malpractice
This pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was conducted between September 2018 and February 2021 and compared the difference between primary homoeopathic and conventional paediatric care in treating acute illnesses in children in their first 24 months of life. It was conducted at the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) Collaborative Outpatient Department of the Jeeyar Integrated Medical Services (JIMS) Hospital in Telangana, India, a tertiary-care hospital that provides integrated patient-centric care, using homoeopathy and Ayurveda alongside conventional medicine.
One hundred eight Indian singleton newborns delivered at 37 to 42 weeks gestation were randomised at birth (1:1) to receive either homoeopathic or conventional primary care for any acute illness over the study period. In the homoeopathic group, conventional medical treatment was added when medically indicated. Clinicians and parents were unblinded.
The study’s primary outcome was a comparison of the number of sick days due to an acute illness experienced during the first 24 months of life by children receiving homoeopathic vs. conventional treatment. Sick days were defined as days with any acute illness (febrile or afebrile) reported by the parent and confirmed by the physician. Febrile illness was recorded when body temperature, measured via the ear canal, exceeded 37.5 °C.
The secondary outcomes compared were as follows:
- The number of sickness episodes, defined as illness events (febrile or afebrile), reported by the parent and confirmed by the physician.
- Number of respiratory illness episodes and days during the 24 months. Respiratory illnesses included infections in any part of the respiratory tract (nose, middle ear, pharynx, larynx, trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, and lungs) .
- Number of diarrhoeal episodes and days during the 24 months. Diarrhoea was defined as three or more episodes of watery stool/day, with or without vomiting, with indications of dehydration, weight loss, or defective weight gain.
- Anthropometric data included weight (measured by electronic scales to the nearest 5 g), height (measured in triplicate to the nearest 0.2 cm using a rigid-length board), head circumference (HC), and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) (measured with a standard measuring tape to the nearest 0.2 cm every 3 months until the 24th month).
- Developmental status was evaluated according to the Developmental Assessment Scales for Indian Infants (DASII) every 6 months from the age of 6 to 24 months.
- Direct cost of treatment for illnesses during the 24 months, including cost of medications, inpatient admissions, investigations, supplements, and treatment outside the hospital facility or study site (consultation and/or medicines).
- Use of antibiotics during the 24 months, defined as the number of antibiotic episodes during the study.
- Mortality: death due to any acute illness episode.
The results show that children in the homoeopathic group experienced significantly fewer sick days than those in the conventional group (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58; p < 0.001), with correspondingly fewer sickness episodes (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.87; p = .013), as well as fewer respiratory illnesses over the 24-month period. They were taller (F (1, 97) = 8.92, p = .004, partial eta squared = 0.84) but not heavier than their conventionally treated counterparts. They required fewer antibiotics, and their treatment cost was lower.
The authors concluded that homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, was more effective than conventional treatment in preventing sick days, sickness episodes, and respiratory illnesses in the first 24 months of life. It necessitated fewer antibiotics and its overall cost was lower. This study supports homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, as a safe and cost-effective primary care modality during the first 2 years of life.
Here we have another study designed in such a way that a positive result was inevitable. Both groups of children received the necessary conventional care and treatment. The verum group received homeopathy in addition. There were no placebo controls and everyone knew which child belonged to which group. Thus the verum group benefitted from a poweful placebo effect, while the control group experience disappointment over not receiving the extra attention and medication. One might argue that newborn babies cannot experience a placebo response nor disappointment. Yet, one would be wrong and in need of reading up about placebo effects by proxy.
A+B is always more than B alone
To boldy entitle the paper ‘Homoeopathy vs. conventional primary care in children during the first 24 months of life’ and state that the trial aimed to “compared the difference between primary homoeopathic and conventional paediatric care in treating acute illnesses in children in their first 24 months of life”, is as close to scientific misconduct as one can get, in my view!
Yet again, I might ask: what do we call a study that is designed in such a way that a positive result was inevitable?
- misleading?
- waste of resources?
- unethical?
- fraud?
And again, I let you decide.
PS
I feel disappointed that a decent journal published this paper without even a critical comment!
An article entitled “The use of ayurvedic medicine in the management of hypertension” was recently published in the ‘Journal of Ayurveda and Naturopathy’ (no, I did not know either that this journal existed). Here I show you merely its conclusion, but encourage you to read the entire paper.
Hypertension, a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, necessitates effective and sustainable management strategies. Ayurveda, with its holistic approach, offers a comprehensive framework for managing hypertension by addressing the underlying dosha imbalances through dietary and lifestyle modifications, herbal formulations, and therapeutic procedures. This review has highlighted the
efficacy of various Ayurvedic interventions, including the use of specific herbs like Ashwagandha, Arjuna, Brahmi, Gokshura, and Sarpagandha, which have demonstrated significant benefits in reducing blood pressure and improving overall health. Panchakarma therapies such as Virechana, Basti, Nasya, and Shirodhara have also been shown to detoxify the body, restore balance, and promote
long-term well-being.
Integrating Ayurvedic practices with modern medical approaches can enhance treatment outcomes, offering a more personalized and holistic approach to hypertension management. This synergy can potentially reduce the reliance on pharmaceuticals, minimize side effects, and improve patient compliance and quality of life. Future research should focus on rigorous clinical trials and the standardization of Ayurvedic formulations to further validate their efficacy and facilitate their integration into mainstream healthcare.
By embracing the principles of Ayurveda, individuals can achieve better control over hypertension, reduce the risk of associated complications, and enhance their overall health and well-being. This comprehensive approach not only addresses the symptoms but also tackles the root causes, promoting a sustainable and balanced lifestyle.
END OF QUOTE
Not only does the author, Dr. Zafar Siddiqa (from the Faculty of Natural Medicine and Holistic Sciences, Rajshahi Holistic Health College, Rajshahi, Bangladesh) re-write the current knowledge of hypertonology, he also provides no evidence for any of the far-reaching statements he makes in this paper. In particular, he cites no rigorous studies that “highlighted the efficacy of various Ayurvedic interventions” (most likely because such studies do not exist).
The autor is correct in the 1st sentence of his conclusion: “Hypertension, a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, necessitates effective and sustainable management strategies”. But he is wrong in almost everything else! Because hypertension is such an important risk factor for stroke and ischaemic heart disease, we MUST treat it effectively.
Today, we fortunately have many conventional treatments that control hypertension well and with no or just minimal adverse effects. Advocating quackary or unproven therapies for managing hypertension is thus deeply unethical. It could contribute to the premature deaths of millions. I thus fear that the ‘Faculty of Natural Medicine and Holistic Sciences, Rajshahi Holistic Health College’ is in urgent need of taking a few courses in proper science and medical ethics.
While the evidence base on web-based cancer misinformation continues to develop, relatively little is known about the extent of such information on the world’s largest e-commerce website, Amazon. Multiple media reports indicate that Amazon may host on its platform questionable cancer-related products for sale, such as books on purported cancer cures. This context suggests an urgent need to evaluate Amazon.com for cancer misinformation.
This study sought to
- (1) examine to what extent are misleading cancer cure books for sale on Amazon.com’
- (2) determine how cancer cure books on Amazon.com provide misleading cancer information.
The investigators searched “cancer cure” on Amazon.com and retrieved the top 1000 English-language book search results. They reviewed the books’ descriptions and titles to determine whether the books provided misleading cancer cure or treatment information. They considered a book to be misleading if it suggested scientifically unsupported cancer treatment approaches to cure or meaningfully treat cancer. Among books coded as misleading, they conducted an inductive latent thematic analysis to determine the informational value the books sought to offer.
Nearly half (494/1000, 49.4%) of the sampled “cancer cure” books for sale on Amazon.com appeared to contain misleading cancer treatment and cure information. Overall, 17 (51.5%) out of 33 Amazon.com results pages had 50% or more of the books coded as misleading. The first search result page had the highest percentage of misleading books (23/33, 69.7%). Misleading books (n=494) contained eight themes:
- (1) claims of efficacious cancer cure strategies (n=451, 91.3%),
- (2) oversimplifying cancer and cancer treatment (n=194, 39.3%),
- (3) falsely justifying ineffective treatments as science based (n=189, 38.3%),
- (4) discrediting conventional cancer treatments (n=169, 34.2%),
- (5) finding the true cause of cancer (n=133, 26.9%),
- (6) homogenizing cancer (n=132, 26.7%),
- (7) discovery of new cancer treatments (n=119, 24.1%),
- (8) cancer cure suppression (n=82, 16.6%).
The authors concluded that the results demonstrate that misleading cancer cure books are for sale, visible, and prevalent on Amazon.com, with prominence in initial search hits. These misleading books for sale on Amazon can be conceived of as forming part of a wider, cross-platform, web-based information environment in which misleading cancer cures are often given prominence. Our results suggest that greater enforcement is needed from Amazon and that cancer-focused organizations should engage in preemptive misinformation debunking.
This is an excellent paper that is long overdue. The plethora of dangerous books on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) targeted at lay people is nothing short of a scandal. It was high time that we expose it, because it kills vulnerable patients. It is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the damage done by such books but I am sure it runs in the thousands.
I have been aware of this scandal for a long time, in fact, it was the main motivation for publishing my own book on the subject. Obviously, it is not much more than a drop in the ocean.
Tragically, this scandal is not confined to just cancer. It relates to all potentially serious conditions. What could be more despicable and unethical than earning money through making desperately ill patients suffer? As the authors point out, Amazon urgently needs to address this problem. Failing this, Amazon should be legally held responsible, in my view.
As I live partly in France, I often report about what is going on in this country in relation to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Here are a few recent posts:
- France outlaws practices which expose patients to a serious health risk
- Dispute about so-called alternative medicine practitioners in France
- Homeopathy in France: going, going, gone!
- Osteopathy in France: widely accepted yet based on little more than wishful thinking
- Alleged sexual misconduct serves a blow to osteopathy in France
- Homeopathy in France: a triumph of reason over profit
- HOMEOPATHY IN FRANCE: Cure cancer with homeopathy? “Let’s get real. We are doctors.”
- Random thoughts on my first SCAM-research conference in France
In general, it seemed that France was becoming more rational in its attitude towards SCAM. But now Franceinfo reported worrying developments:
Patrick Hetzel, the newFrench Minister for Higher Education and Research seems to have a less than academic approach to science. He has in the past taken positions on the fringes of the scientific consensus, supporting, for example, the use of the treatment praised by Didier Raoult during the Covid-19 crisis, or defending homeopathy.
In October 2020, Patrick Hetzel supported an amendment to the French Social Security Financing Bill (PLFSS) aimed at ‘creating a body specifically dedicated to evaluating complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathy, and setting a reimbursement rate’. A month later, he co-signed a bill aimed at introducing a two-year moratorium on the reimbursement rate (15%) for homeopathy, rather than delisting it, so as not to upset the industry. These proposals were rejected and homeopathy, whose effectiveness was deemed ‘insufficient’ by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), has not been reimbursed in France since January 2021. To reach its opinion, the health authority scrutinised a number of studies on nearly 1,200 homeopathic medicines. ‘There is a scientific consensus that homeopathy should not be prescribed. At best it is useless, at worst it detracts from a useful treatment’, points out Jean-Michel Constantin, President of Sfar.
At the same time, Hetzel has fought to have chronic Lyme disease recognised as a disease through a bill tabled in September 2023. However, the chronic nature of this disease remains controversial, based as it is on a ‘scientifically unproven’ hypothesis, as denounced by the French Academy of Medicine in 2017.
More recently, during the debate on the bill to combat sectarian aberrations, Hetzel spoke out against creating an offence of ‘inciting abstention from medical care’. He cited a ‘legal reason’ before offering a curious view of science: ‘When you look at how scientific advances are made, very often the paradigm shifts (…) are made by people who are in the minority. So let’s be extremely careful about trying to develop a kind of dogma that would be that of an official science. I think that’s extremely dangerous’, he warned before the Assembly.
This anti-science rhetoric has not gone unnoticed. ‘Taking part in the debate on article 4 of the bill on sectarian aberrations [finally adopted], implying that official science is totalitarianism, and leaving the choice of alternative medicines to patients who have no discernment, I find that annoying. Especially for a minister whose remit includes scientific research’, laments Pierre Ouzoulias. ‘I’m struck by the fact that every time he takes a stand, it’s with conspiracy theories. This accumulation paints the picture of someone who doesn’t understand how knowledge evolves in the world of science.’
___________________________
Let’s hope the new development does not signal a general U-turn, that the appointment of Patrick Hetzel is just a little glitch, and that France will nevertheless continue on its path towards rationality.
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the UK is subject to voluntary, publicly funded regulation. SCAM practitioners are known to make misleading health claims. This study used an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to measure the prevalence of such claims. Websites operated by practitioners of SCAM, registered with the UK ‘Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council’, were downloaded and assessed by the AI, which determined whether a website was relevant to the investigation and, if so, identified health-related claims that it judged as false or misleading, supplying a rationale.
Of 6096 registrants, 1326 met the selection criteria, of which 872 clinics had 725 relevant and operational websites. The AI assessed text from 11 771 web pages, identifying false or misleading claims in 704 (97%) of the websites. The AI’s performance was quality-assured by four human assessors, who manually reviewed 23 relevant web pages. Humans identified on average 39.5 claims likely to be judged false or misleading by advertising regulators, the AI identified 36. Humans misidentified an average of 4.8 claims, AI misidentified two.
The authors concluded that the overwhelming majority of practitioners registered with the CNHC who use pseudoscientific modalities are making false and/or misleading claims on their websites. This puts them in breach of their terms of registration. An AI tool can be used to monitor websites of practitioners promoting pseudoscientific modalities for breaches of compliance with regulators’ codes of conduct for advertising, and does so with a level of accuracy comparable with that of human assessors. It presents an opportunity for regulators to offer more effective consumer protection from their members’ online misinformation than at present.
The investigation was an unfunded project conducted entirely by volunteer scientists, motivated by the wish to protect consumers from health misinformation. The researchers acknowledge a grant of £550 from WePlanet to cover the cost of AI tokens used and thank University College London for paying the journal’s publication fee to enable the public to access their research.
The authors of this paper — emeritus professors David Colquhoun and Susan Bewley; retired clinical research consultant and HealthSense trustee Les Rose, and HealthSense newsletter editor Mandy Payne as well as IT scientist Simon Perry — feel that AI could be a game-changer in protecting the public by supporting regulators to quickly and cheaply clamp down on health misinformation so that the public can put their trust in the PSA Quality Mark logo displayed.
I congratulate the authors on their important study and hope they are correct – but I am not holding my breath.
‘ARS TECHNICA’ recently reported that the maker of a homeopathic nasal spray is refusing to recall its product after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found evidence of dangerous microbial contamination.
On 18 September 2024, the FDA therefore warned consumers to immediately stop using ‘SnoreStop nasal spray‘—made by Green Pharmaceuticals—because it may contain microbes that, when sprayed directly into nasal cavities, can cause life-threatening infections:
FDA is warning consumers and health care professionals not to use SnoreStop Nasal Spray, distributed by Green Pharmaceuticals Inc., Camarillo, Calif., because it may have microbial contamination. SnoreStop Nasal Spray was previously sold on the company’s website and other sites.
The use of microbially contaminated nasal spray can potentially lead to infection, which can be life threatening in certain patient populations, such as immune-compromised individuals. This unapproved product is marketed for children beginning at age 5 and adults with unproven claims that it opens air passages and relieves congestion.
Consumers who use SnoreStop should contact their health care professional with questions.
FDA recommended Green Pharmaceuticals recall their SnoreStop Nasal Spray product on Aug. 13 and Sept. 12, 2024. The agency reiterated its recall recommendation multiple times during this time. To date, the company has not taken action to recall this potentially dangerous product from the market.
FDA inspected Green Pharmaceuticals facility in April 2024 and uncovered laboratory test results that reported significant microbial contamination in SnoreStop Nasal Spray lot number 2460. FDA investigators found evidence that some products in this lot had been repackaged and distributed to customers for use as single units and in kits.
Following FDA’s inspection, on Aug. 8, 2024, Green Pharmaceutical destroyed the remaining SnoreStop Nasal Spray from lot 2460 and other products the company had on-hand. Green Pharmaceuticals subsequently stopped selling nasal spray products on their website. However, the agency is concerned that consumers may have purchased contaminated SnoreStop.
Previously, FDA issued a warning letter to Green Pharmaceuticals on Dec. 16, 2022, for distributing unapproved drugs and lack of quality controls over the products they sell. Additionally, the company voluntarily recalled one lot of SnoreStop NasoSpray on June 9, 2022, after FDA testing found the product contained microbial contamination identified as Providencia rettgeri. SnoreStop NasoSpray was renamed as SnoreStop Nasal Spray following this recall.
FDA encourages health care professionals and patients to report adverse events or quality problems experienced with the use of any medication to FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program:
- Complete and submit the report online; or
- Download and complete the form, then submit it via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178
‘ARS TECHNICA’ reported that, instead of discarding the batch, the FDA inspectors found evidence that Green Pharmaceuticals had repackaged some of the contaminated lot and distributed it as single spray bottles or as part of a starter kit.
This isn’t new territory for the company. In 2022, Green Pharmaceuticals got warnings from the FDA and issued a recall due to microbial contamination in its SnoreStop nasal spray. In June 2022, the FDA held a conference with the company over findings of bacteria and fungi in the spray. Some of the results suggested high levels of microbial contamination. “The individual sample results varied between 420 and up to 6,200 colony forming units (CFU)/mL for total aerobic microbial count… and between 30 and up to 3,800 CFU/mL for total yeast and mold counts,” the FDA reported in a December 2022 warning letter sent after the fact.
The FDA noted finding the specific bacterial pathogen Providencia rettgeri, an opportunistic germ that can lurk in health care settings. It’s most often linked to urinary tract infections, but it can also cause pneumonia, brain and spinal cord infections, heart infections, and wound and bloodstream infections in vulnerable people, according to a 2018 review.
“The high bioburden in conjunction with the route of administration with this drug product poses a high risk of harm to vulnerable patients, including children,” the FDA wrote in its warning letter. Green Pharmaceuticals recalled SnoreStop in June 2022, after its meeting with the FDA.
Aside from the gross microbial contamination, the FDA also noted in its letter that SnoreStop appears to be an unapproved new drug, illegally claiming to treat a disease without FDA approval. SnoreStop is said to contain dilutions of: nux vomica (a natural source of strychnine), belladonna (deadly nightshade), Ephedra vulgaris (a source of the drug ephedrine), hydrastis canadensis (a toxic herb), Kali Bichromicum (potassium dichromate, which is considered toxic and carcinogenic), Teucrium marum (similar to catnip), and Histaminum hydrochloricum (Histamine dihydrochloride).
__________________
There is, of course, no evidence that any of these ingredients – in any dilution or potency – can make people stop snoring.
Having recently come across the strange and scary story of the Nazi’s experiments on Caladium Seguinum, I did some research to find out about the current medicinal uses of this plant. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is today mostly advocated as a homeopathic remedy. In particular, it is highly recommended for erectile dysfunction (ED) and premature ejaculation. Here are some extracts from a particularly ‘impressive’ article on this topic:
… [Caladium Seguinum] … is particularly suited for treating premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction, since these two problems cause widespread testicular swelling. The genital swelling is often associated with pruritus and internal inflammation that can be effectively treated with caladium.
The use of Caladium Seguinum is more common among men who are diagnosed with typical symptoms, along with an established case of either premature ejaculation or erectile dysfunction. Prescription of caladium is more common among men who suffer from genitals lacking vitality, wherein the penis doesn’t enter a state of arousal in a normal manner.
It has been noted that emotional and stress-linked problems are often the cause of underlying, undiagnosable causes of sexual problems among men. Similarly, ED and premature ejaculation are more commonly associated with men who are mentally exhausted or suffering from a mental trauma. In such cases, the use of caladium is applicable.
In cases wherein male impotency is linked to lifestyle habits like smoking, caladium is often prescribed. Further, premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction in men who also complain of motion sickness are more likely to be treated with caladium. Caladium is very helpful if the premature ejaculation or erectile dysfunction has resulted in visible inflammation of the penile region, particularly redness of the glans.
Men who are suffering from ED along with symptoms like cold sweats and thickening of the scrotum skin are ideal candidates for caladium treatment. Men presenting disturbed respiratory functions, often described as an asthma-like condition, along with having erectile dysfunction are better candidates for caladium treatment.
Some of the other symptoms that contribute towards premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction and are usually treated with caladium or caladium-enriched homeopathic mixtures include:
- Propensity towards unintentional penile erection
- Painful erection
- Testicular discomfort associated with gonorrhea
- Itching or surface eruptions on scrotal sac
- Disturbed sleep patterns
- Nighttime discharge from penis
Advantages of Caladium Seguinum
The biggest advantage of using homeopathic remedies for male infertility problems like erectile dysfunction is their overall safety. None of the homeopathic medications, including caladium, are known to induce any serious side-effects. However, the use of Caladium without medical supervision of a homeopathic specialist is highly inadvisable. Caladium Seguinum is retailed in various potencies and gauging the required potency is rather difficult.
For instance, Caladium Seguinum is commonly retailed with potency grading between 6X and 30X. Here, determining the appropriate potency largely depends upon understanding the associated symptoms and past medical history. In some cases, Caladium of lower potency is better suited since it is prescribed in combination with other homeopathic medications for better results.
__________________________
I think I know the question you were about to ask:
IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THESE CLAIMS?
The short answer is NO!
- The article itself does not provide any.
- My Medline search did not identify any.
- Further searches were equally unsuccessful.
In fact, there is no homeopathic remedy that has been shown to be effective for the named conditions.
What is more, there is no homeopathic remedy that has been shown to be effective for ANY condition.
This begs the question as to what we should call the many claims to the contrary:
- Wishful thinking?
- Naive mistakes?
- Commercials?
- Fraud?
You decide.
After all these years, some homeopaths still manage to make me (almost) speechless. Here is the abstract of an article (Ravi Raghul.G, Shivaprasad J. Overuse Injuries in Children: A Homoeopathic Approach. Indian J Integr Med. 2024; Online First.) that achieved this rare feast of incompetence:
The increasing participation of children in organized competitive sports has led to a rise in overuse injuries, posing risks of limb deformity and impairment. This article explores the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications of HOMOEOPATHY in addressing overuse injuries in children. Overuse injuries result from repetitive strain on musculoskeletal structures, particularly prevalent during periods of physical growth and immaturity. Common injuries include stress fractures, traction apophysitis, and chronic physeal damage. In the Indian context, lack of awareness and inappropriate self-treatment exacerbate these injuries. Recognition of warning signs, such as persistent soreness, is crucial for early intervention. Rehabilitative approaches involve rest, gradual strengthening, and attention to flexibility. HOMOEOPATHY offers personalized remedies targeting specific musculoskeletal entities, aiding in recovery and preventing recurrence. Remedies such as Rhus Toxicodendron, Ruta, and Bryonia address tendon and joint issues, while Arnica montana and Symphytum officinale target trauma-related injuries. Individualized homeopathic treatment, alongside appropriate rehabilitation regimens, facilitates faster recovery from overuse injuries in children.
As this does not provide any concrete insights into how to treat overuse injuries of kids, let me also show you the ‘results’ section of this paper:
Arnica Montana
Indications: Arnica is one of the most used homeopathic remedies for injuries. It is particularly effective for muscle soreness, bruising, and inflammation resulting from overexertion and trauma. Athletes often use Arnica to reduce pain and swelling associated with overuse injuries [6].
Rhus Toxicodendron
Indications: This remedy is beneficial for conditions characterized by stiffness and pain that improve with movement and worsen with rest. Rhus tox is particularly suitable for tendinitis and bursitis where the affected area feels better after initial movement but stiffens up after periods of inactivity [7].
Ruta graveolens
Indications: Ruta is indicated for injuries involving tendons and ligaments. It is particularly useful for conditions like tendinitis and sprains where there is a sensation of bruising and lameness. This remedy is also effective in promoting the healing of bones and connective tissues [8].
Bryonia alba
Indications: Bryonia is suitable for conditions where pain is aggravated by movement and relieved by rest. It is particularly helpful for joint and muscle pain that worsens with the slightest movement [9].
Symphytum officinale
Indications: Known as “knitbone” Symphytum is particularly effective for promoting the healing of fractures and bone injuries. It is also used for periosteal injuries where the covering of the bone is affected [10].
As in this section the authors (from Dept. of Homoeopathic Paediatrics, and Father Muller Homoeopathic Medical College, Mangaluru, India) do also not provide any real evidence, let’s have a look at their references 6 – 10:
6. Tveiten D, Bruset S. Effect of Arnica montana in marathon runners. Homeopathy. 2003; 92(4):187-189.
7. Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002; 54(6):577-582.
8. Oberbaum M, Schreiber R, Rosenthal C, et al. Homeopathic treatment in emergency medicine. A case series. Homeopathy.
2003; 92(1):44-47.
9. Bell IR, Schwartz GE, Boyer NN, et al. Advances in integrative nanomedicine for improving infectious disease treatment in
public health. Eur J Integr Med. 2013; 5(1):39-56.
10. Vickers AJ, Fisher P, Smith C, et al. Homeopathic Arnica 30X is ineffective in preventing pain after tooth extraction. Br J Clin
Pharmacol. 1998; 45(4):532-535.
I happen to know all of these papers well (particularly the one I authored myself!). And I can assure you that none of them backs up the notion that the listed homeopathic remedies are effective for overuse injuries of children.
So, what is this paper?
- Scientific misconduct?
- Fraud?
- Sloppy research?
- Pseudo-sciene?
- Wishful thinking?
- Stupidity?
- Or just normal behaviour of pseudo-researchers in homeopathy?
I let you decide.
Acute encephalitis syndrome is a health burden to a populous country like India. It is characterized by a sudden onset of fever, altered sensorium with or without seizures, irritability, abnormal behaviour, or unconsciousness. This study aims to augment further evidence on the effects of add-on homeopathic treatment in reducing mortality and morbidity in children.
This comparative retrospective study included children hospitalized with acute encephalitis syndrome between July 2016 to December 2016. The researchers compared the parameters of children for whom decisions on Glasgow Outcome scale and Liverpool outcome score aided by add-on homeopathy against those of children from the same year when the add-on homeopathy was not used. All the children were on conventional supportive care and treatment tailored to each child. We also counted the days until the resumption of oral feeding and the length of hospital stay.
Ordinal regression analysis on analyses on 622 children (IH +CSC=329; IMP only=293) was done. Odds of a shift towards increased recovery were superior in the homeopathy-added group than in the IMP group without adjustment (crude OR 2·30, 95% CI 1·66 to 3·20; p=0·0001) and with adjustment (adjusted OR 3.38, 95% CI 2·38 to 4.81; p=0·0001). There was 14.8% less mortality and 17.4% more recovery in the add-on homeopathy group compared to CSC alone. Individualized homeopathic remedies commonly used were: Belladonna (n =238), Stramonium (n =17), Opium (n = 14), Sulphur (n=11) and Hyoscyamus niger (n = 7).
The authors concluded that this retrospective cohort study advocates for add-on homoeopathy in children suffering acute encephalitis which can produce notable improvements in terms of mortality and morbidity. Further studies in different settings are warranted.
If responsible physicians come across such an unexpected and implausible finding, instead of publishing it unchecked, they must properly test the hypothesis in a rigorous trial. As it stands, the results are meaningless and might even do untold harm, if some doctors drew the conclusion that homeopathy saves lives in acute encephalitis.
The most likely explanation for the reported outcomes is that there was considerable selection bias in recruiting patients to this study. The less severely ill patients might thus have ended up in the homeopathy group. The plausibility for the outcomes being due to the homeopathic treatment is virtually zero.
So, why did the authors of this paper publish such utterly unreliable findings and did not even include a hint of critical thinking? I think their affiliations might go some way in answering this question:
- Ramesh Prasad, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy,BRD Medical College and Hospital, GorakhpurAlok Upadhyay, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) BRD Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Vinod Kumar Maurya, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) BRD Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Preeti Verma, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Shashi Arya, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Supriya Singh, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
- Purnima Shukla, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) BRD Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- AK Gupta, Clinical Trial Unit Homoeopathy (Viral encephalitis) BRD Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur
- Arvind Kumar, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
- Praveen Oberai, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy
- Raj K Manchanda, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, New Delhi
And why did they take all of 8 years to publish this nonsense?
Search me!
I sometimes like to browse through old articles of mine and amaze myself. It is now 15 years ago that I published this paper:
Since 1994 chiropractic has been regulated by statute in the UK. Despite this air of respectability, a range of important problems continue to bedevil this profession. Professional organizations of chiropractic and their members make numerous claims which are not supported by sound evidence. Many chiropractors adhere to concepts which fly in the face of science and most seem to regularly violate important principles of ethical behaviour. The advice chiropractors give to their clients is often dangerously misleading. If chiropractic in the UK is to grow into an established health care profession, the General Chiropractic Council and its members should comply with the accepted standards of today’s health care.
This begs the question: HAVE THINGS IMPROVED AT ALL?
- Have professional organizations of chiropractic stopped making claims which are not supported by sound evidence?
- Have their members stopped making claims which are not supported by sound evidence?
- Do chiropractors no longer adhere to concepts which fly in the face of science?
- Have they ceased violating important principles of ethical behaviour?
- Is the advice chiropractors give to their clients no longer dangerously misleading?
Here are my answers to these questions:
- No.
- No.
- No.
- No.
- No.
Yes, there are moments when I surprise myself. And there are also those when I ask whether any of my work has ever had any effect. And then, after some reflection, I discover that my job is not nearly as bad as some others.
