pain
Medical ethics rests on 4 core principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, along with the crucial rule of veracity (truth-telling). In the realm of chiropractic, the most significant ethical issues/problems generally fall into the following ethical categories:
- Compromised Informed Consent & Veracity
Informed consent requires that a patient fully understands the nature, risks, benefits, and scientific backing of a treatment before proceeding.
1.1.The “Subluxation” Theory: A sizable segment of the chiropractic community still adheres to the erroneous belief that spinal “vertebral subluxations” cause a disruption in the body’s “innate intelligence,” leading to systemic disease. From an ethical standpoint, promoting an unproven, pseudo-scientific premise as medical fact violates veracity and compromises patient autonomy, as patients cannot give truly informed consent based on erroneous concepts.
1.2. Over-claiming Scope of Efficacy: While evidence might support spinal manipulation for acute lower back pain (if one were to interpret the dtat optimistically), most chiropractors claim they can treat many other illnesses, including non-musculoskeletal conditions such as asthma, allergies, infantile colic, ADHD, and high blood pressure. Marketing these services without robust clinical trial backing misleads vulnerable populations.
- Violations of Non-Maleficence
The principle of non-maleficence requires practitioners to avoid inflicting unnecessary harm or exposing patients to disproportionate risks.
2.1. Cervical Manipulation and Stroke Risk: One of the most severe ethical concerns involves high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) thrusts to the upper neck, the hallmark modality of chiropractors. This procedure has been linked to vertebral artery dissection (VAD), which can cause strokes and deaths. The ethical failure is most obvious when chiropractors perform these adjustments without warning the patient of this and other adverse outcomes.
2.2. Paediatric Chiropractic: Performing spinal adjustments on infants and toddlers (whose spines are primarily cartilage and still developing) poses distinct physical risks. Because infants cannot consent and the evidence of benefit for childhood ailments is practically non-existent, this behaviour violates non-maleficence.
- Secondary Harm: Delay of Standard Medical Care
Harm does not only come from physical injury; it also comes from omitting or delaying necessary medical treatment.
3.1. Anti-Vaccine and Anti-Medicine Sentiments: A large proportion of the chiropractic profession advise patients against conventional medicine, pharmaceuticals, and vaccination. When a chiropractor discourages a patient from seeking standard medical care, they are actively contributing to potentially life-threatening delays in care.
- Violations of Beneficence and Justice
Beneficence means acting in the patient’s best interest, while justice involves the fair and equitable distribution of healthcare resources.
4.1. The “Maintenance Care” Business Model: A common predatory practice of chiropractors involves convincing patients that they require lifelong, regular spinal adjustments to “stay aligned” and prevent disease, often locked into expensive upfront contracts. Recommending continuous, costly treatments that lack clinical evidence of long-term benefit shifts the focus from patient welfare (beneficence) to practitioner financial gain.
4.2.Over-Utilization of X-rays: Some chiropractic clinics mandate full-spine X-rays for every new patient, regardless of symptoms, and repeat them frequently to “prove” alignment changes. Exposing patients to unnecessary ionizing radiation for marketing or diagnostic justification is a direct violation of both non-maleficence and the ethical use of healthcare resources.
For a more detailed account of the ethical problems in so-called alternative medicine, please see our book on this very subject.
The IGeL-Monitor is a German information portal that reviews self-pay medical services offered in doctors’ offices. It summarizes the likely benefit and harm of these services in plain language so patients can make more informed decisions. It is run by the “Medizinischer Dienst Bund” and uses evidence-based assessments rather than advertising or provider opinion.
The IGeL‑Monitor has recently focussed on osteopathy for non‑specific low back pain and judged the evidence as “unclear” stating that the current evidence does not reliably show a benefit, nor does it demonstrate meaningful harm. The reassessment pooled evidence from ten randomised clinical trials including about 1,160 participants. While some trials suggested small improvements in pain or function, the overall certainty of these findings was low due to methodological weaknesses in the primary studies. The reviewers therefore concluded that there is no convincing, high‑quality proof that osteopathic manual therapy provides a clinically relevant advantage over sham or usual care.
A further concern highlighted in the assessment is publication bias: positive trials may be preferentially published. This phenomenon that exaggerates apparent benefits.
No clear pattern of harm from osteopathic treatment was identified. Adverse events were inconsistently and inadequately recorded in the trials. This fact not only limits the confidence about safety, but is also a clear breach of medical ethics.
The IGeL‑Monitor reiterates its previous (2018) position: with current data one cannot reliably endorse osteopathy as an effective out‑of‑pocket intervention for non‑specific low back pain, nor can one identify significant risk. Hence the label “unclear.” For patients considering osteopathy as a self‑paid service, the IGeL‑Monitor recommends being informed about the uncertain benefit and the weak evidence base when weighing potential costs against likely outcomes.
The new assessment is in agreement with much that I have been saying on this blog. I nevertheless would like to add one important point: back pain is the one condition for which the evidence is relatively sound. There are many other conditions for which osteopathy is being relentlessly promoted as an effective therapy with even less or no reliable evidence at all.
I must admit that, in recent months, I neglected my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME. As my regular readers will know, this is an assembly of extraordinary researchers – extraordinary in the sense that they all have been busy studying so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) without ever managing to publish a single negative result.
At present, the ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME includes the following 27 men and women:
- Miek Jong (homeopathy, Norway)
- Josef M Schmid (homeopathy, Germany)
- Meinhard Simon (homeopathy, Germany)
- Richard C. Niemtzow (acupuncture, US)
- Helmut Kiene (anthroposophical medicine, Germany)
- Helge Franke (osteopathy, Germany)
- Tery Oleson (acupressure , US)
- Jorge Vas (acupuncture, Spain)
- Wane Jonas (homeopathy, US)
- Harald Walach (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Andreas Michalsen ( various SCAMs, Germany)
- Jennifer Jacobs (homeopath, US)
- Jenise Pellow (homeopath, South Africa)
- Adrian White (acupuncturist, UK)
- Michael Frass (homeopath, Austria)
- Jens Behnke (research officer, Germany)
- John Weeks (editor of JCAM, US)
- Deepak Chopra (entrepreneur, US)
- Cheryl Hawk (chiropractor, US)
- David Peters (osteopathy, homeopathy, UK)
- Nicola Robinson (TCM, UK)
- Peter Fisher (homeopathy, UK)
- Simon Mills (herbal medicine, UK)
- Gustav Dobos (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Claudia Witt (homeopathy, Germany/Switzerland)
- George Lewith (acupuncture, UK)
- John Licciardone (osteopathy, US)
Today, an article by Stephanie Benz published in L’Express caught my attention. It mentions a man who might well qualify as a candidate for my illustre assembly. As it is in French, let me summarise it for you.
The article focusses on the bixarre actions of Professor Julien Nizard. He is the vice-dean of Nantes University’s medical school, who stands accused of abusing his academic standing to promote SCAM, while suppressing scientific critique. Serving as an institutional shield for pseudo-sciences, Nizard uses his leadership at the university and within the Collège Universitaire de Médecine Intégrative et Thérapies Complémentaires (CUMIC) to introduce SCAM into official medical training.
The article explicitly notes Nizard’s defense, instruction, or validation of several SCAM practices, including:
- Acupuncture
- Hypnosis / Hypnotherapy
- Osteopathy
- Socio-aesthetic care (often used as part of supportive cancer care)
- Auriculotherapy (ear acupuncture)
- Various other “soft medicines” and non-medicinal interventions (INMs) lacking robust, peer-reviewed clinical proof.
To shield his SCAM programs from internal dissent, Nizard has allegedly turned to unusual administrative and legal pressures against critical faculty members and advocates of evidence-based medicine, like the Collectif No Fakemed. His tactics are said to include:
- Legal Threats and Institutional Action: Nizard has reportedly threatened to drag critical colleagues before the National Order of Physicians (CNOM) or pursue defamation lawsuits to silence them.
- Professional Hostility: Internal whistleblowers and professors attempting to uphold strict evidence-based standards report facing a hostile work environment, administrative stonewalling, and explicit professional pressure meant to damage their academic standing if they publicly oppose his pseudo-scientific initiatives.
- Political Manipulation: He uses behind-the-scenes lobbying at the ministerial level to bypass traditional university peer-review processes, relying on political influence to institutionalize practices that fail to meet baseline clinical research standards.
The article motivated me to look up Julien Nizard in order to find out what papers he has published in the realm of SCAM. The result is impressive. I found 7 abstracts of his SCAM-related papers listed on Medline.
Recent guidelines for managing fibromyalgia highlight the importance of a graded-care approach, tailoring treatment to predominant symptoms, and appropriately integrating nonpharmacological treatments and complementary medicine (CM). Many fibromyalgia patients turn to nonpharmacological treatment and CM for various reasons, including concerns about medication side effects and persistent symptoms despite pharmacological treatment. In addition, these approaches are sometimes mistakenly, but often, perceived as natural and, therefore, widely accepted as well-tolerated with minimal risks. However, as with many patients using CM, fibromyalgia patients frequently engage in these practices without informing their physicians, often because of fear of a negative reaction. This can occur in contexts that lack adequate safeguards, such as treatment by noncertified practitioners, undocumented practices, excessive costs, or unsafe environments. In this narrative review, we first provide updated definitions of these practices, discuss their potential benefits and associated risks, and explore the challenges in their evaluation. We then summarize key findings from the literature before proposing a structured approach for discussing these practices with fibromyalgia patients. This includes assessing their prior experiences, expectations, and motivations for long-term adherence. We also offer guidance on selecting qualified practitioners and ensuring a sufficiently safe treatment environment. Finally, we highlight essential “red flags” that pain specialists and health care providers should discuss with patients, emphasizing the need for caution or even discontinuation of certain practices when these warning signs are present.
The majority of nurses have a favourable opinion of complementary therapies. This makes it easier to identify the therapies used by patients. Being trained in and practising a complementary therapy strengthens the nursing skills and helps to give it new meaning. Nurses must play an active part in the ongoing structuring of integrative medicine in France.
Neuropsychiatric disorders are one of the frequent complications of neurocognitive disease, and have an impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. Non-phamacologic interventions are recommended as first-line treatment. The Snoezelen method is a multisensory stimulation method based on the assumption that acting on sensoriality can improve neuropsychiatric symptoms and thus quality of life, but its level of evidence is controversial. To explore this, we performed a systematic literature review of randomized controlled articles focusing on the use of the Snoezelen method in patients with cognitive disorders. Eighteen studies were included. The clinical outcomes studied were multiple (behavior, mood, cognition, functional capacities and biomedical parameters). When the Snoezelen method was compared to the “standard activities” group, it appears to be effective on short-term behavior. This was more negligible when the method was compared to others non-pharmacological interventions. Although the Snoezelen method could be effective on mood, cognition, and functional abilities, its level of evidence remains low. Furthers mixed studies (quantitative and qualitative) would be an interesting approach to delve into this topic in the most holistic way by integrating the patients, the caregivers and the cost of the method.
Background: Low Back Pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, 90% of which is nonspecific. Manual therapy is one of the recommended treatment modalities. However, reported outcomes may be variable. This review aims to identify their scope in the context of the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), which is defined as « an agreed standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in specific areas of health or health care ».
Methods: A scoping review with risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of manual therapy for nonspecific LBP was conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PEDro, WebOfScience and ClinicalTrials.gov, from 2010 up to August 2024. Manual therapy was considered the use, alone or in combination, of manipulations (high velocity, low amplitude), mobilisations (low-grade velocity, small-to-large amplitude) or soft tissue relaxation (especially massage, trigger points, muscle contractions).
Results: Out of 3929 articles, 147 RCTs and 74 protocols were included. Two main outcomes emerged: pain intensity (assessed by numerical rating scale or visual analogue scale) and disability (mostly assessed by Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index). Range of motion is the most frequent clinical outcome assessed. Psychological factors such as fear-avoidance beliefs, kinesiophobia and catastrophising, and healthcare consumption, particularly medication, are also frequent. Most of the outcomes were patient-reported outcomes.
Conclusion: Consistent with a previous COS on nonspecific low back pain, manual therapy appears to address the same outcomes. Clinical trials in manual therapy should focus on using the existing COS by measuring pain intensity using a numerical rating scale, disability using the ODI 2.1a or the 24-item RMDQ, health-related quality of life using the SF-12 or the 10-item PROMIS. Additionally, due to the gap between clinical research and pain experience, trials should consider conducting subgroup analyses to identify effects on outcomes related to gender or age, paying particular attention to health inequalities by carrying out analyses based on socioeconomic status, as these factors are well known to significantly impact pain experience and access to care.
Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective technique to treat patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease. The surgical procedure of DBS implantation is generally performed under local anesthesia due to the need for intraoperative clinical testing. However, this procedure is long (5-7 h on average) and, therefore, the objective that the patient remains co-operative and tolerates the intervention well is a real challenge.
Objective: To evaluate the additional benefit of electroacupuncture (EA) performed intraoperatively to improve the comfort of parkinsonian patients during surgical DBS implantation.
Methods: This single-center randomized study compared two groups of patients. In the first group, DBS implantation was performed under local anesthesia alone, while the second group received EA in addition. The patients were evaluated preoperatively, during the different stages of the surgery, and 2 days after surgery, using the 9-item Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), including a total sum score and physical and emotional subscores.
Results: The data of nine patients were analyzed in each group. Although pain and tiredness increased in both groups after placement of the stereotactic frame, the ESAS item “lack of appetite”, as well as the ESAS total score and physical subscore increased after completion of the first burr hole until the end of the surgical procedure in the control group only. ESAS total score and physical subscore were significantly higher at the end of the intervention in the control group compared to the EA group. After the surgical intervention (D2), anxiety and ESAS emotional subscore were improved in both groups, but the feeling of wellbeing improved in the EA group only. Finally, one patient developed delirium during the intervention and none in the EA group.
Discussion: This study shows that intraoperative electroacupuncture significantly improves the tolerance of DBS surgery in parkinsonian patients. This easy-to-perform procedure could be fruitfully added in clinical practice.
Background: It is currently considered that around 30% of chronic pain patients are totally refractory to medical treatment. Among patients who remain responsive to medical treatment, it is estimated that between 20% and 50% are likely to discontinue treatment due to severe side effects. Given these therapeutic difficulties, a significant number of patients turn to complementary therapies.
Objective: The LineQuartz® is a medical device that combines 3 complementary therapies, namely, music therapy, light therapy, and chromotherapy. We propose to evaluate its effectiveness in chronic pain patients.
Methods: Between October 2021 and October 2022, 44 patients aged between 23 and 85 years (mean: 55.4 years) were included in a prospective study. All patients had background pain intensity greater than 4/10 on the Numerical Pain Scale (NS). Treatment consisted of 4 half-hour sessions, divided into one session per week for 3 weeks (21 days). Patients were assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD) the day before starting treatment (Day 0) and the day after the end of treatment (Day 22).
Results: Apart from the BPI item, “relationship with others,” all items improved significantly (p < 0.050). Background pain intensity (NS) and frequency of painful attacks improved very significantly (p < 0.001). The HAD anxiety subscore was also significantly improved (p < 0.001). Discussion. This open pilot study supports the idea that LineQuartz® has a place among complementary therapies dedicated to the treatment of chronic pain. However, these results need to be confirmed by a controlled study.
Context: In addition to curative care, supportive care is beneficial in managing the anxiety symptoms common in patients in sterile hematology unit. We hypothesize that personal massage can help the patient, particularly in this isolated setting where physical contact is extremely limited. The main objective of this study was to show that anxiety could be reduced after a touch-massage® performed by a nurse trained in this therapy.
Methods: A single-center, randomized, unblinded controlled study in the sterile hematology unit of a French university hospital, validated by an ethics committee. The patients, aged between 18 and 65 years old, and suffering from a serious and progressive hematological pathology, were hospitalized in sterile hematology unit for a minimum of three weeks, patients were randomized into either a group receiving 15-minute touch-massage® sessions or a control group receiving an equivalent amount of quiet time once a week for three weeks. In the treated group, anxiety was assessed before and after each touch-massage® session, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaire with subscale state (STAI-State). In the control group, anxiety was assessed before and after a 15-minute quiet period. For each patient, the difference in the STAI-State score before and after each session (or period) was calculated, the primary endpoint was based on the average of these three differences. Each patient completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Questionnaire before the first session and after the last session.
Results: Sixty-two patients were randomized. Touch-massage® significantly decreased patient anxiety: a mean decrease in STAI-State scale score of 10.6 [7.65-13.54] was obtained for the massage group (p ≤ 0.001) compared with the control group. The improvement in self-esteem score was not significant.
Conclusion: This study provides convincing evidence for integrating touch-massage® in the treatment of patients in sterile hematology unit.
_________________________
Are you as impressed as I am?
Not only has this vice-dean of a medical school shown how to properly defend SCAM by innovative means including legal threats, he has also found the time to publish 7 Medline-listed papers on various forms of SCAM! I am even more impressed that someone with so little valid SCAM research can become such an ardent “defender of the indefensible”. But what impresses me most is this: in all his publications, I cannot find a single negative result, nor a word of SCAM-related criticism.
This, by Jove, is a remarkable achievement!
I hope you all agree that it deserves inclusion into my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME.
Bienvenue Julien!
Breast cancer and its treatments affect patients’ physical, psychological, and emotional well-being. Practices such as Reiki are used to support symptom management, particularly during chemotherapy. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of Reiki practice on improving symptoms in breast cancer patients within the framework of Martha E. Rogers’ “Science of Unitary Human Beings.”
The research was conducted as a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, and DergiPark databases, with the search updated through May 2026 prior to the final analysis. Randomized controlled trials, experimental studies, and quasi-experimental studies investigating Reiki interventions in breast cancer patients were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias were independently assessed by two researchers using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Four studies meeting the inclusion criteria included a total of 339 participants. The included studies suggested that Reiki practice may reduce fatigue and improve overall comfort and well-being. Some studies also reported improvements in quality of life, comfort, mental well-being, and mood.
The authors concluded that Reiki appeared to be a safe and well-tolerated complementary intervention in the included studies. Reiki practice may contribute to symptom management, improve quality of life, and support psychological well-being in breast cancer patients. However, due to the limited number of studies, small sample sizes, and methodological differences, larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed.
This is a weird review, if there ever was one!
- It certainly did not follow the PRISMA guidelines.
- It evaluated the effects of Reiki practice on improving symptoms in breast cancer patients; much clearer can one not display a pro-Reiki bias!
- It included non-randomised trials.
- None of the included studies were of sufficiently good quality.
But the weirdest aspect must be the conclusion of the abstract: it aknowledges the fact that the primary studies were rubbish and nevertheless praises the multiple alleged benefits of Reiki. If the evidence is unconvincing due to many flaws of the primary data, the only adequate conclusion should read something like this:
Because of serious flaws of the included studies, the evidence that Reiki affects the symptoms of breast cancer patients fails to be positive.
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a refractory neuropathic pain condition with limited therapeutic options. Although electroacupuncture has demonstrated potential analgesic effects, high-quality evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials remains limited.
This multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial determined whether electroacupuncture reduces pain severity compared with sham electroacupuncture and evaluated its safety in patients with PHN. It took place at 7 tertiary hospitals in China and enrolled participants from October 2020 to July 2022, with the last follow-up in September 2022. Data analyses were performed from August to December 2025. Participants with PHN aged 45 to 75 years and moderate to severe pain (11-point Numeric Rating Scale [NRS-11] score ≥4) were recruited. Of 1072 patients screened, 624 were excluded. The remaining 448 participants were randomized to electroacupuncture (n = 225) or sham electroacupuncture (n = 223); 383 participants (85.49%) completed the trial. Patients received 20 sessions of electroacupuncture or sham electroacupuncture over 4 weeks, followed by a 4-week posttreatment follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the NRS-11 scores from baseline to week 4, with responders defined as participants achieving a 30% or more reduction in NRS-11 scores.
Of 448 participants, the mean (SD) age was 63.19 (9.26) years, 233 (52.01%) were male, and 215 were female (47.99%). At week 4, the electroacupuncture group had a greater decrease in the NRS-11 scores (−1.52) than the sham electroacupuncture group (−0.99) with an adjusted mean difference of −0.53 (95% CI, −0.61 to −0.43; P < .001), and the responder rate was significantly higher in the electroacupuncture group (46.68%) than in the sham electroacupuncture group (24.28%) (adjusted risk difference, 22.40%; 95% CI, 13.02%-31.79%; P < .001). These treatment benefits persisted through a 1-month follow-up; no clinically significant adverse events were observed.
The authors concluded that, among patients with PHN in this study, electroacupuncture provided a statistically significant reduction in pain severity, increased responder rates, and improved pain-related functional outcomes. These benefits suggest that electroacupuncture may be a useful nonpharmacological option for integrated management of PHN.
Here are a few points of concern and criticism:
- The authors state that the study was funded by the Evidence-Based Capacity Building Project for Traditional Chinese Medicine from National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by China Association of Chinese Medicine, Youth Talent Project of Jiangsu Province Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine Double-Hundred Talent Program. Yet, they insist they had no conflict of interest.
- Acupuncture studies from China are as good as never negative. As frequently noted on this blog, the vast majority of Chinese studies seem to rely on falsified data.
- The authors imply that their study was patient-blind; yet there is no way that this is true: 1) The verum was administered to elicit ‘de-qi’, while the sham was not. 2) The electrical current in the verum group induced mild muscle twitching, while the sham group had no such experience. This means the verum patients knew the were receiving verum and thus were expecting an effective therapy. By contrast, the control group would have comprehended that they were given a placebo and were disappointed. These effects inevitably contribute to the outcome. In fact, I would agruge that they suffice in bringing them about without any contribution of a specific acupuncture effect. At the very minimum, the authors should have discussed these issues fully and critically.
- The acupuncturists of this study were also not blind. It is possible – I would argue, even likely – that they influenced patients to report or experience more positive results. Again, I would suggest that such effects suffice to generate a false-positive outcome.
- Even if there was a true effect of the verum beyond placebo, the question is, was it caused by acupuncture or the electrical current? There is a sizable body of evidence suggestion that electrotherapy might be effective for PHN!
In conclusion, the assertion that “electroacupuncture provided a statistically significant reduction in pain severity, increased responder rates, and improved pain-related functional outcomes” is uncritical, promotional and unjustified. I am once again dismayed that a reputable journal publishes such overt rubbish.
Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) is a major cause of disability worldwide. Conventional pharmacological treatments offer limited benefits and carry potential risks, prompting interest in alternative approaches, including homeopathy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of a standardised homeopathic biotherapic (Lumbar Vertebra, LM2 potency) for CNSLBP.
A randomised, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with 120 participants diagnosed with CNSLBP. Participants received both the biotherapic and placebo in two treatment phases separated by a washout period. The primary outcome was pain intensity (numeric rating scale); secondary outcomes included functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index), adverse events and use of pain medications. Data were analysed using random effects generalised linear models.
Both the biotherapic and placebo interventions led to significant within-group reductions in pain and disability (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two interventions for either outcome (pain: p = 0.435; disability: p = 0.840). The magnitude of change in pain intensity did not reach the pre-defined minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and mean pain scores at the study endpoint remained above the inclusion threshold. Adverse events were mild and comparable across groups.
The authors concluded that no specific effect of the Lumbar Vertebra LM2 biotherapic was demonstrated. Improvements are likely due to non-specific effects such as the therapeutic environment, patient expectations and placebo response. Clinicians should consider the substantial role of non-specific responses in CNSLBP and avoid medications with unfavourable risk–benefit profiles.
One the one hand, the authors from the Department of Medicine, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Sao Paulo, the School Health Unit, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Sao Paulo, and the epartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil should be congratulated for publishing a squarely negative result in the journal ‘Homeopathy’ that is known for publishing even the most implausible positive findings.
On the other hand, one might criticise them: why on earth did they ever conceive the hypothesis that homeopathy in general or “Lumbar Vertebra LM2 biotherapic” in particular might be effective for CNSLBP (the study did not receive any funding or financial support, apart from the study medications donated by HN-Cristiano Pharmacy (Santana, São Paulo, Brazil), which had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or discussion of the results)? I have never met a homeopaths who would make such a claim, and one could easily argue that such a trial is an unethical waste of resources.
This study was conducted to determine the effect of Reiki performed on children with leukemia between the ages of 5-7 years on pain, vital signs, oxygen saturation, and quality of life. It was a double-blind, pre-test-post-test randomized controlled experimental study. The research sample consisted of 66 children with leukemia aged 5-7 years who were hospitalized in pediatric oncology wards of a university hospital between December 2020 and November 2021. The balanced block randomization method was used for randomization. The data were collected using Information Form, Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale (W-BPS), Vital Signs Follow-up Form, The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 3.0 Cancer Module. Reiki was performed to the Reiki group for 20-30 min once per day, for 3 consecutive days and pseudo-Reiki was applied to the pseudo-Reiki group by an independent nurse during the same application period.
There was no statistically significant difference in vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, body temperature) and SpO2 values among the groups (p > 0.05). However, both children’s and mothers’ evaluations on days 1, 2, and 3 after the intervention showed that pain scores in the Reiki group were significantly lower than in the pseudo-Reiki and control groups (p < 0.001), and quality of life was significantly higher (child:p < 0.001; mother:p < 0.01) compared to the pseudo-Reiki and control groups.
The authors concluded that Reiki did not affect the vital signs of the children but was effective in reducing pain and increasing the quality of life compared with the pseudo Reiki and control groups. It is recommended that Reiki therapy be used in addition to medical treatment to reduce pain and improve quality of life in children with leukemia aged 5-7 years.
The whole point of having a control group receiving pseudo-Reiki is to control for placebo effects. For this purpose, it is necessary to fool the patients well and make sure that they are unable to tell Reiki from pseudo-Reiki. I would guess – I have no aceess to the full paper – that this was not the case in this study. If I am correct, the positive outcome is likely to be due to expectation of a positive healing effect and unrelated to any specific effect of Reiki.
In any case, it is irresponsible nonsense to recommend Reiki – or any therapy – on the basis of just one positive study. For that one would need several independent confirmations with high quality studies that firmly establish a cause effect relationship. The current study does not fall into that category, and I am not aware of a single trial that does.
When a top journal like PNAS (Procedings of the Nationsl Academy of Science) publishes an article entitled “What’s the science behind acupuncture?“, I must take notice. Here is my take on the (sadly disappointing) effort:
My very short summary of the paper (I do encourange my readers to read it in full)
The article starts from the premise that acupuncture is proven to work, an assumption that – as we will see in a minute – is not based on sound evidence. It describes the evolution of acupuncture from a traditional practice rooted in ancient concepts like “qi” and “meridians” to a modern medical treatment increasingly validated by science. It argues that practitioners like Min Chen are today able to provide evidence-based explanations for their work. While early clinical trials were plagued by the “sham” acupuncture paradox, the text argues that more recent, rigorous studies and technological projects are bridging the gap between Eastern philosophy and evidence-based medicine, suggesting that acupuncture’s effects are physiological realities rather than mere placebo.
My concerns of the paper
The article attempts to bridge the gap between Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and conventional medicine suggesting that several anatomical discoveries “correspond” to ancient meridians. This, however, is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Finding a morphological structure (e.g. fascia) and claiming it represents the meridian system ignores that meridians were conceptualized as functional energetic conduits, not anatomical vessels. Citing an 80% overlap between acupoints and connective tissue planes lacks specificity. Given the ubiquity of connective tissue in the human frame, any randomized point on the body would likely “overlap” with a tissue plane, rendering the “meridian” map a possible exercise in pattern-seeking rather than anatomical discovery.
The paper acknowledges the “most puzzling” finding that sham acupuncture often produces results comparable to “true” acupuncture. This, it would seem to me, invalidates the foundational TCM theory of specific “acupoints” and “meridians” is invalidated. Yet, the article suggests that sham acupuncture is “not a true placebo” because it also triggers biological pathways. If needling anywhere produces an effect, acupuncture is merely a generalized, non-specific neuro-modulatory stimulus.
The article quotes Chen on “harmonizing organ functions” and “regulating qi” as well as researchers referring to “fibroblast activation” and “vagus nerve stimulation”. The author seems to consider both to be true; yet they seem mutually exclusive. Translating metaphysical concepts into physical phenomena does not “validate” the original theory but merely replaces it.
The article employs the opioid crisis to justify the rise of acupuncture. Yes, the need for non-pharmacological pain management is urgent, but clinical necessity does not equate to scientific validity. The text quotes the “lasting benefits” observed in some meta-analyses without discussing the often fatal flaws in these papers. Furthermore, it fails to cite the substantial body of evidence suggesting that acupuncture is not effective. Moreover, it hardly mentions the small effect sizes and hence limited clinical usefulness found in the positive studies.
The final section of the paper essentially rebrands acupuncture as “bioelectronic medicine”. If its mechanism of action is purely the electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve or the release of endogenous opioids, then the TCM concepts are all but superfluous. If a cheap and wearable TENS unit is more or less equivalent, the “meridian” and “qi” myths are obsolete.
In summary, the paper reads, I fear, only marginally better than a Chinese government promotional text – most disappointing for an article published in a journal of high standing. It attempts to preserve the cultural prestige of TCM while stripping it of its internal logic in order to make it compatible with science. For acupuncture to gain a true “scientific footing”, research must, in my view, move beyond finding “tantalizing” correlations. It should address fundamental problems, e.g.:
- As long as we have no convincing proof that acupuncture works beyond placebo, discussions about its mechanisms are futile.
- If qi, acupoints and meridians are illusions and irrelevant for the clinical outcome, then the science is not validating acupuncture but merely re-discovering a well-known non-specific form of peripheral nerve stimulation.
White phosphorus is a wax-like chemical substance that ignites spontaneously when exposed to oxygen. It burns at extremely high temperatures and continues to burn as long as it is exposed to air. Using it as an incendiary weapon specifically targeted at civilian populations is illegal – yet, this is exactly what Israel has recently been accused of doing.
International observers like Human Rights Watch and the UN have documented airburst WP munitions exploding directly over residential homes in towns like Yohmor, Lebanon, causing human injuries and fires in civilian cars and buildings. While the Israeli military maintains that these shells are used legally to create smokescreens, observers argue that deploying them in populated areas is inherently “indiscriminate” and illegal under international law, especially since non-incendiary alternatives exist.
WP is distinct from most other conventional weapons because it causes harm through three simultaneous channels: thermal (heat), chemical (corrosive), and systemic (poisoning):
- The most immediate harm is the thermal burn. White phosphorus ignites at around 30°C and burns at up to 800°C. Because WP is lipid-soluble, it melts through skin and fat layers and “eats” its way down until it hits bone. If a fragment of WP is embedded in a wound, it will stop burning once it is completely cut off from oxygen. If a surgeon then opens the wound to remove it, the phosphorus re-ignites upon contact with the air, potentially injuring medical staff.
- Even a small burn covering less than 10% of the body can be fatal because the body absorbs WP into the bloodstream. This causes a massive shift in electrolytes, specifically causing hypocalcemia. This can lead to fatal heart arrhythmias or cardiac arrest. In addition, WP is a potent toxin that causes “fatty degeneration” of the liver and renal failure. Victims may thus survive the initial burn only to die days later from internal organ failure.
- When WP burns, it produces a thick, white smoke of phosphorus pentoxide. Inhaling this smoke reacts with the moisture in the lungs to form phosphoric acid. This causes severe chemical burns to the throat and lungs, leading to pulmonary edema and eventually suffocation.
- WP particles can remain dormant in the soil. If a farmer plows the field and unearths a fragment months later, it can reignite and start a fire or cause injury.
In addition WP also destroys the planet. While the phosphorus pentoxide smoke dissipates, the elemental phosphorus in water or soil is toxic to aquatic life and birds. In waters with low oxygen, WP can persist for years.
Other than Israel, the following countries have recently used WP in these conflicts:
- Iraq (2004): During the Second Battle of Fallujah, U.S. forces used WP to “flush out” insurgents from hidden positions so they could be targeted with high explosives—a tactic known as “shake and bake.” After initial denials, the Pentagon confirmed its use as an incendiary weapon against combatants.
- Vietnam & Korea: The U.S. used WP extensively in both conflicts for smoke screens, marking targets, and as an anti-personnel weapon.
- Syria (2017): During the battle to retake Raqqa from ISIS, the U.S.-led coalition was accused by Human Rights Watch of using air-dropped WP, which raised concerns about the risk to civilians in the densely populated city.
- Ukraine (2022–2026): Russia has been repeatedly accused by Ukrainian officials and international observers of using WP or similar incendiary munitions (like thermite) in cities such as Mariupol, Bakhmut, and more recently in Donetsk (2026). Russia typically maintains that its munitions are for illumination or smoke, or denies their use entirely.
- Chechnya: Russian forces used WP during the First and Second Chechen Wars (1994–2000), particularly during the siege of Grozny.
- Syria: Working alongside the Syrian government, Russian forces were frequently accused of using incendiary weapons, including phosphorus, on rebel-held areas.
- Nagorno-Karabakh (2020): During the 44-day war, Armenia accused Azerbaijan of using white phosphorus to burn down forests where Armenian soldiers were allegedly sheltering. Azerbaijan denied this and countered with its own accusations that Armenia had used the substance in 2016 and 2020.
- Yemen (2016): The Saudi-led coalition was reported to have used U.S.-supplied white phosphorus in its campaign against Houthi rebels. While the coalition claimed it was for marking and smoke screens, images emerged suggesting it was being used near civilian areas.
