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

malpractice

Yesterday’s blog disclosed the fact that the German ‘Natur und Medizin’, an organisation of the ‘Carstens Stiftung’, had published slanderous lies about me. Consequently, I published an ‘open letter’ urging them to correct their mistake so that they would spare us the agony and cost of using legal action.

I never doubted for a minute that they would do this (I do not assume they are stupid, just a tiny bit dishonest) – and, as it turned out, I was correct. Here is a reminder of what they had originally published:

… er ist dafür bekannt, dass er kein gutes Haar an komplementären Therapieverfahren lässt. Notfalls greift er auch zu absichtlichen Falschdarstellungen[17], erfindet Daten[18] oder behauptet einfach, klinische Studien, die nicht die Negativ-Ergebnisse erbringen, die er erwartet, seien schlicht und ergreifend Betrug.[19]…

My rough translation:

… he [Edzard Ernst] is known for not finding anything positive in SCAM. If all else fails, he uses deliberate misrepresentation [17], invents data [18], or simply claims that clinical trials which did not generate the negative findings he expected are simply falsifications [19]…

The corrected new text passage is a little longer and now reads as follows (my rough translation):

… he [Edzard Ernst] is known for not finding anything positive in SCAM. Analyses of his publications by independent scientists draw the conclusion that he represents case-reports demonstrably wrongly [17] and that he arbitrarily alters or omits data [18]. He claims occasionally that high-quality studies of SCAM which do not generate the negative findings he expected appeared to be scientifically sound, but are nevertheless not believable [19]…

… er ist dafür bekannt, dass er kein gutes Haar an komplementären Therapieverfahren lässt. Analysen seiner Publikationen durch unabhängige Wissenschaftler gelangen zu der Schlussfolgerung, dass er Fallberichte nachweislich falsch darstelle[17] und Daten willkürlich verändere oder auslasse[18]. Er selbst behauptet mitunter über methodisch hochwertige Studien zur Komplementärmedizin, die nicht die Negativ-Ergebnisse erbringen, die er erwartet, sie sähen zwar nach wissenschaftlichen Maßstäben überzeugend aus, seien aber dennoch ‚unglaubwürdig‘.[19]… 

I would like to take this occasion to sincerely thank the ‘Natur und Medizin’ and the ‘Carstens Stiftung’ for this – much obliged guys, you made my day!

  • They have shown wisdom in not wasting money on expensive lawyers (even though my brother, who is a lawyer, might have enjoyed the windfall).
  • They have shown courage to hide behind papers like the one by Robert Hahn which have been discussed on this blog and elsewhere and found to be deluded.
  • They have shown strength by not meekly apologising to me about their attempt to slander me and my work.
  • They show leadership and innovative spirit by employing Jens Behnke, the author of the above lines, who does not seem to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Last not least, my personal thanks to dear Jens (after your generosity, I am thinking about dedicating an entire blog post to you; your employer needs to know what a genius they have in you – watch this space) for yet again having demonstrated that the phenomenon known as ERNST’ S LAW is 100% correct.

The Carstens Stiftung is a foundation that supports so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in Germany. They own ‘Natur und Medizin’ who just published a critique of Natalie Grams‘ book WAS WIRKLICH WIRKT. In this article, they dedicate an entire paragraph to me. The text accuses me of three things:

  1. that I have deliberately misrepresented published facts in one of my reviews;
  2. that I invent data;
  3. that I claim certain published studies are fraud.

To back up these allegations, they refer to references 17, 18 and 19 (listed below).

For those who can read German, here is the original text:

Ist das ihr Ernst?

Lässt man das Wort „systematic“ weg, ist der erste Treffer ein Überblick von Cochrane-Reviews zu Akupunktur bei verschiedenen Schmerzzuständen aus 2011.[16] Diese Arbeit ist hier, obwohl noch etwas älter, von besonderem Interesse, weil sie von Edzard Ernst stammt. Dieser mittlerweile emeritierte Professor ist über die sog. „Skeptikerbewegung“ eng mit Natalie Grams verbandelt und wird von Gegnern der Naturmedizin als die wissenschaftliche Autorität schlechthin angesehen. Denn er ist dafür bekannt, dass er kein gutes Haar an komplementären Therapieverfahren lässt. Notfalls greift er auch zu absichtlichen Falschdarstellungen[17], erfindet Daten[18] oder behauptet einfach, klinische Studien, die nicht die Negativ-Ergebnisse erbringen, die er erwartet, seien schlicht und ergreifend Betrug.[19] Im Falle der Akupunktur konstatiert aber sogar Ernst: „In letzter Zeit wurden mehrere Cochrane-Reviews zur Akupunktur bei einer Vielzahl von Schmerzzuständen veröffentlicht. Alle diese Arbeiten waren von hoher Qualität. Ihre Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass Akupunktur bei einigen, aber nicht allen Arten von Schmerzen wirksam ist.“ Positive Evidenz liege bspw. zu Migräne und Spannungskopfschmerzen, Nackenschmerzen und peripherer Gelenkarthrose vor.

[17] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23521332

[18] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502141

[19] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200828

________________________________________________________________________________

According to my legal advisers, this text involves serious libellous claims. I have decided that, before considering legal action, to publish this open letter to ‘Natur und Medizin’ of the CARSTENS STIFTUNG asking them to avoid legal action by withdrawing the paragraph in question:

To ‘Natur und Medizin’ of the ‘Carstens Stiftung’, Germany

Dear Madam/Sir

you have today published on your website an article entitled ‘Was wirklich wirkt – Natalie Grams über sanfte Medizin’ and authored by Dr Jens Behnke. It contains at least three libellous and false allegations about me and my research. As they are severely damaging my professional reputation, I urge you to erase the paragraph in question as a matter of urgency. Failing this, I would have to instruct my legal team to take action.

I sincerely hope we can settle this amicably without going to court.

Best regards

Edzard Ernst

 

Wiki states that George Vithoulkas has been described as “the maestro of classical homeopathy” and is “widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist”. Others call him a “contemporary master of homeopathy” or credit him with the revival of the credibility of homeopathy.

A few days ago, THE MAESTRO has given an interview about the coronavirus which, I believe, is too hilarious to miss:

Q. What is your opinion of coronavirus, what homeopathy can do ?

A. Unless we have selected the real symptoms of the different stages of this influenza from the clinicians who are dealing at this moment with the infected cases, we cannot do anything substantial.

We should know the symptomatology of the beginning stages -before the pneumonia- and propose remedies for this stage in order to reduce the victims of going to the second stage. Also we should know the symptomatology of the later stage of pneumonia or diarrhea to propose different remedies for this advanced stage.

But the symptomatology has to be taken by an experienced homeopath in order to be reliable.

I think the best would be to establish contact with the clinicians in order to give us a fist hand information.

To give at random remedies as a prophylaxis and to make people think that they are protected it is irresponsible.

Q. What do you think about those homeopaths who advertise that are treating cancer cases  using homeopathic remedies while at the same time the patients are treated with allopathic drugs?

Advertising that cancer cases can be cured by homeopathy in spite of the fact patients are treated with conventional drugs is an unethical act that should be avoided at all costs by any honest homeopath.

The reasons are simple.

A.   The homeopathic remedy will act if it is prescribed according to the symptoms of the case. But in such a situation where the patient is under chemotherapy, the symptoms are suppressed by the allopathic drugs. Therefore the prescriptions at best are not prescribed according to the law of similars but are given in an arbitrary way, therefore instead of the similimum, several remedies are prescribed at random. Actually in this way, the case becomes more and more confused and the organism is more and more disorganised.

B.   The homeopathic remedy acts on the energy level -on  the vital force-  inciting the organism to increase its response (initial aggravation) so the two treatments are antagonistic, the one suppresses the defense mechanism, the other strengthens it.

C.   Out of such a confusion within the organism, no one can say what actually has happened in such a patient.

Of course each doctor is free to apply any treatment that according to his understanding will benefit the patient, but to claim publicly that homeopathy can cure cancer under such conditions is totally immoral.

Obviously patients will flock around such physicians in the beginning and can make them rich but in the end the disappointments will be for both parties, the doctors and the patients but mostly on the part of doctors.

Q. Perhaps because of the guilt for all the lies and false hopes?

Homeopathy is an amazing therapeutic system, that can make doctors and patients extremely happy but has limits and the doctors should not transgress these boundaries for material gain.

It is a great pity that homeopathy will be reduced to a routine massive therapy with meagre results by those who are advertising polypharmacy with such mongrel practices like the ones with prearranged therapeutic protocols or mixopathy.

If such practices prevail, finally the real classical homeopathy, that can have such amazing results, if it is learned and practiced correctly, will die out amidst an aggressive and competitive society.

So, essentially the great Vithoulkas seems to be saying that treating even the most serious diseases with homeopathy is fine, as long as homeopaths use no treatments other than homeopathy and as long as they do exactly what Vithoulkas proclaims or – even better – Vithoulkas does it himself.

I know, this is very similar to what Hahnemann, the creator of this cult, stated about 200 years ago … but it is nevertheless totally bonkers.

Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is usually a blood clot in a deep vein of a leg. It is a potentially life-threatening condition, because the clot can detach itself and end up in the lungs thus causing a pulmonary embolism which can be fatal. A DVT therefore is a medical emergency which is typically managed by immobilising the patient and putting him/her on anticoagulants.

Yet, homeopaths seem to have discovered another approach. Indian homeopaths just published a case report of a DVT in an old patient totally cured exclusively by the non-invasive method of treatment with micro doses of potentized homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of the totality of symptoms and individualization of the case. The authors concluded that, since this report is based on a single case of recovery, results of more such cases are warranted to strengthen the outcome of the present study.

The patient was advised by his doctor to have surgery which he refused. Instead, he consulted a homeopath who treated him homoeopathically. No conventional treatments were given. The patient recovered, yet his recovery is almost certainly unrelated to the homeopathics he received. Spontaneous recovery after DVT is not uncommon, and it is almost certain that it is this what the case report describes.

It is simply not plausible, nor is there evidence that homeopathy can alter the natural history of a DVT. This means that what the Indian homeopaths have described in their paper is nothing less than a case of gross negligence. Had the patient died of a pulmonary embolism due to an untreated DVT, it could have put them behind bars.

While it is, of course, most laudable that homeopaths have taken to publishing even their most serious errors, it would be more reassuring, if they developed some sort of insight into their mistakes. Instead, they seem naively confident and stupidly ignorant of the danger they pose to the public: homeopathy can play significant therapeutic roles in very serious diseases like DVT, provided the drugs are needs to be carefully selected on the basis of i) individualization of cases, ii) the totality of symptoms and personalized data, and iii) taking into consideration the pathogenicity level and proper diagnosis of the disease. Further, homeopathy may also be safely used in patients with conventional drug allergy (antibiotics) or other physical conditions preventing intake of conventional medicines.

My conclusion and recommendation: stay away from homeopaths, folks!

A team of chiropractic researchers conducted a review of the safety of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in children under 10 years. They aimed to:

1) describe adverse events;

2) report the incidence of adverse events;

3) determine whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events compared to other interventions.

They searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from January 1, 1990 to August 1, 2019. Eligible studies were case reports/series, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Studies of high and acceptable methodological quality were included.

Most adverse events are mild (e.g., increased crying, soreness). One case report describes a severe adverse event (rib fracture in a 21-day-old) and another an indirect harm in a 4-month-old. The incidence of mild adverse events ranges from 0.3% (95% CI: 0.06, 1.82) to 22.22% (95% CI: 6.32, 54.74). Whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children is unknown.

The authors concluded that the risk of moderate and severe adverse events is unknown in children treated with SMT. It is unclear whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children < 10 years.

Thanks to their ingenious methodology, the authors managed to miss 11 of the 13 studies included in the review by Vohra et al which reported 9 serious adverse events and 20 cases of delayed diagnosis associated with SMT. Another review reported 15 serious adverse events and 775 mild to moderate adverse events following manual therapy. As far as I can see, the authors of the new review make just one reasonable point:

We recommend the implementation of a population-based active surveillance program to measure the incidence of severe and serious adverse events following SMT treatment in this population.

In the absence of such a surveillance system, any incidence figures are not just guess-work but also a depiction of the tip of a much bigger iceberg. So, why do the authors of this review not make this point clearly and powerfully? Why does the review read mostly like an attempt to white-wash a thorny subject? Why do they not provide a breakdown of the adverse events according to profession? The answer to these questions can be found at the very end of the paper:

This study was supported by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to Ontario Tech University. The College of Chiropractors of British Columbia was not involved in the design, conduct or interpretation of the research that informed the research. This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program to Pierre Côté who holds the Canada Research Chair in Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation at Ontario Tech University, and from the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation to Carol Cancelliere who holds a Research Chair in Knowledge Translation in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ontario Tech University.

This study was supported by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to Ontario Tech University. The College of Chiropractors of British Columbia was not involved in the design, conduct or interpretation of the research that informed the research. This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program to Pierre Côté who holds the Canada Research Chair in Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation at Ontario Tech University, and funding from the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation to Carol Cancelliere who holds a Research Chair in Knowledge Translation in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ontario Tech University.

I have often felt that chiropractic is similar to a cult. An investigation by cult members into the dealings of a cult is not the most productive of concepts, I guess.

An article in the ‘Long Island Press’ caught my attention. Here are some excerpts:

A simple painless spinal adjustment by a chiropractor could be the latest breakthrough in the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction… Bridge Back to Life, an outpatient addiction treatment program, has teamed up with New York Chiropractic College (NYCC) … to offer the latest breakthrough therapy for substance use disorder. The first-of-a kind partnership, the brainchild of Bridge Back to Life’s medical director Dr. Russell Surasky, brings doctors from NYCC to evaluate and treat the center’s patients undergoing addiction therapy. Several diagnostic tests are performed at the base of the brainstem to determine if a misalignment exists. If present, the practitioners are taught to incorporate gentle painless, corrective spinal adjustments into the patient’s care plan. This treatment reduces stress on the spinal column and limbic system of the brain…

“Safe, painless adjustments to the upper cervical spinal bones can help normalize the brain’s limbic system by helping with the overall circulation of cerebrospinal fluid of the brain… I truly believe that this agreement with the college will serve as a national model for drug rehabilitation centers throughout the country,” says Surasky, who is triple board certified in neurology, addiction medicine, and preventive medicine. “Not only can spinal adjustments reduce the chronic pain issues that may have led patients into drug addiction in the first place, but now we also have evidence that spinal adjustments actually accelerate the healing of the brain from addiction.”

Surasky points to a study done in 2001 in the journal Nature: Molecular Psychiatry, which looked at the impact of spinal manipulations at an inpatient addiction treatment facility in Miami. The study found that chemically dependent patients who received specific spinal adjustments as part of their treatment reported fewer drug cravings and mental health symptoms. Moreover, 100 percent of the study patients who received chiropractic care completed the inpatient program, while about half of those not receiving treatments dropped out prior to completion. Yet no further studies were performed, and the information languished. Surasky began treating patients with the spinal adjustments at his private practice in Great Neck before bringing the treatment to Bridge Back to Life.

Mary W. came to Surasky’s Great Neck office for help with alcohol addiction nearly one year ago. She received monthly Vivitrol shots and had marked success in curbing her cravings and drastically reducing her drinking. But Mary still had one-day “slips” from time to time. She also complained of insomnia and migraine headaches. She recalled an accident in the past, where she hit her head. Dr. Surasky took X-rays of her upper neck and performed a Tytron scan. He said the digital images showed she had misalignments at the C1 vertebral level, likely putting pressure on the lower brainstem area. In addition to Vivitrol shots, Mary started receiving upper cervical adjustments and has remained sober since. Her migraines have dropped from five per month to one or none and she is sleeping better.

Where to start?

There is much to be concerned about in this short article. Let me mention just a few obvious points:

  1. A treatment that is not backed by solid evidence is hardly a ‘breakthrough’.
  2. The ‘misalignments’ they are looking for do not exist.
  3. Spinal manipulation is not as safe as presented here.
  4. The assumption that it reduces stress on the limbic system is far-fetched.
  5. To suggest this approach as a ‘national model’, is simply ridiculous.
  6. The notion that adjustments increase the circulation of the cerebrospinal fluid is not evidence-based.
  7. What are ‘chronic pain tissues’?
  8. The claim that spinal manipulation accelerates healing of the brain is not evidence-based.
  9. The study in Nature Molecular Psychiatry does not seem to exist (I could not find it, if anyone can, please let me know).
  10. X-ray diagnostics cannot diagnose ‘misalignments’.
  11. Tytron scans are used mostly by chiropractors are not a reliable diagnostic method.
  12. Anecdotes are not evidence.

In short: this article reads like an advertisement for chiropractic as a treatment of addictions. As there is no evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulations are effective for this indication, it is hard to think of anything more irresponsible than that.

And here is the question that I often ask myself:

Are there any bogus, profitable, unethical claims that chiropractors would shy away from?

 

In his writings, DD Palmer (the father of chiropractic), left little doubt about how he felt about himself and his achievements. A few quotes will suffice to give an impression:

  • I was the first to adjust the cause of disease
  • Chiropractors adjust causes instead of treating effects
  • Vaccination and inoculation are pathological; chiropractic is physiological
  • It was my ingenious brain which discovered [chiropractic’s] first principle; I was its source; I gave it birth; to me all chiropractors trace their chiropractic lineage
  • Among the wonderful achievements of this century, the discovery and development of chiropractic is preeminent; it is destined to replace all methods which treat effects

With this post, I will simply outline DD’s extraordinary life. I intend to leave it to you, the reader of this post, to decide whether it was the life of a genius or that of a charlatan.

  • 1845, 7 March: birth in Port Perry, near Toronto, Canada
  • 1865, April: Palmer family immigrate to the US
  • 1867: DD Palmer starts as a teacher in Concord, Iowa
  • 1869, November: DD and his younger brother TJ become beekeepers in Letts, Iowa
  • 1871, 20 January: DD marries Abba Lord who calls herself a ‘psychometrist, clairvoyant physician, soul reader and business medium’.
  • 1872, 6 July: DD publishes an article in the ‘ Religio Philosophical Journal’ calling himself an atheist
  • 1872: DD later states that he started his career as a ‘healer’ during this period
  • 1873: Abba leaves DD and later becomes a ‘homeopathic physician’ in Mineapolis.
  • 1876, 7 October: DD marries Louvenia Landers, a widow; they have 4 children together, including BJ who later becomes DD’s partner in the chiropractic business.
  • 1878, 19 April: the Palmer’s 5-months old daughter dies
  • 1878, May: DD is elected president of the ‘Western Illonois and Eastern Iowa Society of Bee Keepers’
  • 1880: DD publishes a pamphlet about spiritualism and refers to himself as a ‘spiritualist’
  • 1881 BJ Palmer is born; he later all but took over the chiropractic business and is often referred to as the ‘developer of chiropractic’
  • 1882 DD sells his beekeeping business, moves to What Cheer, Iowa where the rest of his family live
  • 1883, 30 May: DD opens a grocery store in What Cheer
  • 1884, 20 November: Louvenia dies of consumption
  • 1885, February: DD sells his grocery store and ‘moves on’
  • 1885, 25 May: DD marries Martha Henning. The marriage is short-lived; on 8 July of the same year, DD posted a public notice in the ‘What Cheer Patriot’ disowning her
  • 1885: DD moves back to Letts where he teaches at the local school
  • 1886: DD moves to Iola, Kansas where he practices as a magnetic healer and calls himself ‘Dr Palmer, healer’
  • 1886, 3 September: DD advertises his services as a ‘vitalist healer’ in Burlington, Iowa
  • 1887, 9 October: DD advertises ‘dis-ease is a condition of not ease, lack of ease’, a theme that he later uses regularly for chiropractic
  • 1887, 25 October: one of DD’s patients has died and there is an inquest. The local paper describes DD with the term ‘dense ignorance’ and the coroner states that ‘we censure the so-called doctor, DD Palmer, attending physician, for his lack of treatment and ignorance in the case’. DD leaves Burlington to avoid persecution (a new law requires all healers to register with the state medical board. DD does not have such a registration)
  • 1887: DD moves to Davenport and advertises: DD Palmer, cures without medicine…’
  • 1888, 6 November: DD marries Villa; they stay together until her death in 1905
  • 1894: DD publishes his views on smallpox vaccination: ‘…the monstrous delusion … fastened on us by the medical profession, enforced by the state boards, and supported by the mass of unthinking people …’
  • 1894: DD publishes his views about ‘greedy doctors’ and the ‘medical monopoly’
  • 1895, January: DD starts a business selling gold fish
  • 1895, 18 September: DD administers the 1st spinal manipulation to Harvey Lillard (DD later seems confused about this date stating that this ‘was done about Dec. 1st, 1895’)
  • 1896, 14 January is the date when, according to DD, chiropractic received its name with the help of Reverent Weed
  • 1896: DD publishes an article in ‘The Magnetic’ stating ‘ the magnetic cure: how to get well and keep well without using poisonous drugs’
  • 1896: DD publishes on bacteria outlining his theory that bacteria cannot grow on healthy tissue; keeping tissue healthy is therefore the best prevention against infections; and this is best achieved by magnetic healing
  • 1896: DD claimed that 4 years earlier, in 1892, he had discovered the magnetic cure for cancer; it involved freeing the stomach and spleen of poisons
  • 1896: DD formulates his concept of treating the root cause of any disease
  • 1896, 10 July: DD, his wife and his brother turn the ‘Palmer School of Magnetic Cure’ in Davenport into an officially registered corporation
  • 1897: DD defines chiropractic as ‘a science of healing without drugs’
  • 1898: DD opens his first school of chiropractic in Davenport, the ‘Palmer School of Chiropractic’ which has survivied to the present day.
  • 1902, 27 April: DD first used the term ‘subluxation’ in a letter to his son BJ (‘… where you find the greatest heat, there you will find the subluxation causing the inflammation which produces the fever…’)
  • 1902: DD leaves suddenly for California, apparently to open a West Coast branch of the Palmer School; he stays for about two years and then returns to Davenport leaving behind substantial depts
  • 1902, 6 September: DD is arrested in Pasadena when a patient suffering from consumption dies after DD’s second adjustment; in October, the charges were dropped because of a technicality
  • 1903: DD opens the ‘Palmer Chiropractic School in Santa Barbara, California, together with his former student Oakley Smith
  • 1903 DD is charged with practising medicine without licence but, before the case goes to trial, DD goes to Chicago where he charters a school together two other chiropractors (Smith and Paxson); the project fails
  • 1903, 30 April: DD is back in Davenport for the wedding of BJ with Mabel
  • 1904, December: DD starts his new journal ‘The Chiropractor’ which survives until 1961. DD’s very first article is entitled ’17 Years of Practice’
  • 1905: DD’s former students Langworthy and Smith accuse DD of stealing the concepts of chiropractic from the Bohemian bonesetters of Iowa
  • 1905, 9 November: DD’s wife Villa overdoses on morphine and dies; the coroner is unable to tell whether she committed suicide or intended it for pain relief
  • 1906, 11 January: DD marries Mary Hunter, apparently his first love from Letts
  • 1906, 26 March: DD is again on trial for practising medicine without a licence. He is found guilty the next day. The penalty is US$ 350 or 105 days in jail. DD choses jail. However, his new wife, Mary, bails him out after 23 days.
  • 1906: DD sells his share in the chiropractic business to his son and moves to Medford Oklahoma. The reasons for this split are said to be personal, financial and professional
  • 1906, 4 June: in a letter to John Howard, DD accuses his son of dishonesty and of running the school badly
  • 1906: BJ and DD publish their opus maximus ‘Science of Chiropractic’; DD claims that most of the chapters were written by him
  • 1907, January: DD opens another grocery store
  • 1908: together with a colleague, DD opens the ‘Palmer-Gregory Chiropractic College’; it lasts only 9 weeks. DD leaves because he discovered that Alva Gregory, a medical doctor, was teaching medical ideas
  • 1908, 9 November: DD opens the ‘Palmer College of Chiropractic’ in Portland, Oregon
  • 1908, December: DD starts a new journal, ‘The Chiropractor’s Adjuster’; many of his articles focus on criticising BJ. The journal only seems to have survives until 1910
  • 1910, December: DD publishes his book ‘The Chiropractor’s Adjuster’.
  • 1911: DD toys with the idea of turning chiropractic into a religion, as this would avoid chiropractors being sued for practising medicine without a license
  • 1913: DD visits Davenport for the ‘Lyceum Parade’ where he is injured. Mary accuses BJ of striking his father with his car and thus indirectly causing his death, a version of events which is disputed
  • 1913, September: DD is back in California and writes to JB Olson that he gave 22 lectures in Davenport. DD also reports: ‘… On the return I cured a man of sun stroke by one thrust on the 5th dorsal. That is what I call definitive, specific, scientific chiropractic…’
  • 1913, 20 October: DD dies; the official cause of death is typhoid fever, a condition that he repeatedly claimed to be curable by a single spinal adjustment.
  • 1914: DD Palmer’s book ‘The Chiropractor’ is published.

I missed this article by Canadian vascular surgeons when it came out in 2018. It is well-argued, and I think you should read it in full, if you can get access (it’s behind a pay wall). It contains interesting details about the anti-vax attitude of doctors of integrative medicine (something we discussed before), as well as the most dubious things that go on in the ‘Cleveland Clinic’. Here is at least the abstract of the article:

Evidence-based medicine, first described in 1992, offers a clear, systematic, and scientific approach to the practice of medicine. Recently, the non-evidence-based practice of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been increasing in the United States and around the world, particularly at medical institutions known for providing rigorous evidence-based care. The use of CAM may cause harm to patients through interactions with evidence-based medications or if patients choose to forego evidence-based care. CAM may also put financial strain on patients as most CAM expenditures are paid out-of-pocket. Despite these drawbacks, patients continue to use CAM due to media promotion of CAM therapies, dissatisfaction with conventional healthcare, and a desire for more holistic care. Given the increasing demand for CAM, many medical institutions now offer CAM services. Recently, there has been controversy surrounding the leaders of several CAM centres based at a highly respected academic medical institution, as they publicly expressed anti-vaccination views. These controversies demonstrate the non-evidence-based philosophies that run deep within CAM that are contrary to the evidence-based care that academic medical institutions should provide. Although there are financial incentives for institutions to provide CAM, it is important to recognize that this legitimizes CAM and may cause harm to patients. The poor regulation of CAM allows for the continued distribution of products and services that have not been rigorously tested for safety and efficacy. Governments in Australia and England have successfully improved regulation of CAM and can serve as a model to other countries.

Those who have been following this blog a little know how much I agree with these authors. In fact, in the peer-reviewed literature, I have been publishing similar arguments for almost 20 years, e.g:

The Indian AYUSH quacks are rarely out of the headlines these days. After recently promoting homeopathy for the coronavirus epidemic, they are at it yet again. This time they seem to want us to believe that homeopathy is an effective cancer therapy. And guess who is helping them promote this dangerous claim? Yes, it’s the “Pyromaniac In a Field of (Integrative) Straw Men”, Michael Dixon!

“Time for integration has come and it is not because allopathic medicines fail in treatment but rather it is the demand of the people and patients worldwide,” said Dr Michael Dixon, Chair-College of Medicine and Integrated Health, UK, and Visiting Professor, University of Westminster and University College London, while inaugurating the two-day ‘International Conference on Integrative Oncology 2020. The ICIO 2020 is held in Indai in association with Central Health & FW Ministry, AYUSH/TCAM Ministry, all AYUSH/TCAM research councils and the governments of Kerala and Maharashtra, and National AYUSH Mission and organised by the Global Homeopathy Foundation (GHF).

Dr Dixon called upon integration of various medical streams while combating diseases. He pointed out that anti-microbial resistance, over-prescription of opiates and over-prescription of conventional medicines have compounded the situation. “Enormous issues persist back in United Kingdom (UK), National Health Services (NHS) England banned herbal and homoeopathic medicines while Royal College of General Practitioners asked general practitioners not to offer Homoeopathy and National Institute for Clinical Excellence changed guidelines on palliative care and back pain,” said Dr Dixon.

However, he said the good news is that at last AYUSH has arrived in UK with the College of Medicine and Integrated Health taking the lead. “Integration of medical systems is of paramount importance in oncology for prevention, treatment, treating side-effects of conventional medicine and preventing recurrence.”

Those who address the inaugural function include:

  • Dr Jayesh Sanghavi, vice- chairman GHF,
  • Dr T K Harindranath, president, Indian Homoeopathic Medical Association,
  • Dr Piyush Joshi, secretary general, Homoeopathic Medical Association of India,
  • Dr Eswaradas, chairman, GHF, Dr Issac Mathai, Soukya Holistic Clinic,
  • Dr Velavan, Radiation Oncologist, Erode Cancer Centre,
  • Dr Sandeep Roy, chairman, organising committee ICIO 2020,
  • Dr Madhavan Nambiar IAS (retd), Patron GHF
  • Dr Sreevals G Menon, Managing Trustee, GHF

Around 25 papers are being presented at the summit. Two of them stand out, in my view:

  • Dr Vinu Krishnan, member, sub-committee on cancer, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, New Delhi, Analysis and observations of stage 3 and 4 lung cancers using homoeopathic interventions
  • Dr Ravi, associate professor with Virar Homoeopathic Medical College, Mumbai, Clinical assessment of homeopathy and its role in survival in 3rd and 4th stage cancers

I find it imperative to point out that, according to the best evidence available to date, there is no reason to believe that:

  • Homeopathy is effective in stage 3 and 4 lung cancers
  • Homeopathy has positive effects on cancer survival

In my view, anyone who makes desperate cancer patients believe otherwise or supports conferences where such notions are being promoted is a dangerous charlatan.

_________________________________________________________

 

 

PS

In case you are new to this blog and have not heard of Dr Dixon, allow me to alert you to 4 previous posts:

Should homeopathy be blacklisted in general practice? Dr Michael Dixon’s profoundly misleading comments

Johrei healing and the amazing Dr Dixon (presidential candidate for the RCGP)

Dr Dixon’s safe herbal medicine

Prince Charles becomes patron of the ‘College of Medicine and Integrated Health’

 

In 2017, John Lawler died after receiving a chiropractic neck manipulation. The therapist was not just incompetent at providing first aid to her patient, her clumsy attempts to save his life might even have contributed to his death. Now the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) issued a special bulletin to all registrants setting out in detail the action they must take in relation to first aid:

… it is a requirement of our educational programmes that students are trained to deal with medical emergencies and thereafter it is important that chiropractors keep their knowledge and skills up to date.

We expect all chiropractors to consider their own first aid knowledge and skills and determine whether or not to undertake further specific first aid training.  We said that registrants should start by considering whether their first aid skills and knowledge are sufficient, appropriate and current.

Every chiropractor is likely to encounter potential traumatic and medical emergencies at some point in their professional life. Like all registered health care professionals chiropractors have a duty to their patients during emergencies.  Chiropractors therefore must recognise, assess and manage the potential for emergency medical and traumatic conditions that may be encountered in chiropractic settings.

Many providers of first aid training are available offering a range of courses delivered in a range of different ways, for example, the Royal College of Chiropractors has partnered with a training provider to provide first aid training courses for chiropractors across the UK: http://bit.ly/rccfirstaid

In September 2020, as part of registrants’ continuing professional development submission to the GCC, we expect to see information from each chiropractor on their first aid knowledge and skills, and the steps taken so they are assured of their competence to administer first aid should the need arise.

_____________________________________________________________________

One could read this statement as an admission that:

  • UK chiropractors are currently not adequately trained in first aid,
  • chiropractic manipulations can cause medical emergencies,
  • and possibly that Mr Lawler lost his life because his chiropractor was incompetent in first aid.

At the same time, I find that the statement comes many months too late and is neither clear nor compelling. Why not making it plain:

  • exactly which first aid qualification every UK chiropractor must have
  • by what time,
  • and state what penalty they will face, if they fail to comply?

And, if the GCC are aware that spinal manipulation can cause serious emergencies, why have they not established a proper reporting scheme for such events so that we all know of the frequency of such risks? Could it be that the son of the deceased John Lawler was correct when he said the GCC “seems to be a little self-regulatory chiropractic bubble where chiropractors regulate chiropractors?” And could it be that I was justified in suspecting that the GCC is not fit for purpose?

What do you think?

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