopathic drug products that we intend to prioritize under our risk-based enforcement approach. In the interim, before the draft guidance is finalized, the FDA intends to apply its general approach to prioritizing risk-based regulatory and enforcement action.

The FDA encourages health care professionals and consumers to report adverse events or quality problems experienced with the use of any of these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program. To report adverse drug events in animals, see How to Report Animal Drug Side Effects and Product Problems

_____________________________________

 

Hevert is of course well known to readers of this blog for their attempt to silence critics of homeopathy in Germany. The FDA’s warning letter refers to their following injectable products:

  • “Arnica,”
  • “Calmvalera comp.,”
  • “Gelsemium comp.,”
  • “Hepar comp.,”
  • “Lymphaden comp.”

The FDA referred to the following injectable homeopathic products from 8046255 Canada:

  • “Articula,”
  • “Mesenchyme,”
  • “Connectissue,”
  • “MuSkel-Neural,”
  • “Ouch,”
  • “Ithurts,”
  • “Adipose,”
  • “Systemic Detox,”
  • “Hair,”
  • “Neuro 3,”
  • “Infla,”
  • “Collagen,”
  • “Prolo,”
  • “Lymph 1,”
  • “GI,”
  • “Neuro,”
  • “Arthros,”
  • “Male+,”
  • “Immunexx,”
  • “Relief+,”
  • “Intra-Cell,”
  • “Facial,”
  • “ANS/CNS”.

The FDA warning to World Health Advanced Technologies, Ltd referred to:

  • “Enercel AM,”
  • “Enercel Forte,”
  • “Enercel Max,”
  • “Enercel Mist-Nasal,”
  • “Enercel Mist Nebulizer,”
  • “Enercel PM,”
  • “Vanicel,”
  • “Enercel Plus,”
  • “Enercel Plus IM.”

The FDA warning referred to the following products by MediNatura, and the claims made for them include:

  • Zeel Injection Solution: “… treatment of arthrosis/osteoarthritis, and/or rheumatic joint diseases and for the relief of symptoms such as pain and joint stiffness.”
  • Traumeel Injection Solution: … treatment of injuries, inflammatory and degenerative conditions of the musculoskeletal system and for the relief of associated symptoms such as pain.”
  • Engystol Injection Solution:  support of the immune system to reduce severity and duration of symptoms in viral infections, particularly in the early stages of colds and influenza-like illnesses.”
  • Neuralgo-Rheum Injection Solution: “… treatment of nerve pain, soft tissue rheumatism and symptoms of disc protrusion.”
  • Lymphomyosot X Injection Solution: “… improvement of lymphatic drainage, the non-specific immune defense, and conditions such as benign hypertrophy of lymph nodes, chronic tonsillitis, tonsillar hypertrophy and lymphatic edema.”
  • Spascupreel Injection Solution: “… relief of spasms of the smooth musculature of the gastrointestinal and urogenital tract as well as general muscle spasms.”

The FDA has requested the companies to respond within 15 working days. The letter also states that failure to correct any violations could result in legal action against the company, including seizure and injunction.

Asked for comment, Cliff Clive, founder and CEO for MediNatura, stated that he is disappointed with the FDA’s actions and the company is in the process of developing their response. “The FDAs statements that the MediNatura injectable products present greater risk to consumers is without factual basis,” Clive said. “The MediNatura injectable products are labelled for use only under the care of licensed practitioners [and] are manufactured in [Good Manufacturing Practice]-compliant facilities to assure their quality and sterility.”

Disputing several of the claims made in the letter, Clive noted that rather than protecting patients, “the FDA’s actions threaten to remove valuable alternatives relied upon by medical practitioners in treating their patients. These injections have been used legally by thousands of medical doctors for more than 30 years in the U.S., and in over 50 other countries for more than 60 years, with rigorous monitoring of adverse events,” Clive said. “As a result, there is a substantial amount of epidemiological data which shows that MediNatura’s injection products have a superb safety profile.”

As far as I can see, none of the above-named products are supported by sound evidence. If you ask me, it is time that homeopaths understand what proofs of safety and efficacy amount to, that they stop confusing the public, and that they stop marketing illegal products.

I recently came across a short article from 2009 in the BMJ reporting that: “The World Health Organization has said that homoeopathy should not be used to treat several serious diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria...”

At the time most people (including myself) were rather pleased that the WHO took what was considered a clear stance, I remember. Reading the short paragraph again today, I must say I am underwhelmed. In fact, if I analyse it carefully, I have to admit that the statement is nonsense.

This would be inconsequential or trivial, were it not for the hundreds of similar statements warning people that HOMEOPATHY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SERIOUS CONDITIONS.

Have I confused you?

No, I am not claiming the homeopathy SHOULD be used for serious conditions! I am saying that the statement is misleading and can easily be misunderstood. Some people might interpret it as meaning that, alright homeopathy must not be used for serious diseases, but can be used for all other conditions. Come to think of it, the WHO has often been seen promoting so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), and therefore I cannot be sure that this is not the message they wanted to send out.

Highly diluted homeopathic remedies contain nothing; they are therefore biologically implausible. Crucially, the best evidence fails to show that they work beyond a placebo effect. Therefore, employing it for a serious condition might hasten the patient’s death. But using it for a less serious condition is surely not much better.

Imagine someone takes it for asthma, or psoriasis, or coronary heart disease, or rheumatoid arthritis, or flu, or food poisoning, or the common cold, etc, etc. If he uses it as a sole treatment, he will suffer needlessly. If he uses it as a complementary treatment (Hahnemann did expressly forbid such combinations), he might not be affected negatively except for the time and money invested. But his health would not benefit, and therefore the WHO (or anyone else for that matter) should not imply that this is fine.

It follows that the warning HOMEOPATHY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SERIOUS CONDITIONS is nonsense. The only sound advice is this:

HOMEOPATHY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY CONDITIONS.

 

Am I the only one who is tired of hearing that, in India, homeopathy is doing wonders for the current pandemic? All of the reports that I have seen are based on little more than hearsay, anecdotes or pseudo-science. If anyone really wanted to find out whether homeopathy works, they would need more than that; in fact, they would need to conduct a clinical trial.

But wait!

As it happens, there are already ~500 clinical trials of homeopathy. Many show positive effects, but the reliable ones usually don’t. Crucially, the totality of the evidence fails to be positive. So, running further studies is hardly a promising exercise. In fact, considering how utterly implausible homeopathy is, it even seems like an unethical waste of resources.

But many homeopaths disagree, particularly those in India. And it has been reported that several trials have been given the go-ahead in India and are now up and running. This regrettable fact is being heavily exploited for swaying public opinion in favour of homeopathy. The way I see it, the situation is roughly this:

  • a few trials of homeopathy are being set up;
  • they are designed by enthusiasts of homeopathy who lack research expertise;
  • therefore their methodology is weak and biased towards generating a false-positive result;
  • while this is going on, the homeopathic propaganda machine is running overtime;
  • when the results will finally emerge, they will get published in a 3rd rate journal;
  • homeopaths worldwide will celebrate them as a triumph for homeopathy;
  • critical thinkers will be dismayed at their quality and will declare that the conclusions drawn by over-enthusiastic homeopaths are not valid;
  • in the end, we will be exactly where we were before: quasi-religious believers in homeopathy will feel vexed because their findings are not accepted in science, and everyone else will be baffled by the waste of time, opportunity and resources as well as by the tenacity of homeopaths to make fools of themselves.

But criticising is easy; doing it properly is often more difficult.

So, how should it be done?

The way I see it, one should do the following:

  • carefully consider the implausibility of homeopathy;
  • thoroughly study the existing evidence on homeopathy;
  • abandon all plans to study homeopathy in the light of the above.

But this hardly is inconceivable considering the current situation in India. If further studies of homeopathy are unavoidable, the following procedure might therefore be reasonable:

  1. assemble a team of experts including trial methodologists, statisticians, epidemiologists and homeopaths;
  2. ask them to design a rigorous protocol of one or two studies that would provide a definitive answer to the research question posed;
  3. make sure that, once everyone is happy with the protocol, all parties commit to abiding by the findings that will emerge from these trials;
  4. conduct the studies under adequately strict supervision;
  5. evaluate the results according to the protocol;
  6. publish them in a top journal;
  7. do the usual press-releases, interviews etc.

In India, it seems that the last point in this agenda came far too early. This is because, in this and several other countries, homeopathy has become more a belief system than a medicine. And because it is about belief, the believers will avert any truly meaningful and rigorous test of homeopathy’s efficacy.

 

 

This was essentially the question raised in a correspondence with a sceptic friend. His suspicion was that statistical methods might produce false-positive overall findings, if the research is done by enthusiasts of the so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in question (or other areas of inquiry which I will omit because they are outside my area of expertise). Consciously or inadvertently, such researchers might introduce a pro-SCAM bias into their work. As the research is done mostly by such enthusiasts; the totality of the evidence would turn out to be heavily skewed in favour of the SCAM under investigation. The end-result would then be a false-positive overall impression about the SCAM which is less based on reality than on the wishful thinking of the investigators.

How can one deal with this problem?

How to minimise the risk of being overwhelmed by false-positive research?

Today, we have several mechanisms and initiatives that are at least partly aimed at achieving just this. For instance, there are guidelines on how to conduct the primary research so that bias is minimised. The CONSORT statements are an example. As many studies pre-date CONSORT, we need a different approach for reviews of clinical trials. The PRISMA guideline or the COCHRANE handbook are attempts to make sure systematic reviews are transparent and rigorous. These methods can work quite well in finding the truth, but one needs to be aware, of course, that some researchers do their very best to obscure it. I have also tried to go one step further and shown that the direction of the conclusion correlates with the rigour of the study (btw: this was the paper that prompted Prof Hahn’s criticism and slander of my work and person).

So, problem sorted?

Not quite!

The trouble is that over-enthusiastic researchers may not always adhere to these guidelines, they may pretend to adhere but cut corners, or they may be dishonest and cheat. And what makes this even more tricky is the possibility that they do all this inadvertently; their enthusiasm could get the better of them, and they are doing research not to TEST WHETHER a treatment works but to PROVE THAT it works.

In the realm of SCAM we have a lot of this – trust me, I have seen it often with my own eyes, regrettably sometimes even within my own team of co-workers. The reason for this is that SCAM is loaded with emotion and quasi-religious beliefs; and these provide a much stronger conflict of interest than money could ever do, in my experience.

And how might we tackle this thorny issue?

After thinking long and hard about it, I came up in 2012 with my TRUSTWORTHYNESS INDEX:

If we calculated the percentage of a researcher’s papers arriving at positive conclusions and divided this by the percentage of his papers drawing negative conclusions, we might have a useful measure. A realistic example might be the case of a clinical researcher who has published a total of 100 original articles. If 50% had positive and 50% negative conclusions about the efficacy of the therapy tested, his TI would be 1.

Depending on what area of clinical medicine this person is working in, 1 might be a figure that is just about acceptable in terms of the trustworthiness of the author. If the TI goes beyond 1, we might get concerned; if it reaches 4 or more, we should get worried.

An example would be a researcher who has published 100 papers of which 80 are positive and 20 arrive at negative conclusions. His TI would consequently amount to 4. Most of us equipped with a healthy scepticism would consider this figure highly suspect.

Of course, this is all a bit simplistic, and, like all other citation metrics, my TI provides us not with any level of proof; it merely is a vague indicator that something might be amiss. And, as stressed already, the cut-off point for any scientist’s TI very much depends on the area of clinical research we are dealing with. The lower the plausibility and the higher the uncertainty associated with the efficacy of the experimental treatments, the lower the point where the TI might suggest  something  to be fishy.

Based on this concept, I later created the ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME. This is a list of researchers who manage to go through life researching their particular SCAM without ever publishing a negative conclusion about it. In terms of TI, these people have astronomically high values. The current list is not yet long, but it is growing:

John Weeks (editor of JCAM)

Deepak Chopra (US entrepreneur)

Cheryl Hawk (US chiropractor)

David Peters (osteopathy, homeopathy, UK)

Nicola Robinson (TCM, UK)

Peter Fisher (homeopathy, UK)

Simon Mills (herbal medicine, UK)

Gustav Dobos (various, Germany)

Claudia Witt (homeopathy, Germany and Switzerland)

George Lewith (acupuncture, UK)

John Licciardone (osteopathy, US)

The logical consequence of a high TI would be that researchers of that nature are banned from obtaining research funds and publishing papers, because their contribution is merely to confuse us and make science less reliable.

I am sure there are other ways of addressing the problem of being mislead by false-positive research. If you can think of one, I’d be pleased to hear about it.

 

Have you ever noticed that, according to its proponents, many forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) must be applied a long time before there is a noticeable benefit?

As so often, homeopathy is a good example. If you consult a homeopath, she will, in all likelihood, explain that it would be unwise to expect immediate effects. The treatment needs to be taken for weeks; perhaps she even needs to change the prescription once or twice. And the longer you have suffered from your illness, the longer it will take to get rid of it. Sometimes it takes years!

Those homeopathy-fans who have experienced instant effects will, of course, disagree. But these cases are almost certainly due to the placebo response which is known to be fast. The majority of patients will be told to persevere and show patience.

And unquestionably some patients will eventually experience a reduction of symptoms. Thus the homeopaths is proven correct: homeopathy takes time to work!

But hold on, how plausible is this explanation?

Let’s assume a child is cured of asthma after many months of religiously taking the prescribed homeopathic remedies. Is the cure due to the treatment, or might there be other phenomena at play? The most obvious explanation by far is the fact that children frequently grow out of diseases like asthma. So, this and other self-limiting conditions are not good examples.

What about a disease that is clearly not self-limiting? What about a MS patient who feels much improved after taking his homeopathic remedies for three months? Again, the best explanation for the improvement would be the natural history of the disease. The severity of the symptoms of many conditions fluctuate in such a way that there will be periods of relative well-being followed by deterioration.

And what, if we are dealing with a disease that normally gets progressively worse over time, if untreated ? What if a cancer patient claims to be cured after months of homeopathic therapy? Such cases do not exist! The few such ‘cures’ that have been reported have explanations that are unrelated to homeopathy. They are due to one of the three phenomena:

  • false diagnosis,
  • concomitant treatments,
  • spontaneous recovery.

It turns out that the notion of homeopathy (or any other SCAM) requiring a long period of time until the benefit kicks in is mostly a myth.

Well, perhaps not entirely!

The benefit of SCAM does unquestionably need time before a significant benefit ($$$, £££) for the SCAM provider kicks in. So, let’s not sneer at the notion. Let’s be positive. Let’s recognise the reason why the myth is being kept alive. We all must make a living!

 

The Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH) does no longer exist. But it is historically important, in my view. So, I decided to do some research in order to document its perplexing history. In the course of this activity, I found that someone had beaten me to it. This article that does the job very well; I therefore take the liberty of copying it here and adding a few points at the end:

The Foundation for Integrated Health (FIH) was a controversial charity run by Charles, Prince of Wales, founded in 1993. The Foundation promoted complementary and alternative medicine, preferring to use the term “integrated health”, and lobbied for its inclusion in the National Health Service. The charity closed in 2010 after allegations of fraud and money laundering led to the arrest of a former official.

History

Prince Charles established the charity in 1993 to explore “how safe, proven complementary therapies can work in conjunction with mainstream medicine”. [1]

Dr Michael Dixon was appointed the Foundation’s medical director. From 2005 to 2007, FIH received a grant from the Department of Health to help organise the self-regulation of complementary therapies. There had been concern that with a large proportion of the public turning to complementary approaches, there were few safeguards in place to ensure that non-statutorily regulated therapists were safe, trained and would act in an appropriate way. FIH worked to bring together the representative bodies of many complementary professions to talk and agree standards. [2] The result was the formation of the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) which had hoped to register 10,000 practitioners of complementary medicine by the end of 2009 but which by September 2009 had succeeded in enrolling less than a tenth of that number due to lack of interest on the part of some of their professional associations. The Department of Health is currently continuing to fund the CNHC but future funding will be dependent on substantial progress being made towards the target (which has now been reduced to 2,000). Alternative medicine campaigners argued that the move toward regulation conferred undue respectability on unproven and possibly unsafe complementary & alternative medicine (CAM) approaches.

FIH also worked with medical schools to increase the understanding of complementary approaches amongst new doctors and ran an annual awards ceremony for integrated health schemes both within the medical world and in the community.

The papers of the Foundation for Integrated Health are held at the Wellcome Library, Archives and Manuscripts, and are available for consultation by appointment. Further details about the collection can be found on the Wellcome online catalogue. [3]

Controversy

The Prince of Wales has demonstrated an interest in alternative medicine, the promotion of which has occasionally resulted in controversy. [4] In 2004, the Foundation divided the scientific and medical community over its campaign encouraging general practitioners to offer herbal and other alternative treatments to National Health Service patients, [5] [6] and in May 2006, The Prince made a speech to an audience of health ministers from various countries at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, urging them to develop a plan for integrating conventional and alternative medicine. [7]

In April 2008, The Times published a letter from Professor Edzard Ernst that asked the Prince’s Foundation to recall two guides promoting “alternative medicine”, saying: “the majority of alternative therapies appear to be clinically ineffective, and many are downright dangerous.” A speaker for the foundation countered the criticism by stating: “We entirely reject the accusation that our online publication Complementary Healthcare: A Guide contains any misleading or inaccurate claims about the benefits of complementary therapies. On the contrary, it treats people as adults and takes a responsible approach by encouraging people to look at reliable sources of information… so that they can make informed decisions. The foundation does not promote complementary therapies.” [8] Ernst has recently published a book with science writer Simon Singh condemning alternative medicine called Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial . The book is ironically dedicated to “HRH the Prince of Wales” and the last chapter is very critical of his advocacy of “complementary” and “alternative” treatments. [9]

The Prince’s Duchy Originals have produced a variety of CAM products including a “Detox Tincture” that Ernst has denounced as “financially exploiting the vulnerable” and “outright quackery“. [10] In May 2009, the Advertising Standards Authority criticised an email that Duchy Originals had sent out to advertise its Echina-Relief, Hyperi-Lift and Detox Tinctures products saying it was misleading. [11]

In Ernst’s book More Good Than Harm? The Moral Maze of Complementary and Alternative Medicine he and ethicist Kevin Smith call Charles “foolish and immoral” and “conclude that it is not possible to practice alternative medicine ethically”. Ernst further claims that the private secretary of the Prince contacted the vice chancellor of Exeter University to investigate Ernst’s complaints against the “Smallwood Report” which the Prince had commissioned in 2005. While Ernst was “found not to be guilty of any wrong-doing, all local support at Exeter stopped, which eventually led to my early retirement.” [12]

Between 2005 and 2007 the charity’s annual turnover was about £1.2 million. [13] In 2007 it received significant funding from The Prince’s Charities Foundation, and a £300,000 grant from the Department of Health for the regulation of complementary medicine. [14]

Lobbying allegations

The Prince personally wrote at least seven letters [15] to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) shortly before they relaxed the rules governing labelling of herbal products such as the ones sold by his duchy, a move that has been widely condemned by scientists and medical bodies. [16]

On 31 October 2009 it was reported that Prince Charles had personally lobbied Health Secretary Andy Burnham regarding greater provision of alternative treatments on the NHS. [10]

Charity Commission complaint

In March 2010, the political organisation Republic, which campaigns for an elected head of state, registered a complaint with the Charity Commission for England and Wales over a possible breach of charity regulations, suggesting that the foundation’s staff had pursued a public vendetta against Ernst. [17]

Fraud allegations and closure

In 2010, following accounting irregularities noted by the foundation’s auditor, it was reported that the Metropolitan Police Economic and Specialist Crime Command had begun an inquiry into alleged fraud. [18] Within weeks, two former officials at the Prince’s Foundation were arrested for fraud believed to total £300,000. [1] [19] Four days later, on 30 April 2010, the foundation announced [20] that it would close. The foundation stated that its closure was the result of the fraud allegations. [21]

The charity’s finance director, accountant George Gray, was convicted of theft totalling £253,000 and sentenced to three years in prison. [22] [23]

Rebranding as “The College of Medicine”

Following the disbanding of the Prince’s Foundation, many of the individuals and organisations involved launched a new organisation in late 2010 called The College of Medicine, with which the Prince of Wales was not overtly involved. Several commentators writing in The Guardian and The British Medical Journal, have expressed the opinion that the new organisation is simply a re-branding of the Prince’s Foundation, [22] [24] [25] [26] [27] describing it as “Hamlet without the Prince”. [28]

In support of this connection with Prince Charles, alternative medicine critic and pharmacologist David Colquhoun has argued that the College (originally called “The College of Integrated Health”) is extremely well-funded [29] and seemed from the beginning to be very confident of the Prince’s support; explicitly describing its mission as “to take forward the vision of HRH the Prince of Wales”. [30]

These claims have been contested by the College. [31]

  1. Robert Booth (26 April 2010). “Prince Charles’s aide at homeopathy charity arrested on suspicion of fraud”. London: guardian.co.uk.
  2. ↑ Regulating complementary therapies – Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health
  3. ↑ “Wellcome Library Western Manuscripts and Archives catalogue”. Archives.wellcomelibrary.org. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
  4. ↑ Barnaby J. Feder, Special To The New York Times (9 January 1985). “More Britons Trying Holistic Medicine — New York Times”. Query.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
  5. ↑ Carr-Brown, Jonathon (14 August 2005). “Prince Charles’ alternative GP campaign stirs anger”The Times. London. Retrieved 11 March 2009.
  6. ↑ Revill, Jo (2004-06-27). “Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer”. London: The Observer. Retrieved 2007-06-19.
  7. ↑ Cowell, Alan (2006-05-24). “Lying in wait for Prince Charles”The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
  8. ↑ Henderson, Mark (17 April 2008). “Prince of Wales’s guide to alternative medicine ‘inaccurate. London: Times Online. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
  9. ↑ Singh, S. & Ernst, E. (2008). Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial. Corgi.
  10. Tim Walker (31 Oct 2009). “Prince Charles lobbies Andy Burnham on complementary medicine for NHS”. London: Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2010-04-01.
  11. ↑ “Duchy Originals Pork Pies”The Quackometer Blog. 11 March 2009.
  12. ↑ Ernst, Edzard (2018). “Why Did We Call Prince Charles Foolish and Immoral?”. Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. 42 (3): 8–9.
  13. ↑ Charity CommissionThe Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, registered charity no. 1026800.
  14. ↑ The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health – 2007 accounts (PDF), Charity Commission, retrieved 2010-04-30
  15. ↑ “HRH “meddling in politics. DC’s Improbable Science. March 12, 2007.
  16. ↑ Nigel Hawkes & Mark Henderson (September 1, 2006). “Doctors attack natural remedy claims”The Times. London.
  17. ↑ Booth, Robert (19 March 2010). “Prince Charles health charity accused of vendetta against critic”. London: The Guardian.
  18. ↑ Delgado, Martin; Young, Andrew (4 April 2010). “Police probe into missing £300k at Prince Charles’ charity after bosses fail to file accounts”Daily Mail. London.
  19. ↑ “Prince Charles charity to close amid fraud inquiry”BBC News. 30 April 2010.
  20. ↑ Robert Booth (30 April 2010). “Prince of Wales’s health charity wound up in wake of fraud investigation”The Guardian.
  21. ↑ Laura Donnelly (15 May 2010). “Homeopathy is witchcraft, say doctors”. London: The Telegraph.
  22. Ian Sample (August 2, 2010). “College of Medicine born from ashes of Prince Charles’s holistic health charity”. London: The Guardian.
  23. ↑ Peter Dominiczak (20 August 2010). “Three years jail for accountant at Charles charity who stole £253,000”. Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 30 June 2011. Retrieved 2 February 2011.
  24. ↑ Jane Cassidy (15 June 2011). “Lobby Watch: The College of Medicine”British Medical Journal343: d3712. doi:10.1136/bmj.d3712PMID   21677014.
  25. ↑ David Colquhoun (12 July 2011). “The College of Medicine is Prince’s Foundation reincarnated”British Medical Journal343: d4368. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4368PMID   21750061.
  26. ↑ James May (12 July 2011). “College of Medicine: What is integrative health?”British Medical Journal343: d4372. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4372PMID   21750063.
  27. ↑ Edzard Ernst (12 July 2011). “College of Medicine or College of Quackery?”British Medical Journal343: d4370. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4370PMID   21750062.
  28. ↑ Nigel Hawkes (2010). “Prince’s foundation metamorphoses into new College of Medicine”341. British Medical Journal. p. 6126. doi:10.1136/bmj.c6126.
  29. ↑ David Colquhoun (July 25, 2010). “Buckinghamgate: the new “College of Medicine” arising from the ashes of the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health”. DC’s Improbable Science.
  30. ↑ David Colquhoun (29 October 2010). “Don’t be deceived. The new “College of Medicine” is a fraud and delusion”.
  31. ↑ Lewith, G. T.; Catto, G; Dixon, M; Glover, C; Halligan, A; Kennedy, I; Manning, C; Peters, D (12 July 011). College of Medicine replies to its critics”British Medical Journal343: d4364. :10.1136/bmj.d4364.    21750060.

_________________________________________________

This article is, as far as I can see, factually correct. I might just add some details:

  • Dixon became medical director of the FIH only a few months before it had to close.
  • The FIH was also involved in Prince Charles’ complaint about me alleging I had breached confidence in relation to the Smallwood report, even though the FHI had officially nothing to do with the report.
  • Mr Smallwood told me that, at that stage, Prince Charles considered the FIH to be ‘a waste of space’.
  • Some time ago, the College of Medicine quietly re-named itself as the ‘College of Medicine and Integrated Health’.
  • Prince Charles recently became the patron of the College of Medicine and Integrated Health.

SIMILE is the newsletter of ‘The Faculty of Homeopathy’ which is the professional organisation of doctor homeopaths in the UK. Readers of this blog might know about SIMILE because I once published a post about it. Two years ago, the late Dr Peter Fisher (then the Queen’s homeopath) used SIMILE to re-publish a serious lie about me:

A prepublication draft [of the Smallwood report] was circulated for comment with prominent warnings that it was confidential and not to be shared more widely (I can personally vouch for this, since I was one of those asked to comment). Regrettably, Prof Ernst did precisely this, leaking it to The Times who used it as the basis of their lead story. The editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, certainly no friend of homeopathy, promptly denounced Ernst for having “broken every professional code of scientific behaviour”.

Sir Michael Peat, the Prince of Wales’ Principal Private Secretary, wrote to the vice chancellor of Exeter University protesting at the leak, and the university conducted an investigation. Ernst’s position became untenable, funding for his department dried up and he took early retirement. Thirteen years later he remains sore; in his latest book More Harm than Good? he attacks the Prince of Wales as “foolish and immoral”.

At the time, I complained and SIMILE (not Fisher) apologised unreservedly.

The current (May 2020) issue of SIMILE carries the following article. I find it quite humorous and therefore take the liberty of copying it here for you:

Every year in Austria a sceptic group called the Society for the Scientific Investigation of Parasciences (GWUP) announces the winner of the Golden Board in Front of the Head Award for what they deem as “unscientific nonsense”. Their award frequently goes to a representative of Austria’s homeopathy community.

However, it now appears Austrian homeopaths have turned the tables on their antagonists by bestowing the 2019 Award for pseudoscience to the GWUP.

But what seems on the surface to be a light hearted tit-for-tat gesture is in truth an attempt to raise questions about who these sceptic groups represent and their real aims.

The Austrian Society of Medical Homeopathy and the Veterinary Society for Homeopathy justify the award on the grounds that the GWUP is trying to agitate against complementary medicine and homeopathy without disclosing their true motives and donors. They say that under the guise of science and purported “scientific truths” these “all-knowing” activists, many of whom are without any medical qualifications, deliberately misrepresent scientific studies that support the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo.

The homeopaths accuse the sceptic group of fanatical and aggressive lobbying and media work to discredit proven methods of complementary medicine, which are successfully used by a large number of people around the world. Their aim, claim the homeopaths, is to position complementary medicine in an “esoteric, frivolous corner, to curtail plurality and freedom of choice in healthcare, and to hinder progress towards inclusive medicine”.

As we can see, SIMILE learnt an important lesson: they now tell lies in a way that does no loner put them in the firing line. Instead they report then as said by someone else:

  • GWUP is trying to agitate against complementary medicine and homeopathy without disclosing their true motives and donors = lie No 1
  • under the guise of science and purported “scientific truths” these “all-knowing” activists, many of whom are without any medical qualifications, deliberately misrepresent scientific studies that support the efficacy of homeopathy beyond placebo = lie No 2
  • fanatical and aggressive lobbying and media work to discredit proven methods of complementary medicine = lie No 3
  • position complementary medicine in an “esoteric, frivolous corner, to curtail plurality and freedom of choice in healthcare, and to hinder progress towards inclusive medicine” = lie No 4

Congratulation guys!

You have managed to find a way which enables you to promote untruth and shelter yourselves from considering criticism. You have, in other words, continued the age-old homeopathic tradition of effectively avoiding critical thinking.

Can I invite you to join me in a little thought experiment?

Think of a totally useless therapy. I would suggest homeopathy but there are always some who would disagree with this classification. I need a TOTALLY useless therapy, and one where we ALL can agree on the label.

What about ‘Potentised Toe-Nail Powder’ (PoToNaPo)?

PoToNaPo is made from nail clippings, thoroughly sterilised, ground to a powder, serially diluted and potentised. Does anyone claim this remedy to be effective for any condition?

No?

Splendid!

So, we all agree that PoToNaPo is completely ineffective.

Now imagine some charlatan claiming that PoToNaPo is a highly effective cancer cure. Let’s furthermore imagine that he is very successful with his claim.

(No, this is not far fetched! Think of Laetrile, Essiac, etc.)

Imagine our charlatan makes millions with PoToNaPo.

There would soon be some opposition to his quackery. The FDA would issue a statement that PoToNaPo is unproven. Perhaps the NEJM would publish an editorial saying something similar. Ethicists would frown publicly. And many sceptics would head to the pubs where clever guys would give talks about ‘the scandal of PoToNaPo’.

We all know it would happen, because it has happened with PoToNaPo-like remedies many times before.

______________

Now imagine a different scenario, namely one in which our charlatan does not claim that PoToNaPo is a cancer cure; imagine instead he had claimed that PoToNaPo is a holistic medicine that boosts your well-being via re-balancing your vital energies which, in turn, helps with anxiety which in turn might have positive effects on things like mild chronic pain, depressive mood, tension headache, insomnia, erectile dysfunction and many more symptoms of daily life.

Let’s furthermore imagine that our charlatan is very successful with these claims.

No, this is not far fetched! Think of … well … think of any SCAM really.

Imagine the charlatan makes millions with PoToNaPo.

What would happen?

  • He would be invited to conferences on integrative medicine.
  • Become an honorary member/sponsor of the ‘College of Medicine and Integrated Health’.
  • He would be interviewed on the BBC.
  • The Daily Mail would publish advertorials.
  • HRH would perhaps invite him for tea.
  • Trump might hint that PoToNaPo cures virus infections.
  • Ainsworth might buy his patent.
  • There could even be a gong waiting for him.
  • And yes … some sceptics would mutter a bit, but the public would respond: what’s the harm?

We all know that things of this nature might happen, because they have happened before with PoToNaPo-like remedies.

__________________

So what’s the difference?

In both scenarios, our charlatan has marketed the same bogus remedy, PoToNaPo.

In both scenarios, he has made unsubstantiated, even fraudulent claims.

Why does he get plenty of stick in the 1st and becomes a hero in the 2nd case?

Yes, I know, the difference is the nature of the claims. But the invention, production, marketing and selling of a bogus treatment, the lying, the deceit, the fraud, the exploitation of vulnerable people are all the same.

Why then are we, as a society, so much kinder to the charlatan in the 2nd scenario?

I think we shouldn’t be; it’s not logical or consequent. I feel we should name, shame and punish both types of charlatans. They are both dangerous quacks, and it is our ethical duty to stop them.

END OF THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

 

As we have discussed repeatedly, chiropractors tend to be critical of vaccinations. This attitude is easily traced back to DD Palmer, the founding father of chiropractic, who famously wrote about smallpox vaccinations: ‘…the monstrous delusion … fastened on us by the medical profession, enforced by the state boards, and supported by the mass of unthinking people …

In Canada, the anti-vaccination attitude of chiropractors has been the subject of recent media attention. Therefore, researchers explored the association between media attention and public dissemination of vaccination information on Canadian chiropractors’ websites.

In 2016, an international team of investigators identified all Canadian chiropractors’ websites that provided information on vaccination by extracting details from the regulatory college website for each province using the search engine on their “find a chiropractor” page. The researchers assessed the quality of information using the Web Resource Rating Tool (scores range from 0% [worst] to 100% [best]), determined whether vaccination was portrayed in a positive, neutral or negative manner, and conducted thematic analysis of vaccination content. Now the researchers have revisited all identified websites to explore the changes to posted vaccination material.

Here are their findings:

In July 2016, of 3733 chiropractic websites identified, 94 unique websites provided information on vaccination:

  • 59 (63%) gave negative messaging,
  • 19 (20%) were neutral,
  • 16 (17%) were positive.

The quality of vaccination content on the websites was generally poor, with a median Web Resource Rating Tool score of 19%. Four main themes were identified:

  1. there are alternatives to vaccination,
  2. vaccines are harmful,
  3. evidence regarding vaccination,
  4. health policy regarding vaccination.

From 2012 to 2016, there was one single Canadian newspaper story concerning anti-vaccination statements by chiropractors, whereas 51 news articles were published on this topic between 2017 and 2019. In April 2019, 45 (48%) of the 94 websites originally identified in 2016 had removed all vaccination content or had been discontinued.

The authors of this investigation concluded that in 2016, a minority of Canadian chiropractors provided vaccination information on their websites, the majority of which portrayed vaccination negatively. After substantial national media attention, about half of all vaccination material on chiropractors’ websites was removed within several years.

I find these findings encouraging. They demonstrate that media attention can produce change for the better. That gives me the necessary enthusiasm to carry on my work in putting the finger on the dangers of chiropractic and other forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). At the same time, the findings of this investigation are also disappointing. About half of all the chiropractors had not removed their misleading content from their websites despite the 51 articles highlighting the problem. This shows, I think, how deeply entrenched this vitalistic nonsense is in the heads of many chiropractor.

This means there is still a lot to do – so, let’s get on with it!

1 2 3 14
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories