pharmacists
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is raising alarms about new federal legislation that would make it easier for homeopathy groups to market and sell their products. Opposing homeopathy is at the core of CFI’s mission, given that it is dangerous pseudoscience and misleads American patients and consumers to the tune of millions of dollars every year.
HR 7050 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on January 14, 2026, by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), co-sponsored by Reps. Jonathan Jackson (D-IL) and Mike Kennedy (R-UT). The bill seeks to ensure “continued consumer access” to homeopathic products by amending the existing Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
Any member of Congress who seeks to protect consumers from medical fraud should be fighting to remove homeopathic products from the marketplace, not ensure “access” to them. Homeopathy is grounded in pseudoscience from the late 1700s that claims the more dilute a medicine, the more potent it is. That is a demonstrably false claim. Homeopathic products typically contain no active ingredients that constitute medicine. They are no better than a placebo as a medical intervention.
The bill would prohibit federal consumer protection agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), from ensuring that homeopathic products meet objective standards of safety and efficacy. Instead, it codifies the so-called standards in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, effectively leaving it to the homeopathic industry to police itself. The Pharmacopoeia is shrouded in secrecy, and CFI has had to go to the length of suing the Department of Health and Human Services in an effort to access its contents.
Moreover, in 2016 the FTC expressly declared in a policy statement that homeopathic products can only be legally marketed if they communicate clearly to consumers that there is no scientific evidence the products work! It is this kind of consumer protection that the homeopathy industry hopes to defeat with this legislation.
Additionally, the bill exempts homeopathic drug products from doing the laboratory testing that would establish the potency of each active ingredient. Other drugs are held to these standards, but it’s clear that the homeopathic industry does not want it known that their ingredients have no discernible therapeutic value.
Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services – currently Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. – to create a Homeopathic Drug Product Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary regarding the regulation of homeopathy. The majority of the committee’s ten members would be representatives from homeopathic manufacturers, from the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention, and from other groups with obvious ties to homeopathy (as well as one member who is a naturopathic doctor). Again, the theme is insider and deferential regulation.
HR 7050 is currently before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. CFI’s Office of Public Policy will be aggressively lobbying against the bill. We urge every CFI supporter to contact their Representatives and Senators in Congress and to call on them to vote against HR 7050.
This case report details the death of a 59-year-old woman who succumbed to complications from lead poisoning (cerebral edema and encephalopathy) following the use of an herbal cream to treat hemorrhoids.
The patient with a past medical history of prediabetes was admitted to the emergency department after her husband found her experiencing seizure-like activity that morning. She had been in normal health the previous night, but suffered another seizure in the emergency department that lasted about three minutes and was subsequently started on Levetiracetam. During her most recent physical exam one week ago, her lab workup prompted a follow-up with
hematology due to anemia of unknown etiology. This time, her laboratory results indicated an elevated lactate level of 9.3 mmol/L, and her urine drug screen was negative. Additional labs showed elevations in aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and alkaline phosphatase (ALKP) while her complete blood count still showed signs of anemia.
During her hospital stay, the patient developed neurogenic shock and diabetes insipidus. On the fourth day, a serum lead level drawn on the second day returned, showing a level greater than 200 µg/dL Physicians considered various potential sources of her lead exposure, including environmental or occupational contact, accidental ingestion or inhalation of lead particles, unregulated imported cosmetics, or contaminated herbal supplements.
After asking about her use of herbal medications, suspicion arose around a hemorrhoid ointment that the patient had recently purchased from Vietnam through a Facebook advertisement. Consequently, chelation therapy with oral succimer and a continuous infusion of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
was immediately initiated.
Cao Bôi Trĩ Cây Thầu Dầu (Castor Oil Hemorrhoid Extract) was promoted for the treatment of hemorrhoids via intra-rectal application . Testing by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) revealed that the hemorrhoid ointment contained 4% lead (39,000 ppm), a highly lethal concentration. Even minimal lead exposure can be harmful and potentially lead to illness or death; thus, it is advised to avoid products likely to contain lead, especially imported items from other countries with inadequate lead testing standards.
As the patient’s condition continued to deteriorate, concerns for brain death arose. After being informed, the patient’s family consented to proceed with brain death testing. A second exam and a nuclear medicine (NM) brain perfusion scan were completed on the eighth day and it shows the absence of brain perfusion. Despite aggressive management, including seizure control, treatment of cerebral edema, and chelation for severe lead poisoning, the patient passed away on the eighth day due to acute neurological complications from severe lead toxicity complicated by cerebral edema.
As we have often discussed, so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) can often be contaminated with harmful substances including heavy metals such as lead, e.g.:
- Heavy metal poisoning as a result of using Ayurvedic remedies
- If you ask me, Chinese herbal medicines are best avoided
- Death by homeopathy
- Inadequate regulation of Kratom supplements put consumers at risk
- Another death by homeopathy
- Ayurvedic medicines to die for
- Lead and arsenic intoxications due to ‘natural health products’
- How safe are herbal medicines?
- Ayurvedic medicines: efficacy doubtful with considerable risks
- Contamination and adulteration of herbal remedies
- Another death caused by ‘traditional wisdom’
This case underscores the urgent need for stricter regulations and oversight in the herbal medicine industry to prevent such health hazards. Implementing stronger regulatory measures is essential to ensure that all medicinal and cosmetic products are free from harmful contaminants and to safeguard public health against the significant risks associated with SCAMs.
I am not in the habit of using my blog for telling personal anecdotes, but today I make an exception.
I just got both my flu and my COVID jabs. For this, I had made an appointment at my GP surgery, arrived in time and swiftly received the flu vaccination from a nurse. For the COVID jab, I was told to make an appointment at a pharmacy, because the GP surgery would not do this.
So, I made an appointment at one of the few pharmacies in Cambridge that offer this service. When I arrived, I was surprised how crammed the space was where customers had to wait their turn. It felt as though I had arrived in a third world country. The room was so small that I (and with me everyone else) could not help overhearing the OTC consultations that took place between the customers and the pharmacist.
In particular, there was a young man seeking help. He had had a vaccination [I did not catch which] and fainted a few hours later. He was worried and asked the pharmacist for advice. The pharmacist told him to consult his GP. The man explained that he had tried, but could not get an appointiment until 3 weeks. The pharmacist then gave him 2 medications for his problem together with instructions how to take them. The man thanked him, paid and left the pharmacy. A few minutes later I was called into the tiny consulting room, received my COVID immunisation, thanked the pharmacist and went home.
Here are the questions raised by this seemingly banal series of events:
- Why is it impossible for my GP practice to give me both flu and COVID jabs at the same time?
- Would it not be much more economical for the NHS to do this?
- Would it not have wased less of my time as well?
- Why was the worried man who had fainted told to wait 3 weeks for a GP appointment?
- Why are worried patients not seen more swiftly!
- Why did the pharmacist precribe him 2 medications? (I am not aware of any drug that would be effective in such a case.)
- Pharmacists are supposed to be available for patients with minor ailments; but does that not mean they have an obvious conflict of interest when they then sell drugs that are of questionable usefullness to desperate people?
It seems to me that, with a more thoughtful organisation, the NHS could run better and cheaper. It also occurred to me that one has to sympathise with people who are put off by this sort of thing and subsequently prefer to consult practitioners of so-called alternative medicine.
PS
I am pleased to report that none of the two vaccinations caused the slightest adverse effects.
RUDOLF STEINER died 100 years ago today – a good reason, I think, to remember the utter nonsense he postulated (not only) in the realm of healthcare. Here is a slightly abbreviated section from my recent book:
Rudolf Steiner was born on 25 February 1861 in Kraljević, Austrian-Hungarian empire. At the age of 9, Steiner allegedly had his first spiritual experience; he saw the spirit of his deceased aunt. Realizing Rudolf’s potentials, his father sent his son first to a ‘Realschule’ in Wiener Neustadt and then to the ‘Technische Hochschule’ (Technical University) in Vienna where he studied mathematics, physics, chemistry, botany, biology, literature, and philosophy. While Steiner was still a student, he was appointed as the natural science editor of a new edition of Goethe’s works.
In 1890, Steiner moved to Weimar, Germany, where he was employed at the Schiller-Goethe Archives. Concurrently, he started working for his doctoral degree, which he received in 1891 from the University of Rostock; the title of his dissertation, later published as a book, was ‘Wahrheit und Wissenschaft’ (Truth and Science).
In 1897, Steiner moved to Berlin, where he joined esoteric circles and studied Eastern and occult religions. In 1899, he married Anna Eunicke. Subsequently, Steiner met Marie von Sivers, an actress from the Baltic region and also a devotee of anthroposophy. They got married in 1914.
Steiner had by then joined the Theosophical Society and, in 1902, was made its General Secretary. Years of disagreement with key members of the organisation prompted him to leave the society in 1912. On 28 December of that year, Rudolf Steiner, along with a group of prominent German theosophists, founded the Anthroposophic Society.
Anthroposophy, a term borrowed from the 19th-century Swiss philosopher and physician Ignaz Troxler, is based on the notion that there is a spiritual world that is accessible only to the highest faculties of mental knowledge. Steiner rejected experimentation as a means of gaining knowledge; instead, he relied on imagination, inspiration and intuition. He claimed that his anthroposophy centered on “knowledge produced by the higher self in man.” He believed that humans once participated more fully in spiritual processes of the world through a dreamlike consciousness, but had since become restricted by their attachment to material things.
In 1913 at Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland, Steiner built the first ‘Goetheanum’, which he called a “school of spiritual science.” The building was destroyed by a fire in 1922 and subsequently replaced by the new ‘Goetheanum’ that still exists today. Steiner also worked on various other projects, including education (Waldorf schools) and biodynamic agriculture.
In the late 1910s, Steiner and his mistress, Ita Wegman, started working with medical doctors to create his anthroposophic medicine. In 1920, they founded the ‘Klinisch-Therapeutische Institut’ in Arlesheim, and on 21 March 1921, they organised the first of a series of courses for doctors in Dornach. This day is now considered to be the birth of anthroposophic medicine. In the same year, pharmacists and physicians gathered under Steiner’s guidance to create the pharmaceutical company, ‘Weleda’. At around the same time, Wegman founded the first anthroposophic medical clinic, the ‘Ita Wegman Clinic’ in Arlesheim.
Anthroposophic medicine cannot be adequately described through a single therapeutic modality. It has been aptly called a ‘pluriversum of theories and practices under the umbrella of an anthroposophic worldview’. The anthroposophic concept comprises a range of medications many (but not all) of which are plant-based, as well as art therapy, eurhythy (dance therapy), special dietary approaches, physiotherapy and other modalities. According to Steiner, humans have four ‘bodies’: The physical body, the ‘etheric’ body – which is based on formative forces, the ‘astral’ body – which reflects a person’s emotions and inner drives, and a conscious body – which is the domain of the ego and self.
For non-anthroposophist, these concepts are hardly comprehensible. They are based on associations between planets, metals and organs, from which therapeutic rules are derived. These affinities also form the basis of the many anthroposophical medicines, which are produced by liquefaction, aeration, solidification, combustion, potentiation and other processes. The history of the constituents of anthroposophic remedies is often considered to be more important than their material composition. According to Steiner and his substantial writings, “the spirit of the plant, which is drawn out of the tree by the parasitic plant act on the astral”. During the years before his death, Steiner, who had no medical background, often saw patients himself. He would then stare at them and divine both the diagnosis and the treatment; in other words, he acted as a clairvoyant lay-healer.
The Nazi movement had an ambivalent attitude to Steiner and to anthroposophic medicine. On the one hand, several leading Nazis such as Hess were clearly in favour of anthroposophic medicine. Steiner’s wife, Marie Steiner-von Sivers (1867 – 1948) who made significant contributions to anthroposophic medicine had publicly expressed sympathy for the Nazi regime since its beginnings. On the other hand, a political theorist of the Nazi movement, Dietrich Eckart, criticised Steiner in 1919 and (wrongly) suggested that he was a Jew. In 1921, Adolf Hitler accused Steiner of being a tool of the Jews, while other Nazis even called for a “war against Steiner”. In 1922, Steiner gave a lecture in Munich which was disrupted by Nazi thugs. Such hostilities led Steiner to leave his home in Berlin and move to Dornbach; he stated that, if the Nazis came to power in Germany, it would no longer be possible for him to live in Germany.
From 1923 on, Steiner showed signs of increasing frailness. He nonetheless continued to lecture widely. His last lecture was given in late September 1924. Steiner died at Dornach on 30 March 1925 in the presence of Ita Wegman.
I have to admit I don’t normally read the DALLAS MORNING NEWS -but perhaps I should! Here are a few excerpts from an article they just published:
Texas health experts are warning that vitamin A — found in food and in supplements such as cod liver oil — is not an alternative to measles vaccination. They’re urging Texans to vaccinate themselves and their children, as the West Texas measles outbreak continues to grow and after an unvaccinated child died from the illness.
Kennedy’s comments in the column — that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend vitamin A for people hospitalized with measles, and that studies have found vitamin A can help prevent measles deaths — are not inaccurate.
But they lack important context, said Dr. Peter Hotez, a vaccine expert at the Baylor College of Medicine. Hotez worries the missing context might mean people put their faith in vitamin A over vaccination — a decision that could cost lives. “The thing that I worry about is by [Kennedy] playing this up and others playing this up, it sends a false equivalency message, that somehow treating with vitamin A is equivalent to getting vaccinated, which is clearly not the case,” Hotez said…
“There’s zero evidence that it’s preventative,” said Dr. Christopher Dreiling, a pediatrician at Pediatric Associates of Dallas. Dreiling said he hasn’t had parents ask him about vitamin A for measles, but he wouldn’t be surprised if it started popping up after Kennedy’s comments. Dreiling’s main concern, he said, is that parents have correct information to make informed decisions…
____________________
Kennedy is, of course, not alone in pushing Vitamin A for measles. On this blog, we recently saw Dana Ullman (MPH, CCH) doing the same. On Feb 28, he wrote the following comment:
Thank YOU for verifying that the Texas hospital here seems to have killed these children. According to your article above, the head of this Texas hospital asserted, “Unfortunately, like so many viruses, there aren’t any specific treatments for measles.”
And yet, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, Vitamin A has clearly been shown: “Treatment with vitamin A reduces morbidity and mortality in measles, and all children with severe measles should be given vitamin A supplements, whether or not they are thought to have a nutritional deficiency.”
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199007193230304
And what might Kennedy and Ullman have in common (apart from being dangerous nut-cases and quackery-promoters)?
Simple: they both don’t understand science!
I had the rare pleasure to give an interview for the ‘Frankfurter Allgemeine’. As it was, of course, in German, I took the liberty to translate it for my non-German speaking readers:
You have researched so-called alternative medicine over several decades, including homeopathy. What is your conclusion?
We are talking about far more than 400 methods – to draw one conclusion about all of them
is completely impossible. Except perhaps for this one: if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Does this apply to homeopathy?
Highly diluted homeopathic remedies are popular because they have no side-effects. But there is also no effect. They are touted as a panacea. This is certainly not the case, on the contrary, they are
ineffective. And any therapy that is ineffective and promoted as a panacea is also dangerous.
How do you explain the fact that so many people swear by homeopathy?
There are several reasons for this. In Germany, homeopathy has an unbroken tradition, it was, for instance, promoted by the Nazis and later in the Federal Republic of Germany. It has a reputation for being gentle and effective. It might be gentle, but it is certainly not effective. It is also supported by lobby groups such as the manufacturers. And most people who use it don’t even understand what it actually is.
In any case, the placebo effect helps. What’s so bad about that??
Nothing at all, on the contrary: it is to be advocated. When we talk about placebo effects, we subsume many things under this umbrella that do not actually belong to it, such as the extensive, empathetic conversation that homeopaths often have with their patients. Besides, a common cold goes away whether you treat it or not. If you then use homeopathy, you can easily get the impression that it worked. Every good, empathetic doctor tries to maximize the placebo effect. To put it bluntly: you don’t need a placebo to generate a placebo effect. Patients also benefit from it when I give an effective remedy with empathy. In addition they benefit from the specific effect of my therapy, which should make up the lion’s share of the therapeutic response. If I withhold the most important thing I mistreat my patient.
But there are diseases for which there are no good remedies.
I often hear that argument. But there is practically always something we can do that at least
improves symptoms. Otherwise you should also say that instead of lying and recommending homeopathy – and thinking that, although there is nothing in it and it doesn’t work, but the patient, being an idiot, should take it nevertheless. It is unethical to use placebos as much as it is to use homeopathy.
Neurophysiologically, the placebo effect is becoming better and better understood.
The Italian neuroscientist Fabrizio Benedetti in particular has done very good work. But he also warns that this does not justify the use of homeopathy, for example.
Are there any studies on whether the placebo effect of homeopathy with its esoteric superstructure is greater than that giving just a piece of sugar?
There are analyses of what makes a particularly effective placebo. From this, we can learn that effective therapies in evidence-based medicine must be applied with empathy and sufficient time in order to maximize the ever-present placebo effect. So-called alternative medicine often does this quite well, and we can learn something from it. But the reason is that it often has nothing else. Homeopaths are a serious danger because they see homeopathy as a panacea. If someone has homeopathically treated their cold “successfully” for years and then gets cancer, they might think of turning to homeopathy for their cancer. It sounds crazy, but many homeopaths do offer cancer treatments on the internet, for instance. That sends shivers down my spine.
How should doctors and pharmacists react to the demand for homeopathic remedies?
Pharmacists are not primarily salespeople, they are a medical profession – they have to adhere to ethical guidelines. In this respect, evidence-based information of their clients/patients is very important.
Thomas Benkert, President of the German Federal Chamber of Pharmacists, has stated that he would not be able to stop giving advice if he always had to explain the lack of proof of efficacy.
He should perhaps read up on what his ethical duty to patients is.
What if doctors or pharmacists themselves believe in the effect?
Belief should not play a role, but evidence should.
Are you pleased with Lauterbach’s plan to no longer reimburse homeopathy?
I think it’s a shame that he justifies it by saying it’s ineffective. That is true. But the justification should be that it’s esoteric nonsense and therefore ineffective – and dangerous.
In the end, the Bundestag will decide.
I think Lauterbach has a good chance because things have started to move. Medical associations in Germany have spoken out against the additional designation of homeopathy, for example, and overall the wind has changed considerably.
What is it like in the UK, where you live?
The UK healthcare system, NHS, said goodbye to reimbursement of homeopathy about five years ago, even before France. The pharmacists’ association has distanced itself very clearly from homeopathy. However, most pharmacists still sell the remedies and many continue to support them.
You have also had disputes with the current head of state, King Charles. How did that come about?
A few years ago, he commissioned a paper claiming that so-called alternative medicine could save the British health service a lot of money. I protested against this – Charles accused me of leaking it to The Times before it was published. My university launched an investigation, which eventually found me innocent, but it led to the demise of my department. That caused me to retire two years early.
So Charles managed to close down the only research unit in the world that conducted critical and systematic research into so-called alternative medicine. Most researchers in this field only want to confirm their own prejudices and not disprove hypotheses. This is a serious misunderstanding of how science works. If someone reports only positive results for their favorite therapy in all conditions, something is wrong.
Some people say that homeopathy should not be researched because nothing positive can come out of it anyway.
There are certainly some SCAMs that are so nonsensical that they should not be researched, as is currently the case with homeopathy. I put it this way because I have researched homeopathy myself and, from my point of view, the situation was not so crystal clear 30 years ago.
Would you say that you have approached the matter with a sufficiently open mind?
No one can be completely unbiased. That’s why it’s important to do science properly, then you minimize bias as much as possible. When I took up my position at Exeter in 1993, I was perhaps somewhat biased towards homeopathy in a positive sense, because I had learned and used it myself, as well as other alternative medicine methods. The fact that the results then turned out to be negative in the vast majority of cases initially depressed me. But I have to live with that.
Every researcher prefers positive results, also because they are easier to publish. It was clear to me that, if I had succeeded in proving homeopathy right, I wouldn’t get one Nobel Prize, but two. Who wouldn’t want that?
(The interview was conducted by Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup.)
I just found this on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter):
We’re delighted to announce the launch of the #BeyondPills All Parliamentary Group in Westminster. Chaired by Danny Kruger MP and co-chaired by Lord Crisp, this new body aims to tackle #overreliance on pills, reducing the number of unnecessary and inappropriate prescriptions.
It turns out that I did not study the website of College of Quackery and Integrated Health as regualarly as I should have. Because there, the launch had been announced some time ago under the title ‘Beyond Pills All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) launches to stop over-prescribing‘:
Now, in December 2023, we have an exciting development to report: the launch of the Beyond Pills All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), in which the Beyond Pills Campaign joins forces with the former APPG for Prescribed Drug Dependence. We’re delighted to announce that the APPG’s former Chair, Danny Kruger MP, joins the new Beyond Pills APPG as Chair.
Danny Kruger said of the launch: ‘There is a natural synergy with our objectives and the APPG for Prescribed Drug Dependence is a great supporter of social prescribing, which we feel can make a valuable contribution to addressing this public and personal health crisis, both in terms of helping to prevent overprescribing and also to treating people who are suffering from the debilitating symptoms of dependence.’
The Beyond Pills Campaign now becomes a founder member of the Beyond Pills Alliance (BPA), alongside the Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry (CEP-UK). Setting up the BPA will, in the near future, give us the opportunity to invite other organisations with a similar goal of reducing overreliance on pills to join the Alliance.
The Beyond Pills APPG has the following Mission and Objectives:
MISSION: To move UK healthcare beyond an over-reliance on pills by combining social prescribing, lifestyle medicine, psychosocial interventions and safe deprescribing. As well as reducing unnecessary and inappropriate prescribing, this integrated approach will improve outcomes and reduce health inequalities.
Elsewhere, Dr. Michael Dixon, who seems to be in charge of the ‘beyond pills’ activities, explained: ‘The Beyond Pills All Party Parliamentary Group heralds a sea change in public perception and medical practice from “a pill for every ill” to recognising that there is so much that we can do for ourselves which will not only help us to heal but also stop us getting ill in the first place.’
Sea change?
Really?
This made me think – and eventually, I respond by writing this short ‘open letter’ to the group:
Dear ‘BEYOND PILLS All Parliamentary Group‘
please let me begin by stating that I am all in favour of reducing over-prescribing. Who isn’t? The clue is in the name ‘over– prescribing’! Yet, at the same time, I would like to alert you to the fact that your group’s name ‘beyond pills‘ is of questionable merit.
It implies that conventional medicine consits only or predominantly of prescribing pills. My own career as a clinician – long ago now – was in physical medicine and rehabilitation, a discipline that certainly does not rely on pills. Many other areas of healthcare also do not exclusively rely on pills; take surgery or psychosomatic medicine, for instance. As for the rest of the physicians, they will, no doubt, have learnt in medical school that over-prescribing is wrong, dangerous, and not evidence-based.
By putting ‘beyond pills’ on your banner, you either disclose your ignorance of the facts, or you deliberately undermine trust in conventional medicine. Some less benevolent than I might even get the impression that you employ the ‘strawman fallacy‘ in order to push a hidden agenda.
I hope these lines might motivate you to reconsider and alter the irresponsible name of your initiative – how about ‘evidence-based medicine’?
Sincerely
Edzard Ernst
PS
In case anyone wants to use my ‘open letter’ on other sites or publication, I herewith grant permission to reproduce it.
Mushrooms are somewhat neglected in medical research, I often feel. This systematic review focused on clinical studies testing the effectiveness of mushrooms in cancer care. A total of 39 met the authors’ inclusion criteria. The studies included 12 different mushroom preparations. Some of the findings were encouraging:
- A survival benefit was reported using Huaier granules (Trametes robiniophila Murr) in 2 hepatocellular carcinoma studies and 1 breast cancer study.
- A survival benefit was also found in 4 gastric cancer studies using polysaccharide-K (polysaccharide-Kureha; PSK) as an adjuvant therapy.
- Eleven studies reported a positive immunological response.
- Quality-of-life (QoL) improvement and/or reduced symptom burden was reported in 14 studies using various mushroom supplements.
- Most studies reported adverse effects of grade 2 or lower, mainly nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and muscle pain.
The authors caution that limitations included small sample size and not using randomized controlled trial design. Many of the reviewed studies were observational. Most showed favorable effects of mushroom supplements in reducing the toxicity of chemotherapy, improving QoL, favorable cytokine response, and possibly better clinical outcomes.
The authors concluded that the evidence is inconclusive to recommend the routine use of mushrooms for cancer patients. More trials are needed to explore mushroom use during and after cancer treatment.
The use of mushrooms for medicinal purposes has a long history in many cultures. Some mushrooms are known to be highly poisonous, some have hallucinogenic effects, and some are assumed to have pharmacological effects that have therapeutic potential. Some mushrooms possess pharmacologic properties such as anti-tumour, immunomodulating, antioxidant, cardiovascular, anti-hypercholesterolemic, anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-parasitic, anti-fungal, detoxification, hepatoprotective, and anti-diabetic effects.
Many modern medicines were derived from fungi. The best-known example is penicillin; others include several cancer drugs, statins and immunosuppressants. In Traditional Chinese Medicine, numerous herbal mixtures contain mushrooms; examples are reishi, maitake and shiitake which are all assumed to have anti-cancer properties.
As the review authors point out, there is a paucity of clinical trials testing the effectiveness of mushrooms, and the existing studies tend to be of poor quality. At present, most of our knowledge comes from traditional use or test-tube studies. The adverse effects depend on the specific mushroom in question and, can in some instances, be serious.
Considering the potential and the complexity of mycomedicine, I find it surprising to not see much more research into this subject.
Many community pharmacies in Switzerland provide so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) approaches in addition to providing biomedical services, and a few pharmacies specialise in SCAM. A common perception is that SCAM providers are sceptical towards, or opposed to, vaccination.
The key objectives of this study were to examine the potential roles of biomedically oriented and SCAM-specialised pharmacists regarding vaccine counselling and to better understand the association between vaccine hesitancy and SCAM. The researchers thus conducted semistructured, qualitative interviews. Transcripts were coded and analysed using thematic analysis. Interview questions were related to:
- type of pharmaceutical care practised,
- views on SCAM and biomedicine,
- perspectives on vaccination,
- descriptions of vaccination consultations in community pharmacies,
- and views on vaccination rates.
Qualitative interviews in three language regions of Switzerland (German, French and Italian). A total of 18 pharmacists (N=11 biomedically oriented, N=7 SCAM specialised) were invited.
Pharmacist participants expressed generally positive attitudes towards vaccination. Biomedically oriented pharmacists mainly advised customers to follow official vaccination recommendations but rarely counselled vaccine-hesitant customers. SCAM-specialised pharmacists were not as enthusiastic advocates of the Swiss vaccination recommendations as the biomedically oriented pharmacists. Rather, they considered that each customer should receive individualised, nuanced vaccination advice so that customers can reach their own decisions. SCAM-specialised pharmacists described how mothers in particular preferred getting a second opinion when they felt insufficiently advised by biomedically oriented paediatricians.
The authors concluded that vaccination counselling in community pharmacies represents an additional option to customers who have unmet vaccination consultation needs and who seek reassurance from healthcare professionals (HCPs) other than physicians. By providing individualised vaccination counselling to vaccine-hesitant customers, SCAM-specialised pharmacists are likely meeting specific needs of vaccine-hesitant customers. As such, research and implementation efforts should more systematically involve pharmacists as important actors in vaccination provision. SCAM-specialised pharmacists particularly should not be neglected as they are important HCPs who counsel vaccine-hesitant customers.
I must say that I find these conclusions odd, perhaps even wrong. Here are my reasons:
- Pharmacists are well-trained healthcare professionals.
- As such, they have ethical obligations towards their customers.
- These obligations include behaving in a way that is optimal for the health of their customers and follows the rules of evidence-based practice.
- This includes explaining to vaccine-hesitant customers why the recommended vaccinations make sense and advising them to follow the official vaccination guidelines.
- SCAM-specialised pharmacist should ask themselves whether offering SCAM is in line with their ethical obligation to provide optimal care and advice to their customers.
I fear that this paper suggests that SCAM-specialised pharmacists might be a danger to the health of their customers. If that is confirmed, they should consider re-training, in my view.
It has been reported, at the German Medical Congress (DÄT) a year ago, that it was decided to delete the additional title of homeopathy from the model further training regulations of the German Medical Association. And Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) tweeted applause: “Homeopathy has no place in modern medicine.”
Now the ‘ Bundesverband der Pharmaziestudierenden in Deutschland’ (BPhD), the German Pharmacists Organization, even goes a few steps further. The position paper distinguishes between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and unproven therapeutic methods. According to the BPhD, these include homeopathy, but also anthroposophy, traditional Chinese medicine, and traditional medicines.
Among other things, the BPhD is disturbed by the way homeopathy presents itself as an alternative, because an alternative means “a choice between two equally suitable possibilities” to achieve a goal, and this is not the case. Compared to evidence-based medicine (EBM), homeopathy is a “constructed, illusory concept” and “the principles of homeopathic teachings and principles” are to be rejected as “unscientific”. According to the BPhD, a designation as “alternative” for advertising purposes should no longer be allowed.
They would also like to see a demarcation from naturopathy; the clear distinction between homeopathy and phytopharmacy has been lacking up to now. The advertising attribute “natural” should therefore also be banned in order to prevent equalization in advertising, the position paper states.
Like doctors, pharmacy students point to the lack of proof of efficacy beyond the placebo effect. According to the BPhD, the dogma WER HEILT HAT RECHT, “he who heals is right” would “disregard all processes that work towards healing and glorify the result”. The “gold standard” of EBM – randomized, double-blind studies with placebo control – should in future also have to be fulfilled by homeopathic medicines, experience reports are not sufficient, it continues.
Homeopathic medicines are only registered as medicinal products without indication, which requires neither proof of efficacy nor clinical studies. The BPhD, therefore, demands that a warning be placed on the preparations that they have “no proven efficacy beyond the placebo effect”. Up to now, without this warning, patients have been “deceived about the efficacy”, and there is an “urgent need for detailed public information and counseling on homeopathy since its unjustified reputation poses a danger of not seeking treatment”. The BPhD also demands that the status of homeopathic medicines is withdrawn and that the pharmacy obligation for the preparations is abolished…
“In the health professions, no trivialization of unproven therapeutic procedures should be tolerated, as inadequate counseling or ignorance poses a danger to patients,” the BPhD said.
_________________________
When I first read this article – I translated and shortened it for those who cannot read German- I was truly dazzled. These are the suggestions that I have been making for around 20 years now, not specifically for Germany but for pharmacists in general. For many years, the Germans seemed the least likely to agree with me. But now they seem to be ahead of everyone else in Europe!
How come?
I suspect and hope that our recent initiative might have something to do with it.
Let’s hope that the pharmacists of other countries follow the German example.
