neglect
Today is WORLD ASTHMA DAY, a good opportunity perhaps to revisit a few of our own evaluations of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for asthma. Here are the abstracts of some of our systematic reviews on the subject:
Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of yoga as a treatment option for asthma.
Method: Seven databases were searched from their inception to October 2010. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized clinical trials (NRCTs) were considered, if they investigated any type of yoga in patients with asthma. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validation were performed independently by two reviewers.
Results: Six RCTs and one NRCT met the inclusion criteria. Their methodological quality was mostly poor. Three RCTs and one NRCT suggested that yoga leads to a significantly greater reduction in spirometric measures, airway hyperresponsivity, dose of histamine needed to provoke a 20% reduction in forced expiratory volume in the first second, weekly number of asthma attacks, and need for drug treatment. Three RCTs showed no positive effects compared to various control interventions.
Conclusions: The belief that yoga alleviates asthma is not supported by sound evidence. Further, more rigorous trials are warranted.
Some clinicians believe that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for asthma. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence for or against this claim. Four electronic databases were searched without language restrictions from their inceptions to September 2008. Bibliographies and departmental files were hand-searched. The methodological quality of all included studies was assessed with the Jadad score. Only randomised clinical trials of spinal manipulation as a treatment of asthma were included. Three studies met these criteria. All of them were of excellent methodological quality (Jadad score 5) and all used sham-manipulation as the control intervention. None of the studies showed that real manipulation was more effective than sham-manipulation in improving lung function or subjective symptoms. It is concluded that, according to the evidence of the most rigorous studies available to date, spinal manipulation is not an effective treatment for asthma.
Contradictory results from randomised controlled trials of acupuncture in asthma suggest both a beneficial and detrimental effect. The authors conducted a formal systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised clinical trials in the published literature that have compared acupuncture at real and placebo points in asthma patients. The authors searched for trials published in the period 1970-2000. Trials had to measure at least one of the following objective outcomes: peak expiratory flow rate, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity. Estimates of the standarised mean difference, between acupuncture and placebo were computed for each trial and combined to estimate the overall effect. Hetereogeneity was investigated in terms of the characteristics of the individual studies. Twelve trials met the inclusion criteria but data from one could not be obtained. Individual patient data were available in only three. Standardised differences between means ranging from 0.071 to 0.133, in favour of acupuncture, were obtained. The overall effect was not conventionally significant and it corresponds to an approximate difference in FEV1 means of 1.7. After exploring hetereogenenity, it was found that studies where bronchoconstriction was induced during the experiment showed a conventionally significant effect. This meta-analysis did not find evidence of an effect of acupuncture in reducing asthma. However, the meta-analysis was limited by shortcomings of the individual trials, in terms of sample size, missing information, adjustment of baseline characteristics and a possible bias against acupuncture introduced by the use of placebo points that may not be completely inactive. There was a suggestion of preferential publication of trials in favour of acupuncture. There is an obvious need to conduct a full-scale randomised clinical trial addressing these limitations and the prognostic value of the aetiology of the disease.
Background: Emotional stress can either precipitate or exacerbate both acute and chronic asthma. There is a large body of literature available on the use of relaxation techniques for the treatment of asthma symptoms. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if there is any evidence for or against the clinical efficacy of such interventions.
Methods: Four independent literature searches were performed on Medline, Cochrane Library, CISCOM, and Embase. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included. There were no restrictions on the language of publication. The data from trials that statistically compared the treatment group with that of the control were extracted in a standardised predefined manner and assessed critically by two independent reviewers.
Results: Fifteen trials were identified, of which nine compared the treatment group with the control group appropriately. Five RCTs tested progressive muscle relaxation or mental and muscular relaxation, two of which showed significant effects of therapy. One RCT investigating hypnotherapy, one of autogenic training, and two of biofeedback techniques revealed no therapeutic effects. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was poor.
Conclusions: There is a lack of evidence for the efficacy of relaxation therapies in the management of asthma. This deficiency is due to the poor methodology of the studies as well as the inherent problems of conducting such trials. There is some evidence that muscular relaxation improves lung function of patients with asthma but no evidence for any other relaxation technique.
Background: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in modern society and there is increasing evidence to suggest that its incidence and severity are increasing. There is a high prevalence of usage of complementary medicine for asthma. Herbal preparations have been cited as the third most popular complementary treatment modality by British asthma sufferers. This study was undertaken to determine if there is any evidence for the clinical efficacy of herbal preparations for the treatment of asthma symptoms.
Methods: Four independent literature searches were performed on Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Only randomised clinical trials were included. There were no restrictions on the language of publication. The data were extracted in a standardised, predefined manner and assessed critically.
Results: Seventeen randomised clinical trials were found, six of which concerned the use of traditional Chinese herbal medicine and eight described traditional Indian medicine, of which five investigated Tylophora indica. Three other randomised trials tested a Japanese Kampo medicine, marihuana, and dried ivy leaf extract. Nine of the 17 trials reported a clinically relevant improvement in lung function and/or symptom scores.
Conclusions: No definitive evidence for any of the herbal preparations emerged. Considering the popularity of herbal medicine with asthma patients, there is urgent need for stringently designed clinically relevant randomised clinical trials for herbal preparations in the treatment of asthma.
Breathing techniques are used by a large proportion of asthma sufferers. This systematic review was aimed at determining whether or not these interventions are effective. Four independent literature searches identified six randomized controlled trials. The results of these studies are not uniform. Collectively the data imply that physiotherapeutic breathing techniques may have some potential in benefiting patients with asthma. The safety issue has so far not been addressed satisfactorily. It is concluded that too few studies have been carried out to warrant firm judgements. Further rigorous trials should be carried out in order to redress this situation.
__________________________________
So, if you suffer from asthma, my advice is to stay away from SCAM. This might be easier said than done because SCAM practitioners are only too willing to lure asthma patients into their cult. In 2003, we have demonstrated this phenomenon by conducting a survey with chiropractors. Here is our short paper in full:
Classic chiropractic theory claims that vertebral subluxation blocks the flow of ‘‘innate intelligence’’ which, in turn, affects the health of asthma patients (1). Chiropractictors often use spinal manipulation (SM) to correct such malalignments and treat asthma (2). Several clinical trials of chiropractic SM exist, but the most rigorous ones are clearly negative (3,4). Chronic medication with corticosteroids can lead to osteoporosis, a condition, which is a contra-indication to chiropractic SM (5). Given this background, we aimed to determine whether chiropractors would advise an asthma patient on long-term corticosteroids (5 years) to try chiropractic as a treatment for this condition.
All 350 e-mail addresses listed at www.interadcom.com/chiro/html were randomised into two groups. A (deceptive) letter from a (fictitious) patient was sent to group A while group B was asked for advice on chiropractic treatment for asthma as part of a research project. Thus, groups A and B were asked the same question in di¡erent contexts: is chiropractic safe and e¡ective for an asthma patient on long-term steroids. After data collection, respondents from group A were informed that the e-mail had been part of a research project.
Of 97 e-mails in group A, we received 31 responses (response rate = 32% (95% CI, 0.23^ 0.41)). Seventy-four per cent (23 respondents) recommended visiting a chiropractor (95% CI, 0.59^ 0.89). Thirty-five per cent (11 respondents) mentioned minimal or no adverse effects of SM (95% CI, 0.18 ^ 0.52). Three chiropractors responded that some adverse e¡ects exist, e.g. risk of bone fracture, or stroke. Two respondents noted that other investigations (X-rays, spinal and neurological examination) were required before chiropractic treatment. Three respondents suggested additional treatments and one warned about a possible connection between asthma and the measles vaccine. Of 77 e-mails sent to group B, we received 16 responses (response rate = 21% (95% CI, 0.17^ 0.25)). Eleven respondents (69%) recommended visiting a chiropractor (95% CI, 0.46 ^ 0.91). Ten respondents mentioned minimal or no adverse effects of SM (95% CI, 0.39^ 0.87). Five chiropractors responded that adverse effects of SM exist (e.g. bone fracture). Five respondents suggested pre-testing the patient to check bone density, allergy, diet, exercise level, hydration and blood. Additional treatments were recommended by three respondents. The pooled results of groups A and B suggested that the majority of chiropractors recommend chiropractic treatment for asthma and the minority mention any adverse effects.
Our results demonstrate that chiropractic advice on asthma therapy is as readily available over the Internet as it is likely to be misleading. The majority of respondents from both groups (72%) recommended chiropractic treatment. This usually entails SM, a treatment modality which has been demonstrated to be ineffective in rigorous clinical trials (3,4,6). The advice may also be dangerous: the minority of the respondents of both groups (17%) caution of the risk of bone fracture. Our findings also suggest that, for the research question asked, a degree of deception is necessary. The response rate in group B was 12% lower than that of group A, and the answers received differed considerably between groups. In group A, 10% acknowledged the possibility of adverse e¡ects, this figure was 33% in group B. In conclusion, chiropractors readily provide advice regarding asthma treatment, which is often not evidence-based and has the potential to put patients at risk.
__________________________
As I stated above: if you suffer from asthma, my advice is to
stay away from SCAM.
This systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials were performed to summarize the evidence of the effects of Urtica dioica (UD) consumption on metabolic profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
Eligible studies were retrieved from searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases until December 2019. Cochran (Q) and I-square statistics were used to examine heterogeneity across included clinical trials. Data were pooled using a fixed-effect or random-effects model and expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
Among 1485 citations, thirteen clinical trials were found to be eligible for the current metaanalysis. UD consumption significantly decreased levels of fasting blood glucose (FBG) (WMD = – 17.17 mg/dl, 95% CI: -26.60, -7.73, I2 = 93.2%), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (WMD = -0.93, 95% CI: – 1.66, -0.17, I2 = 75.0%), C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = -1.09 mg/dl, 95% CI: -1.64, -0.53, I2 = 0.0%), triglycerides (WMD = -26.94 mg/dl, 95 % CI = [-52.07, -1.82], P = 0.03, I2 = 90.0%), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (WMD = -5.03 mmHg, 95% CI = -8.15, -1.91, I2 = 0.0%) in comparison to the control groups. UD consumption did not significantly change serum levels of insulin (WMD = 1.07 μU/ml, 95% CI: -1.59, 3.73, I2 = 63.5%), total-cholesterol (WMD = -6.39 mg/dl, 95% CI: -13.84, 1.05, I2 = 0.0%), LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) (WMD = -1.30 mg/dl, 95% CI: -9.95, 7.35, I2 = 66.1%), HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) (WMD = 6.95 mg/dl, 95% CI: -0.14, 14.03, I2 = 95.4%), body max index (BMI) (WMD = -0.16 kg/m2, 95% CI: -1.77, 1.44, I2 = 0.0%), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD = -1.35 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.86, 0.17, I2= 0.0%) among patients with T2DM.
The authors concluded that UD consumption may result in an improvement in levels of FBS, HbA1c, CRP, triglycerides, and SBP, but did not affect levels of insulin, total-, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol, BMI, and DBP in patients with T2DM.
Several plants have been reported to affect the parameters of diabetes. Whenever I read such results, I cannot stop wondering whether this is a good or a bad thing. It seems to be positive at first glance, yet I can imagine at least two scenarios where such effects might be detrimental:
- A patient reads about the antidiabetic effects and decides to swap his medication for the herbal remedy which is far less effective. Consequently, the patient’s metabolic control is insufficient.
- A patient adds the herbal remedy to his therapy. Consequently, his blood sugar drops too far and he suffers a hypoglycemic episode.
My advice to diabetics is therefore this: if you want to try herbal antidiabetic treatments, please think twice. And if you persist, do it only under the close supervision of your doctor.
There is a lack of data describing the state of naturopathic or complementary veterinary medicine in Germany. This survey maps the currently used treatment modalities, indications, existing qualifications, and information pathways. It records the advantages and disadvantages of these medicines as experienced by veterinarians. Demographic influences are investigated to describe the distributional impacts of using veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine.
A standardized questionnaire was used for the cross-sectional survey. It was distributed throughout Germany in a written and digital format from September 2016 to January 2018. Because of the open nature of data collection, the return rate of questionnaires could not be calculated. To establish a feasible timeframe, active data collection stopped when the previously calculated limit of 1061 questionnaires was reached.
With the included incoming questionnaires of that day, a total of 1087 questionnaires were collected. Completely blank questionnaires and those where participants did not meet the inclusion criteria were not included, leaving 870 out of 1087 questionnaires to be evaluated. A literature review and the first test run of the questionnaire identified the following treatment modalities:
- homeopathy,
- phytotherapy,
- traditional Chinese medicine (TCM),
- biophysical treatments,
- manual treatments,
- Bach Flower Remedies,
- neural therapy,
- homotoxicology,
- organotherapy,
- hirudotherapy.
These were included in the questionnaire. Categorical items were processed using descriptive statistics in absolute and relative numbers based on the population of completed answers provided for each item. Multiple choices were possible.
Overall 85.4% of all the questionnaire participants used naturopathy and complementary medicine. The treatments most commonly used were:
- complex homoeopathy (70.4%, n = 478),
- phytotherapy (60.2%, n = 409),
- classic homoeopathy (44.3%, n = 301),
- biophysical treatments (40.1%, n = 272).
The most common indications were:
- orthopedic (n = 1798),
- geriatric (n = 1428),
- metabolic diseases (n = 1124).
Over the last five years, owner demand for naturopathy and complementary treatments was rated as growing by 57.9% of respondents (n = 457 of total 789). Veterinarians most commonly used scientific journals and publications as sources for information about naturopathic and complementary contents (60.8%, n = 479 of total 788). These were followed by advanced training acknowledged by the ATF (Academy for Veterinary Continuing Education, an organisation that certifies independent veterinary continuing education in Germany) (48.6%, n = 383). The current information about naturopathy and complementary medicine was rated as adequate or nearly adequate by many (39.5%, n = 308) of the respondents.
The most commonly named advantages in using veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine were:
- expansion of treatment modalities (73.5%, n = 566 of total 770),
- customer satisfaction (70.8%, n = 545),
- lower side effects (63.2%, n = 487).
The ambiguity and unclear evidence of the mode of action and effectiveness (62.1%, n = 483) and high expectations of owners (50.5%, n = 393) were the disadvantages mentioned most frequently. Classic homoeopathy, in particular, has been named in this context (78.4%, n = 333 of total 425). Age, gender, and type of employment showed a statistically significant impact on the use of naturopathy and complementary medicine by veterinarians (p < 0.001). The university of final graduation showed a weaker but still statistically significant impact (p = 0.027). Users of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine tended to be older, female, self-employed and a higher percentage of them completed their studies at the University of Berlin. The working environment (rural or urban space) showed no statistical impact on the veterinary naturopathy or complementary medicine profession.
The authors concluded that this is the first study to provide German data on the actual use of naturopathy and complementary medicine in small animal science. Despite a potential bias due to voluntary participation, it shows a large number of applications for various indications. Homoeopathy was mentioned most frequently as the treatment option with the most potential disadvantages. However, it is also the most frequently used treatment option in this study. The presented study, despite its restrictions, supports the need for a discussion about evidence, official regulations, and the need for acknowledged qualifications because of the widespread application of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine. More data regarding the effectiveness and the mode of action is needed to enable veterinarians to provide evidence-based advice to pet owners.
I can only hope that the findings are seriously biased and not a true reflection of the real situation. The methodology used for recruiting participants (it is fair to assume that those vets who had no interest in SCAM did not bother to respond) strongly indicates that this might be the case. If, however, the findings were true, one would have to conclude that, for German vets, evidence-based healthcare is still an alien concept. The evidence that the preferred SCAMs are effective for the listed conditions is very weak or even negative. If the findings were true, one would need to wonder how much of veterinary SCAM use amounts to animal abuse.
The German Heilpraktiker has been the subject of several of my posts. Some claim that it is an example of a well-established and well-regulated profession. Others insist that it is a menace endangering public health in Germany.
Who is right?
One answer might be found by looking at the training the German Heilpraktiker receives.
In Germany, non-medical practitioners (NMPs; or ‘Heilpraktiker’) offer a broad range of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) methods. The aim of this investigation was to characterize schools for NMPs in Germany in terms of basic (medical) training and advanced education.
The researchers found 165 schools for NMPs in a systematic web-based search. As the medical board examination NMPs must take before building a practice exclusively tests their knowledge in conventional medicine, schools hardly include training in SCAM methods. Only a few schools offered education in SCAM methods in their NMP training. Although NMP associations framed requirements for NMP education, 83.0% (137/165) of schools did not meet these requirements.
The authors concluded that patients and physicians should be aware of the lack of training and consequent risks, such as harm to the body, delay of necessary treatment, and interaction with conventional drugs. Disestablishing the profession of NMPs might be a reasonable step.
Other interesting facts disclosed by this investigation include the following:
- There is no mandatory training for NMPs. Some attend schools but many do not and prefer to learn exclusively from books.
- The training programs of the NMP schools comprise an average of 7.4 hours per week of classroom teaching for an average of 27.1 months.
- Course participants thus complete an average of ~600 hours of training. (A degree in medicine takes an average of 12.9 semesters. With a weekly working time of 38.9 hours, this amounts to ~15,000 hours of training excluding internships etc.)
- Three-quarters of all NMP schools do not offer any practical teaching units.
- If training programs do contain practical instruction, it is usually limited to individual weekend workshops in which the measurement of vital data, physical examinations, and injections and infusions are practiced.
- The exam that NMPs have to pass consists of a written test with sixty multiple-choice questions and a 30 to 60-minute interview on case studies.
- The examination covers professional and legal anatomical and physiological basics, methods of anamnesis and diagnosis, the significance of basic laboratory values as well as practice hygiene and disinfection.
- Not included are competence in pharmacology, pathophysiology, biochemistry, microbiology, human genetics and immunology.
- The average 600 hours of training of an NMP is thus ~5% of that of a medical student.
- If an NMP fails the exam, she can repeat it as often as she needs to pass.
- The day after the exam, an NMP can open her own practice and is allowed (with only very few exceptions) to do most of what proper doctors do.
So are NMPs a danger to public health in Germany?
I let you answer this question yourself.
Since about two years, I am regularly trying to warn people of charlatans of all types who mislead the public on COVID-related subjects. In this context, a recent paper in JAMA is noteworthy. Allow me to quote just a few passages from it:
COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation flood the public discourse; physicians are not the only source. But their words and actions “may well be the most egregious of all because they undermine the trust at the center of the patient-physician relationship, and because they are directly responsible for people’s health,” Pawleys Island, South Carolina, family medicine physician Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), (which publishes JAMA), wrote recently. In November, the AMA House of Delegates adopted a new policy to counteract disinformation by health care professionals.
… Few physicians have been disciplined so far, even though the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), representing the state and territorial boards that license and discipline physicians, and, in some cases, other health care professionals, and the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), consisting of the boards that determine whether physicians can be board-certified, have issued statements cautioning against spreading false COVID-19 claims.
In July 2021, the FSMB warned that spreading COVID-19 misinformation could put a physician’s license at risk. The organization said it was responding “to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals.”
The ABMS released a statement in September 2021. “The spread of misinformation and the misapplication of medical science by physicians and other medical professionals is especially harmful as it threatens the health and well being of our communities and at the same time undermines public trust in the profession and established best practices in care,” the ABMS said.
In an annual survey of its 70 member boards conducted in fall 2021, the FSMB asked about complaints and disciplinary actions related to COVID-19. Of the 58 boards that responded, 67% said they had seen an uptick in complaints about licensees spreading false or misleading COVID-19 misinformation, according to results released in December 2021. But only 12 (21%) of the 58 boards said they’d taken disciplinary action against a physician for that reason…
- What percentage of lay-homeopaths misinform their patients?
- What percentage of chiropractors misinform their patients?
- What percentage of energy healers misinform their patients?
- What percentage of naturopaths misinform their patients?
- What percentage of acupuncturists misinform their patients?
- etc., etc.
As the total number of SCAM practitioners might, in some parts of the world, easily outnumber doctors, these questions are highly relevant. Yet, I am not aware of any reliable data on these issues. Judging from what I have observed (and written about) during the pandemic, I guess that the percentages are likely to be substantial and way higher than those for doctors. To me, this suggests that we ought to focus much more on SCAM practitioners if, in future health crises, we want to prevent the confusion and harm that misinformation inevitably causes.
People often say WHAT’S THE HARM?
Why not let Prince Charles promote any nonsense he likes?
Let him be!
He means well!
He is not harming anyone!
I think this attitude is not correct. Charles’s advocacy of quackery is by no means harmless. This is one of the points I have been trying to make repeatedly, most recently in my biography of Charles.
And there are plenty of examples for this; just think of the Gerson therapy (a whole chapter in the said book). Another, less obvious example is homeopathy. Charles has promoted homeopathy during all his adult life. When he fell ill with COVID in the early phase of the pandemic, the realm of homeopathy predictably decided that he recovered so well because he homeopathic treatment. A report dated 7 April 2020, for example, is quite clear about it:
British Crown Prince Charles has been “101 per cent” cured of COVID-19 using Ayurveda and Homeopathy treatment, Union Minister of State for AYUSH Shripad Naik … “I am proud that the Ministry which I head, managed to cure such a great man, there is no greater credit than this. He may have some problem (admitting to it) because the system in his country does not give recognition to Ayurveda. He may have felt he would violate rules, that is why his refusal to admit is obvious,” Naik told a local cable news channel in an interview late on Monday. “I believe 101 per cent, that he has been cured (using Ayurveda and Homeopathy),” Naik also said.
On April 2, Naik had told a press conference in Goa, that Prince Charles had been cured of COVID-19 after seeking treatment from a Bengaluru-based alternative treatment resort, SOUKYA International Holistic Health Centre’ run by a doctor Isaac Mathai. A day after his statement, Clarence House, the official residence of Prince Charles had said that the claim was incorrect and that the royal “followed the medical advice of the National Health Service in the UK and nothing more”. The royal had been diagnosed COVID-19 positive last month.
Naik in the cable TV interview on Monday continued to insist that Ayurveda and Homeopathy had indeed cured the Prince and that it was a “victory” for Indian traditional medicine systems. Naik also said that there was no need to disbelieve the doctor Isaac Mathai, who cured Prince Charles. “The man (Dr. Mathai) himself is saying this. He is a doctor, an owner of a resort, he is trustworthy, when he says this, it is a victory of our Indian system,” Naik said.
The royal denial had little effect; Indian officials had persuaded themselves and key decision-makers that Charles’s case was proof for homeopathy’s effectiveness against COVID. Consequently, homeopathy was widely used for that purpose. As a result, millions of Indians deemed themselves sufficiently protected (possibly not taking other measures seriously). And the rest is history: in the summer of 2020, about 1000 Indians per day were reported to have died of COVID (the number of unreported deaths was estimated to be even higher).
The point I am trying to make is this: the promotion of quackery by a ‘VIP’ can have dramatic unforeseen consequences, even if (like in Charles’s case) a direct cause-effect relationship is impossible to prove.
Steiner (Waldorf) schools, like anthroposophical medicine, are the inventions of Rudolf Steiner. His followers have often been associated with rampant anti-vax sentiments. Yet, officially such beliefs are usually denied.
A few days ago, I came across this tweet:
Der Dachverband der anthroposophischen Medizin begrüßt Corona-Impfungen… & distanziert sich von Querdenken und Co. Steiner war selbst gegen Pocken geimpft und ließ impfen.
As it is in German, allow me to translate it for you:
The umbrella organization of anthroposophical medicine welcomes corona vaccinations… & distances itself from lateral thinking and co. Steiner himself was vaccinated against smallpox and had it vaccinated.
Almost simultaneously, it was reported that, after the Corona outbreak at a Freiburg Steiner school with more than 100 people infected, it is now certain: the certificates presented to the school for exemption from wearing masks were invalid.
During circus performances at the Steiner school in Freiburg, more than 100 people had become infected with the coronavirus in October: among them pupils, teachers, and contact persons. Therefore, the school inspectorate of the Freiburg Regional Council examined the certificates that freed people from the obligation to wear masks at school for health reasons. Heike Spannagel, a spokeswoman for the Freiburg Regional Council, called the results surprising. There were 55 certificates, 52 from pupils and three from teachers – and all of them were invalid. Heike Spannagel added that the school will no longer recognize any of the certificates. Those who cannot present new certificates that are more convincing will therefore have to wear the mask, Spannagel said.
It was noticeable that many certificates came from (far remote) private clinics in Bavaria or Berlin. In addition, a Freiburg doctor had exempted pupils from the obligation to wear a mask with identical justifications. According to the regional council, however, justifications must be individually tailored. In the meantime, the public prosecutor’s office in Freiburg has requested documents from the regional council in order to initiate an investigation.
So, what has been going on?
To me, it looks like the Steiner school was tolerating or even encouraging the use of dodgy certificates. This contrasts somewhat with the tweet cited above. And, in turn, this seems to indicate that proponents of anthroposophy say one thing about COVID and then do something entirely different. This suspicion was strengthened by a tweet that appeared a little while later as a response to the tweet cited above:
Alle Anhänger der Anthroposophie, die ich kenne, sind nicht geimpft. Es ist ja schön, wenn diese Verbände das öffentlich so verkünden. Die Praxis sieht leider anders aus.
Allow me to translate again:
All the followers of anthroposophy that I know are not vaccinated. It is nice when these associations proclaim this publicly. Unfortunately, the practice looks different.
The German paper DIE ZEIT reported about the dire state of the pandemic in Upper Bavaria. In the district of Rosenheim (close to where I grew up), only about 58% of the population are fully vaccinated, far less than the German average.
Why?
The article blames a broad distrust in conventional medicine, the media, and politics. And a pronounced tendency to look for alternatives. Nowhere in Bavaria are there as many Heilpraktiker as in Upper Bavaria. Heilpraktikers are not medical practitioners, they focus on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and do not have to prove that they can effectively treat patients, even if that is what the name suggests. “That seems to be a cultural factor in the region. They are already pretty much in their own soup here,” says the director of the local hospital, Jens Deerberg-Wittram. There is much skepticism towards everything that comes from above and a pronounced interest in SCAM in the region, he says.
The gradient runs from north to south through Bavaria. With Heilpraktiker as well as with vaccination. The higher the density of Heilpraktiker, the lower the uptake of immunizations. This is just as true for Corona as for vaccination in general. For measles, the figure for fully vaccinated children in 2019 was 92.3 % in Germany, but in Rosenheim, it was only 83.3 %. “These are all ingredients for the big Corona cake,” says Deerberg-Wittram.
In Rosenheim, vaccination takes place in the local Volkshochschule, the German institution of adult education (as DER SPIEGEL disclosed [with my help] in 2018, these institutions are deeply steeped in woo and the Volkshochschule in Rosenheim even offers a course led by a Heilpraktiker). Although there is only a small, inconspicuous sign in the window outside of the Volkshochschule in Rosenheim, the queue of people wanting to be vaccinated is long. It stretches across the entire first floor; above the heads of the waiting people, the courses on offer flicker on a monitor: Crochet and knitting in the sewing room, integration courses, language courses in English and Spanish at different levels. Yoga for the elderly, Tai Chi.
In a recently published study, the willingness to be vaccinated of parents of underage children and persons without underage children was examined. The study was based on a random sample (telephone survey, n = 2014, survey between 12.11.2020 and 10.12.2020).
The results revealed that parents consistently show a lower propensity to vaccinate with a COVID-19 vaccine than respondents without minor children (54.1% vs. 71.1%). Fathers showed a more pronounced own willingness to vaccinate than mothers. Furthermore, men were more willing than women to have their own child vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine.
The overall sample also showed that a rejection of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) was associated with a significantly higher willingness to be vaccinated. There was also a significant correlation between the attitude towards homeopathy and one’s own willingness to be vaccinated. If homeopathy was supported, the willingness to vaccinate was lower. This correlation between the attitude towards homeopathy and willingness to vaccinate was also evident in the sub-sample of parents. Among the parents, it was again the women who significantly more often had a positive attitude towards homeopathy than men, who more often do not think anything of it.
This new evidence ties in neatly with many of my previous posts on the subject of SCAM and vaccination, for instance:
- More information on homeopaths’ and anthroposophic doctors’ attitude towards vaccinations
- The anti-vaccination movement is financed by the dietary supplement industry
- The UK Society of Homeopaths, a hub of anti-vaccination activists?
- HOMEOPATHY = “the complete alternative to vaccination” ?!?!
- Are anthroposophy-enthusiasts for or against vaccinations?
- Far too many chiropractors believe that vaccinations do not have a positive effect on public health
- Andrew Wakefield, Donald Trump, SCAM, and the anti-vaccination cult
- Naturopaths’ counselling against vaccinations could be criminally negligent
- HOMEOPATHS AGAINST VACCINATION: “The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone”
- Use of alternative medicine is associated with low vaccination rates
- Integrative medicine physicians tend to harbour anti-vaccination views
- Vaccination: chiropractors “espouse views which aren’t evidence based”
- Faith-healing as an alternative to vaccination?
- Learning about homeopathy the hard way: the story of Aaron Rodgers
- Patients consulting chiropractors, homeopaths, or naturopaths are less likely to agree to the flu jab
- Parents’ Willingness to Vaccinate with a COVID-19 Vaccine: strongly influenced by homeopathy
- “The uncensored truth” about COVID-19 vaccines” … as told by some chiro loons
- Beliefs and behaviors of US chiropractors
- Many naturopaths, homeopaths, and chiropractors are a risk to public health
- Homeopaths (and other SCAM practitioners) are peddling dangerous myths
- Misinformation and fraudulent claims about boosting immunity during the pandemic
Collectively, this evidence tells us that:
- the effect has been shown in many different ways,
- it can therefore be assumed to be real,
- it is not confined to COVID vaccinations,
- it is not confined to one particular branch of SCAM,
- it even affects MDs (who surely should know better) dabbling in SCAM,
- it has a long history,
- it is prevalent in many, if not most countries,
- it does real harm.
So, the next time someone tells you that SCAM and SCAM practitioners have a positive influence on public health, tell them to think again.
I have said it often before, and I will say it again:
Homeopathy and other ineffective so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) are dangerous mostly because they might replace effective treatments.
The tragic death of an Austrian boy is a stark reminder of this fact. Even though this happened a decade ago, I only just came across this case. It was, to the best of my knowledge, never published in English. Allow me, therefore, to summarize it here:
In 2011, a judge sentenced a couple from East Tyrol to a one-year suspended sentence. Their son, who suffered from a rare congenital immune system disorder (SCID*), had been treated only with homeopathy until he died. The doctor who treated the boy in this way received the same sentence.** The verdicts took into account that the parents and the family doctor did not act out of sheer ignorance, but had been informed about the nature of the disease and its consequences.
The parents told the court that they had previously had extremely negative experiences with conventional medicine when their first two children, who suffered from the same condition, had died. When their third child fell ill, the parents took him to a clinic where a bone marrow transplant was to be carried out, which, according to an expert witness, would have had a 95 % chance of curing the boy. Because the parents were put off by the sight of other children in the hospital, they took their son home again and withheld all further conventional treatments or appropriate examinations. Instead, they instructed their family doctor to cure the boy with homeopathy. The doctor refrained from administering antibiotics when the illness worsened due to an infection and failed to admit the boy to a hospital when he became severely ill.
The child then died of sepsis. The autopsy revealed that he was malnourished and one of his ear canals as well as his lungs were necrotic with inflammation.
______________________
It is hard not to be repulsed and nauseated by such stories. They show how dangerously unreasonable some homeopaths and their followers are. And they remind us that even a seemingly harmless SCAM will cost lives in the hands of such fanatics.
* Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) is a group of rare disorders caused by mutations in different genes involved in the development and function of infection-fighting immune cells. Infants with SCID appear healthy at birth but are highly susceptible to severe infections. The condition is fatal, usually within the first year or two of life, unless infants receive immune-restoring treatments, such as transplants of blood-forming stem cells, gene therapy, or enzyme therapy.
**Personally, I find the sentence for the doctor far too lenient. One could argue that the parents had been punished by the loss of their child and thus deserve merci, but the doctor?
