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

politics

Three days ago, I reported a new study of homeopathy. At the time, I had not seen the full paper. Now, thanks to a kind reader sending it to me, I can report more details.

To recap:

In this double-blind, cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled, four parallel arms, community-based, clinical trial, a 20,000-person sample of the population residing in Ward Number 57 of the Tangra area, Kolkata, was randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio of clusters to receive one of three homeopathic medicines:

  • Bryonia alba 30cH,
  • Gelsemium sempervirens 30cH,
  • Phosphorus 30cH,
  • or an identical-looking placebo.

The treatment period lasted for 3 (children) or 6 (adults) days. All the participants, who were aged 5 to 75 years, received ascorbic acid (vitamin C) tablets of 500 mg, once per day for 6 days. In addition, instructions on a healthy diet and general hygienic measures, including handwashing, social distancing, and proper use of facemasks and gloves, were given to all the participants.

No new confirmed COVID-19 cases were diagnosed in the target population during the follow-up timeframe of 1 month-December 20, 2020 to January 19, 2021-thus making the trial inconclusive.

The Phosphorus group had the least exposure to COVID-19 compared with the other groups. In comparison with placebo, the occurrence of unconfirmed COVID-19 cases was significantly less in the Phosphorus group (week 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.16; week 2: OR, 0.004; 95% CI, 0.0002 to 0.06; week 3: OR, 0.007; 95% CI, 0.0004 to 0.11; week 4: OR, 0.009; 95% CI, 0.0006 to 0.14), but not in the Bryonia or Gelsemium groups.

The authors concluded that the trial was inconclusive. The possible effect exerted by Phosphorus necessitates further investigation.

When I first blogged about this, I commented with this question: If you conduct a COVID prevention trial, would you not make sure that rigorous testing for COVID of all participants is implemented? Having seen the full paper, The question remains unanswered. Here is all that the authors write about the outcome measures:

(a) Primary outcome—Occurrence of newly diagnosed (confirmed by detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swab by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or rapid antigen test) COVID-19 infections as per Government of India records.

(b) Secondary outcome—Occurrence of unconfirmed COVID19 cases as assessed clinically during home visits. It was defined as abrupt onset (within the last 10 days) of fever (100.4°F or 38°C body temperature) with two or more of the following: loss of taste or smell, dry cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, headache, malaise, fatigue, myalgia, limb or joint pain, chest pain or pressure, conjunctivitis, diarrhea, nausea or vomiting, skin rashes, discoloration of fingers or toes.

The timeline was up to 30 days after completing the recommended dosage or once the person reported COVID-19 positive, whichever was earlier. Data were collected weekly by teams of homeopaths from home visits and/or via telephone, whenever required.

I am not entirely sure what this means but I think “as per Government of India records” indicates that they did not bother to systematically measure the primary endpoint of their study. Instead, they relied on the data from occasional unsystematic testing. My suspicion is further confirmed by the authors’ statement in their discussion section: “a manual search of the Government records during the trial phase could not identify a single confirmed COVID-19 positive case belonging to the study population … Enhanced numbers of testing could have changed the outcome of the trial“.

If my suspicion is true, the study is a joke – and not a good one at that. It would mean that considerable funds and efforts have been wasted. It would also mean that the conclusion drawn by the authors “the trial was inconclusive” is inaccurate. It was not inconclusive but it was fatally flawed from its outset.

Yes, today is WORLD CANCER DAY. A good time to remind us that SCAM providers are often a serious risk to cancer patients. Here is a very recent case in point:

It has been reported that a naturopath from Laval in Quebec who describes herself as a “cancer specialist” notably by offering coffee enemas, has been found guilty of the illegal practice of medicine. The Court of Quebec ruled that Annie Juneau, owner of the Vitacru Group, led people to believe that she had “medical knowledge and [that she was] was able to diagnose a health deficiency”. The fine for the offense can vary between $2,500 and $62,000 and which remains to be determined.

The College of Physicians of Quebec (CMQ) conducted an investigation where an agent claiming to be looking for information on colon therapy under an assumed name consulted the therapist. The naturopath charged a little over $300 for the visit and the purchase of prescribed natural products. During the consultation, the naturopath, Annie Juneau, claimed that “we are brainwashed by the medical community”. She introduced herself as a “cancer specialist” and explained that she could even treat patients suffering from advanced stage 4 cancer.

The website of the naturopath praised the merits of the coffee enema, a practice believed to date back to ancient Egypt, stating that “cancer patients deprived of its benefits are unable to detoxify at the speed that optimal healing requires.” ON the Internet and in person, Annie Juneau illegally led a reasonable person to believe that she could perform acts reserved for doctors, the court ruled. In her defense, the naturopath argued that her website contained disclaimers stating that she does not offer medical advice and that she clearly identifies herself as a naturopath. However, the court ruled that such disclaimers are not sufficient protection of the public.

___________________________

This case is the latest in a long row of naturopaths (and other SCAM practitioners) risking the lives of cancer patients. Here are a few recent ones that we have discussed on this blog:

The ‘Society of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy’  (Gesellschaft der Mediziner und Wissenschaftler für Gesundheit, Freiheit und Demokratie e.V. MWGFD) recently held a press coference where they presented its 10-point plan for a Corona phase-out concept. Here are their 10 demands (my translation):

  1. Immediate cessation of COVID vaccinations and in particular compulsory COVID vaccination.
  2. End all non-evidence-based non-pharmaceutical measures (NPI’s), such as lockdowns, school closures, mandatory masks in public spaces, isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, stand-off rules, as well as RT-PCR and rapid antigen testing of people without symptoms of disease, and immediately open sports venues, restaurants, churches and cultural institutions to all without access conditions
  3. Pandemic management must be sensibly controlled on the basis of science and evidence, including correct testing of the genuinely ill and correct recording of the epidemic situation. Since this has been neglected for two years, we demand the resignation of the previous advisory experts.
  4. Drawing up easily applicable concepts for the prevention and early treatment of COVID-19 and also for the inpatient and, if necessary, intensive medical treatment of severe courses.
  5. The dominance of one single logic, namely the virological logic, must be ended. Other aspects, such as economic, social, psychological, educational and holistic medical considerations must be included.
  6. Reassuring the population about sufficient medical care for all
  7. The media should provide wide-ranging comprehensive information, according to the ethical guidelines for journalists formulated in the Press Code, without creating fear and panic.
  8. Provide programmes to treat the physical and psychological trauma caused by the operations, especially for children and adolescents
  9. Ending the care crisis through appropriate measures
  10. Separation of powers, justice and freedom

Who would put their name to such complete idiocy?

You may well ask!

The members of the MWGFD are:

  • Prof. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi, Facharzt für Mikrobiologie und Infektionsepidemiologie, ehem. Direktor des Instituts für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Hygiene der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
  • Dr. med. Thomas Binder, Kardiologe, Vorstand Aletheia – Medizin und Wissenschaft für Verhältnismässigkeit, Wettingen, Schweiz
  • Prof. Dr. med. Arne Burkhardt, Facharzt für Pathologie, Reutlingen
  • Prof. Dr.-Ing. Aris Christidis, ehem. Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, Giessen Fachbereich Mathematik, Naturwissenschaften und Informatik
  • Andreas Diemer, Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin und Naturheilverfahren, Diplom- Physiker, Musiker, Leiter der Akademie Lebenskunst und Gesundheit, Gernsbach
  • Dr. med. univ. Dr. phil. Christian Fiala, Facharzt für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin, Tropenmedizin, Wien
  • Dr. med. Heinrich Fiechtner, Hämatologe und Internistischer Onkologe, Stuttgart
  • Daniela Folkinger, Psychologische Beraterin, Lehrerin, Thurmansbang
  • Dr. med. Margareta Griesz-Brisson, Neurologin, London und Müllheim, BW
  • Prof. Dr. med. Dr. phil. Martin Haditsch, Facharzt für Mikrobiologie, Virologie und Infektionsepidemiologie, Hannover
  • Dr. Dr. Renate Holzeisen, Rechtsanwältin, Bozen
  • Prof. Dr. rer. hum. biol. Ulrike Kämmerer, Humanbiologin, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg
  • Prof. Dr. Christian Kreiß, Volkswirtschaftler, Hochschule Aalen
  • Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner, Pädagogische Psychologie, Universität Regensburg
  • Prof. Dr. med. Walter Lang, Pathologe, Hannover
  • Werner Möller, Intensivpfleger und Atmungstherapeut, Stuttgart, Gründer der Initiative „Pflege für Aufklärung“
  • Prof. Dr. Werner Müller, Rechnungswesen, Controlling, Steuern, Fachbereich Wirtschaft der Hochschule Mainz
  • Cornelia Reichl, Heilpraktikerin, Passau
  • Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Karina Reiß, Mikrobiologie, Quincke-Forschungszentrum der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
  • Dr. med. Konstantina Rösch, Allgemeinärztin, Graz
  • Prof. Dr. phil. Franz Ruppert, Psychotraumatologie, psychologische Psychotherapie, Psychologie, Katholische Stiftungshochschule München
  • Heiko Schöning, Arzt, Hamburg
  • Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Dr. rer. nat. M. Sc. Christian Schubert, Klinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck.
  • Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab, Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Verfahrens- und Unternehmensrecht, Universität Bielefeld
  • Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Sönnichsen, Abteilung für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin, Medizinische Universität Wien, bis Januar 2021 Vorsitzender des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin,
  • Priv. Doz. Dr. med. Josef Thoma, HNO-Arzt, Berlin.
  • Prof. Dr. Hans-Werner Vohr, Immunologie und Immuntoxikologie, Universität Düsseldorf.
  • Prof. Dr. Dr. Daniel von Wachter, Professor für Philosophie an der Internationalen Akademie für Philosophie im Fürstentum Liechtenstein
  • Prof. Dr. Harald Walach, klinischer Psychologe, Gesundheits-wissenschaftler, Leiter des Change Health Science Instituts, Berlin
  • Dr. med. Ronald Weikl, Facharzt für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Praktischer Arzt, Naturheilverfahren, Passau
  • Ernst Wolff, Autor, Finanzexperte und freier Journalist, Berlin

As we see, the ‘Society of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy’ does not just contain physicians and scientists but also – contrary to its name – simple non-academic loons. And, of course, an important member – the main reason for today blogging about it – it includes SCAM practitioners and – most importantly – Prof Harald Walach who has featured so regularly on this blog.

There has been much discussion recently about the best way to persuade anti-vaxxers to change their minds. As they seem completely resistant to the scientific consensus, this has so far not been an easy task. Many experts tell us that we foremost must not ridicule them. I think the ’10 demands’ show that this is also not necessary because they are so very efficient in doing that themselves.

My second entry into this competition is so special that I will show you its complete, unadulterated abstract. Here it is:

Objective

To compare the safety differences between Chinese medicine (CM) and Western medicine (WM) based on Chinese Spontaneous Reporting Database (CSRD).

Methods

Reports of adverse events (AEs) caused by CM and WM in the CSRD between 2010 and 2011 were selected. The following assessment indicators were constructed: the proportion of serious AEs (PSE), the average number of AEs (ANA), and the coverage rate of AEs (CRA). Further comparisons were also conducted, including the drugs with the most reported serious AEs, the AEs with the biggest report number, and the 5 serious AEs of interest (including death, anaphylactic shock, coma, dyspnea and abnormal liver function).

Results

The PSE, ANA and CRA of WM were 1.09, 8.23 and 2.35 times higher than those of CM, respectively. The top 10 drugs with the most serious AEs were mainly injections for CM and antibiotics for WM. The AEs with the most reports were rash, pruritus, nausea, dizziness and vomiting for both CM and WM. The proportions of CM and WM in anaphylactic shock and coma were similar. For abnormal liver function and death, the proportions of WM were 5.47 and 3.00 times higher than those of CM, respectively.

Conclusion

Based on CSRD, CM was safer than WM at the average level from the perspective of adverse drug reactions.

__________________

Perhaps there will be readers who do not quite understand why I find this paper laughable. Let me try to answer their question by suggesting a few other research subjects of similar farcicality.

  • A comparison of the safety of vitamins and chemotherapy.
  • A study of the relative safety of homeopathic remedies and antibiotics.
  • An investigation into the risks of sky diving in comparison with pullover knitting.
  • A study of the pain caused by an acupuncture needle compared to molar extraction.

In case my point is still not clear: comparing the safety of one intervention to one that is fundamentally different in terms of its nature and efficacy does simply make no sense. If one wanted to conduct such an investigation, it would only be meaningful, if one would consider the risk-benefit balance of both treatments.

The fact that this is not done here discloses the above paper as an embarrassing attempt at promoting Traditional Chinese Medicine.

 

PS

In case you wonder about the affiliations of the authors and their support:

  1. School of Management, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing, 210003, China
    Jian-xiang Wei
  2. School of Internet of Things, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing, 210003, China
    Zhi-qiang Lu, Guan-zhong Feng & Yun-xia Zhu

The review was supported by the Major Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Jiangsu Universities and the Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province, China.

January 27 is ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’, the day to remember the victims of the Third Reich. So, please allow me to reproduce today a (slightly altered and shortened) paper that I published back in 1996 on the role of the German medical profession in the killing of millions:

 

On January 27, 1945, the concentration camp in Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army. By May of the same year about 20 more such camps were discovered. Even today, it is hard to understand how so many terrible atrocities could have happened in a cultured country, and, more specifically, under the eyes of a medical profession that belonged to the world’s finest. Here I will try to explain how many of the worst infamies happened with the active help of Germany’s medical profession.

The pseudoscience of “race hygiene” had strong roots. In the second half of the 19th century, “Social Darwinism” had become increasingly popular throughout Europe. This theory assumed that, just as animal species fight for the survival of the fittest, whole nations struggle in a similar fashion. In this process of natural selection, the fittest nation would be the one that is genetically more pure than its neighbors.

Social Darwinism originated from France (Duke Gobinau), England (Francis Galton), and Germany alike. Its German proponents, however, were to expand it significantly: Alfred Ploetz coined the term “race hygiene” (Rassenhygiene) , Ernst Haeckel first considered selection by killing “weaklings,“’ and the physician Fritz Lenz finally formulated his theory of race inequality. Lenz’s works were read by Hitler during his prison sentence in Landsberg (1924 to 1925). They had a great influence on his race politics of the years to come.’ The ingredient of antisemitism had continually been added to “Social Darwinism” and the diabolic result turned out to be race hygiene.

As the word implies, it was essentially a medical issue. Throughout his credo Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to the Jewish race as a bacillus, a parasite, a disease. The propaganda of the Third Reich adopted these medical analogies. The “biological body of the German people” (Volkskoerper) was threatened. The healer was Hitler, who promised to eradicate this assault to the nation’s health once and for all. The Jewish question had been rendered a medical problem, the therapy of which was to be realized in places like Auschwitz and Dachau.

The medical profession promoted the belief that to cure individuals was one thing, but to heal the nation was incomparably more important. Owing to the popularity of Social Darwinism, a long history of antisemitism, and a powerful Nazi propaganda, the majority of the medical profession adopted the ideas of race hygiene. These were subsequently further perverted with applied racism.

Race hygiene had been initially developed by and was later entrusted to the German medical profession. There was shamefully little resistance from organized medicine, and many have wondered why. One answer is that critical peers who could have constituted opposition within the profession had been quickly eliminated. At the Medical Faculty of Vienna, for instance, some 80% of the faculty were dismissed within weeks of the German take-over. The most frequent reason for the dismissal of doctors at all levels was being of Jewish origin. Vacant posts were filled with new staff known not for their medical expertise but for political trustworthiness. Opposition from peers was thus minimal.

Forced sterilization was introduced in order to secure the freedom of the German nation from the threat of contamination by inferior (Jewish) blood. It was legalized through the “law for the prevention of genetically diseased offspring” (Gesetz zur Verhinderung erbkranken Nachwuchs) as early as July 1933, only 5 months after the Nazis came to power. The swift move was possible because of preparatory work performed during the Weimar Republic, much of which was contributed by the medical profession. The law provided that handicapped individuals were to be identified, examined by a jury of experts who had to write a report, and subsequently sterilized. For this purpose, some 200 Genetic Health Courts were instituted. These were empowered to order involuntary sterilization. An estimated 400,000 individuals became victims of these courts.

At this stage, physicians had assumed an executive position within the Nazi state as “delegated judges” and “guardians over the law.“’ When these medical experts’ reports were evaluated after the war, the overwhelming majority were found to be of unacceptable quality and almost all had recommended sterilization. Yet in the minds of leading proponents of race hygiene, the law did not go far enough but created human “ballast” and an economic burden that had to be eliminated by other means. Therefore, the concept of euthanasia was transformed from voluntary assisted death to involuntary, medically supervised killing.

The Nazi euthanasia program started in various specialized medicine departments in 1939. It was a delicate issue even by Nazi standards. Therefore, an attempt was made to keep it a secret. In theory, the program was aimed at eradicating children suffering from “idiocy, Down’s syndrome, hydrocephalus and other abnormalities.” In practice, however, it was sufficient for physicians to fill in the diagnosis “Jew” to effectively issue a death sentence.”

At the end of 1939, the program was extended to adults “unworthy of living.” It is estimated that more than 70,000 predominantly psychiatric patients fell victim to the program. Psychiatrists became concerned about whether there would be enough patients left to keep their specialty alive.” “Action T4” was the Berlin headquarters of the euthanasia program. It was run by approximately 50 volunteer physicians.

Questionnaires were sent to psychiatric and other hospitals urging the physicians in charge to name candidates for euthanasia. In some cases, the inducement was a financial reward. The victims were then transported to specialized centers where they were gassed or poisoned. Action T4 was therefore responsible for supervised murder. Its true significance, however, lies even beyond this horror.

Hitler himself formally discontinued the program on August 24, 1941, following increasing opposition from both the general population and the clergy. But action T4 turned out to be nothing less than a “pilot project” for the extinction of millions in the concentration camps. The T4 units had thus developed the technology for killing on an “industrial scale.” It was only with this technical know-how that the total extinction of all Jews of the expanding Reich could be anticipated. Most importantly, however, this truly monstrous task required medical know-how and reliability. Almost without exception, those physicians who had worked for T4 went on to take charge of what the Nazis called the Final Solution.

While action T4 had killed thousands, its offspring would eliminate millions under the trained guidance of doctors. The role the medical profession played in the atrocities of the Third Reich was therefore critical and essential. German physicians had been involved at all levels and stages. They had developed and accepted the pseudo-science of race hygiene. They were instrumental in developing it further into applied racism. They had evolved the know-how of mass extinction. Finally, they also performed outrageously cruel and criminal experiments under the guise of scientific inquiry.

The aim of generating pure Aryans had taken precedence over the most fundamental ethical issues in medicine. German doctors had betrayed all the ideals medicine had previously embraced and had become involved in criminal activities to an extent and degree that is unprecedented in the entire history of medicine.

Ironically German science suffered the most: 16 of the Jewish refugees were later awarded Nobel prizes. Many of the brightest Jewish figures, formerly involved in German medicine, made invaluable contributions to the healthcare of the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries.

The memory of what happened during this period should fortify us against similar, future violations. Forced sterilization, and even ethnic cleansing, did not disappear from the world when 7 of the accused Germans were sentenced to death in the Nuremberg Doctor’s Tribunal. Such violations of humanity are a tragic reality even today. Understanding the greatest blot on the record of medicine could and should be a preventive measure. More importantly, perhaps, this story needs to be told and retold to honor those who became its victims.

(References can be found in the original paper)

 

 

PS

Personally, I do not need a ‘memorial day’ for remembering. I believe we must never forget.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the son of assassinated Senator Robert. F. Kennedy, and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. He is famous – or rather infamous – for being outspoken in his opposition to vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine. Here is the relevant section from Wikipedia:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Kennedy promoted multiple conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 including false claims both Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine, and suggesting that Bill Gates would cut off access to money of people who do not get vaccinated, allowing them to starve. In August 2020, Kennedy appeared in an hour-long interview with Alec Baldwin on Instagram, where he touted a number of incorrect and misleading claims about vaccines and public health measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baldwin was criticized by public health officials and scientists for allowing Kennedy’s proclamations to go unchallenged. Kennedy has promoted misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine, falsely suggesting that it contributed to the death of 86-year-old Hank Aaron and others. In February 2021 his Instagram account was blocked for “repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines.” The Center for Countering Digital Hate identified Kennedy as one of the main propagators of conspiracy theories about Bill Gates and 5G phone technology. His success as a conspiracy theorist increased his social media impact considerably; between the Spring and the Fall of 2020, his Instagram account grew from 121,000 followers to 454,000.

In November 2021, Kennedy’s book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health was published wherein he alleges Fauci sabotaged treatments for AIDS, violated federal laws, and conspired with Bill Gates and social media companies such as Facebook to suppress any information about COVID-19 cures, to leave vaccines as the only options to fight the pandemic.[217][218] In the book, Kennedy calls Fauci “a powerful technocrat who orchestrated and executed the historic 2020 coup against Western democracy”. He claims Fauci and Bill Gates plan to prolong the pandemic and exaggerate its effects, promoting expensive vaccinations for the benefit of “a powerful vaccination cartel”.[219] The Neue Zürcher Zeitung has said of the book “…polemics alternate with chapters that pedantically seek to substantiate Kennedy’s accusations with numerous quotations and studies.”[219]

Kennedy wrote the foreword for Plague of Corruption (2020), a book by former research scientist and anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Judy Mikovits.[220]

Kennedy appeared as a speaker at the partially violent demonstration in Berlin on August 29, 2020, where populist groups called for an end to restrictions caused by COVID-19.[221][222] His YouTube account was removed in late September 2021 for breaking the company’s new policies on vaccine misinformation

A recent analysis centered on 812,000 anti-vaccine posts shared on Facebook or Twitter between February 1 and March 16, 2021. Two-thirds of the posts were shared by what CCDH calls the “Disinformation Dozen”:

  • Joseph Mercola,
  • Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
  • Ty and Charlene Bollinger,
  • Sherri Tenpenny,
  • Rizza Islam,
  • Rashid Buttar,
  • Erin Elizabeth,
  • Sayer Ji,
  • Kelly Brogan,
  • Christiane Northrup,
  • Ben Tapper,
  • Kevin Jenkins.

Last week, Kennedy Jr. has surpassed himself. Addressing an anti-vaccination rally in Washington, DC on Sunday, Kennedy was reported to compare COVID-19 vaccination mandates to the Holocaust, saying that “Even in Hitler’s Germany… you could hide in the attic like Anne Frank did.”

The reaction of the official memorial of Auschwitz, the largest Nazi concentration camp in which more than 1 million people were murdered, was quick and (to my mind) justified: they accused the Kennedy Jr of “moral and intellectual decay

In (some parts of) India, lay-homeopaths, i.e. homeopaths who have not been to medical school, are now allowed to administer conventional medicines. It stands to reason that this law must create problems.

It has been reported on 22/1/2022 that a ‘doctor of homeopathy’ has been arrested for allegedly administering the wrong injection to a man, which led to his death, in Madhya Pradesh’s Khandwa district, India.

Deepak Vishwakarma, who runs a clinic in Sindhi Colony, was arrested on Friday under the relevant provisions of the IPC and MP Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, the city superintendent of police, Lalit Gathre said.

The doctor’s clinic was sealed after a complaint was lodged against him for administering a wrong injection to a trader, who died two days after taking the jab, the official stated.

During the probe, the police found that Vishwakarma, a practitioner of homeopathy, had given allopathy medicines to his patient Deepak Aartani, according to Ishwar Singh Chouhan of Moghat Road police station.

Another source reported that the patient had an infection and died two days after he was allegedly administered a wrong injection by the doctor. The paper added: This is really tragic and the fact that a doctor’s mistake cost a human life is something that just cannot be acceptable. One hopes proper steps are taken the guilty are punished. It remains to be seen what action is taken as the investigation is still underway.

A third source has this additional information: A cop Ishwar Singh Chauhan told that during the investigation it came to the fore that Deepak Vishwakarma holds a homeopathy degree and had given allopathy medicines to his patient Deepak Artani, due to which the patient contracted an infection and died.

So, the details of this tragedy are scant, too scant to be conclusive. What nevertheless seems to be clear to me is that it is a thoroughly bad idea to allow people who are not medically trained to administer medicines that they do not understand.

Currently, 15.2 percent of German adults have not even had their first COVID vaccination. A long-term study has recently investigated why some Germans do behave in this way.

Researchers from the University of Erfurt surveyed around 1,200 unvaccinated and 2,000 vaccinated people in Germany. Here is a summary of the findings:

  • 74% of the unvaccinated definitely do not want to be vaccinated against Corona
  • 6% are willing to get vaccinated
  • 37 percent of those who have not been vaccinated against Corona do not want to be vaccinated against anything
  • thus, about two-thirds of them are not principled vaccination refusers.

The researchers also asked the unvaccinated Germans about their reasons for deciding against vaccination:

  • 56% of the unvaccinated are afraid of vaccination
  • 64% of these people cite fear of vaccination consequences and side effects as their reason
  • 8% are even afraid of dying from the vaccination
  • 38% of the unvaccinated agree with the statement, “I am proud not to have been vaccinated against Covid-19”, while 60% of the vaccinated agree with the sentence “I am proud to be vaccinated against Covid-19.” Unvaccinated people also have much less trust in the federal government and the Robert Koch Institute than vaccinated people.
  • 86% of the unvaccinated Germans find the current debate unfair, arrogant, and moralizing.

Based on these findings, the researchers recommend that measures to combat the pandemic should focus above all on maintaining the trust of the majority of those who have been vaccinated. The researchers also advise that attention should be paid to respectful and factual communications, especially by VIPs.

Personally, I find the notion that 56% of the unvaccinated are afraid of vaccination the most interesting finding here. It means we need to communicate the safety aspect much better than we have managed so far. As there is good reason to believe that many of the unvaccinated people are proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – see for instance here and here – a reasonable strategy should probably include making sure that SCAM practitioners inform their patients correctly and responsibly.

How can this be done?

I am not sure that I know the answer. But I know that there are psychologists who specialize in this sort of thing. It would, I think, be wise to create a multidisciplinary team to tackle the problem. Any solutions that could come out of such an exercise would come too late for the current Omicron wave. But there will be more to come, and we should be better prepared, I feel.

 

Yesterday, my new book arrived on my doorstep.

WHAT JOY!

Its full title is CHARLES, THE ALTERNATIVE PRINCE. AN UNAUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY. I guess that it also clarifies its contents. In case you want to know more, here is the full list of topics:

Foreword by Nick Ross v  Charles, The Alternative Prince: An Unauthorised Biography
1. Why this Book? 1
2. Why this Author? 5
3. Words and Meanings 10
4. How Did It All Start? 13
5. Laurens van der Post 17
6. The British Medical Association 25
7. Talking Health 31
8. Osteopathy 37
9. Chiropractic 43
10. The Foundation of Integrated Health 50
11. Open Letter to The Times 56
12. The Model Hospital 62
13. Integrated Medicine 66
14. The Gerson Therapy 73
15. Herbal Medicine 77
16. The Smallwood Report 82
17. World Health Organisation 90
18. Traditional Chinese Medicine 96
19. The ‘GetWellUK’ Study 100
20. Bravewell 106
21. Duchy Originals Detox Tincture 110
22. Charles’ Letters to Health Politicians 115
23. The College of Medicine and Integrated Health 120
24. The Enemy of Enlightenment 126
25. Harmony 132
26. Antibiotic Overuse 142
27. Ayurvedic Medicine 147
28. Social Prescribing 154
29. Homeopathy 160
30. Final Thoughts 169
Glossary 180
End Notes 187
Index 202

In case you want to know more, here is chapter 1 of my book:

Over the past two decades, I have supported efforts to focus healthcare on the particular needs of the individual patient, employing the best and most appropriate forms of treatment from both orthodox and complementary medicine in a more integrated way.[1]

The Prince of Wales 1997

This is a charmingly British understatement, indeed! Charles has been the most persistent champion of alternative medicine in the UK and perhaps even in the world. Since the early 1980s, he has done everything in his power

  • to boost the image of alternative medicine,
  • to improve the status of alternative practitioners,
  • to make alternative therapies more available to the general public,
  • to lobby that it should be paid for by the National Health Service (NHS),
  • to ensure the press reported favourably about the subject,
  • to influence politicians to provide more support for alternative medicine.

He has fought for these aims on a personal, emotional, political, and societal level. He has used his time, his intuition, his influence, and occasionally his money to achieve his goals. In 2010, he even wrote a book, ‘Harmony’, in which he explains his ideas in some detail[2] (discussed in chapter 25, arguably the central chapter of this biography). Charles has thus become the undisputed champion of the realm of alternative medicine. For that he is admired by alternative practitioners across the globe.

Yet, his relentless efforts are not appreciated by everyone (another British understatement!). There are those who view his interventions as counter-productive distractions from the important and never-ending task to improve modern healthcare. There are those who warn that integrating treatments of dubious validity into our medical routine will render healthcare less efficient. There are those who claim that the Prince’s preoccupation with matters that he is not qualified to fully comprehend is a disservice to public health. And there are those who insist that the role of the heir to the throne does not include interfering with health politics.

  • So, are Charles’ ideas new and exciting?
  • Or are they obsolete and irrational?
  • Has Charles become the saviour of UK healthcare?
  • Or has he hindered progress?
  • Is he a role model for medical innovators?
  • Or the laughing stock of the experts?
  • Is he a successful reformer of healthcare?
  • Or are his concepts doomed to failure?

Charles appears to evade critical questions of this nature. Relying on his intuition, he unwaveringly pursues and promotes his personal beliefs, regardless of the evidence (Box 1). He believes strongly in his mission and is, as most observers agree, full of good intentions. If he even notices any criticism, it is merely to reaffirm his resolve and redouble his efforts. He is reported to work tirelessly, and one could easily get the impression that he is obsessed with his idea of integrating alternative medicine into conventional healthcare.

I have observed Charles’ efforts around alternative medicine for the last 30 years. Occasionally, I was involved in some of them. For 19 years, I have headed the world’s most productive team of researchers in alternative medicine. This background puts me in a unique position to write this account of Charles’ ‘love affair’ with alternative medicine. It is not just a simple outline of Charles’ views and actions but also a critical analysis of the evidence that does or does not support them. In writing it, I pursue several aims:

    1. I want to summarise this part of medical history, as it amounts to an important contribution to the recent development of alternative medicine in the UK and beyond.
    2. I hope to explain how Charles and other enthusiasts of alternative medicine think, what motivates them and what logic they follow.
    3. I will contrast Charles’ beliefs with the published evidence as it pertains to each of the alternative modalities (treatments and diagnostic methods) he supports.
    4. I want to stimulate my readers’ ability to think critically about health in general and alternative medicine in particular.

My book will thus provide an opportunity to weigh the arguments for and against alternative medicine. In that way, it might even provide Charles with a substitute for a discussion about his thoughts on alternative medicine which, during almost half a century, he so studiously managed to avoid.

In pursuing these aims there are also issues that I hope to avoid. From the start, I should declare an interest. Charles and I once shared a similar enthusiasm for alternative medicine. But, as new evidence emerged, I changed my mind and he did not. This led to much-publicised tensions and conflicts. Yet it would be too easy to dismiss this book as an act of vengeance. It isn’t. I have tried hard to be objective and dispassionate, setting out Charles’ claims as fairly as I can and comparing them with the most reliable evidence. As much as possible:

    1. I do not want my personal discords with Charles to get in the way of objectivity.
    2. I do not want to be unfairly dismissive of Charles and his ambitions.
    3. I do not want to be disrespectful about anyone’s deeply felt convictions.
    4. I do not aim to weaken the standing of our royal family.

My book follows Charles’ activities in roughly chronological order. Each time we encounter a new type of alternative medicine, I will try to contrast Charles’ perceptions with the scientific evidence that was available at the time. Most chapters of this book are thus divided into four parts

    1. A short introduction
    2. Charles’ views
    3. An outline of the evidence
    4. A comment about the consequences

While writing this book, one question occurred to me regularly: Why has nobody so far written a detailed history of Charles’s passion for alternative medicine? Surely, the account of Charles ‘love affair’ with alternative medicine is fascinating, diverse, revealing, and important!

I hope you agree.

BOX 1

The nature of evidence in medicine and science

  • Evidence is the body of facts, often created through experiments under controlled conditions, that lead to a given conclusion.
  • Evidence must be neutral and give equal weight to data that fail to conform to our expectations.
  • Evidence is normally used towards rejecting or supporting a hypothesis.
  • In alternative medicine, the most relevant hypotheses often relate to the efficacy of a therapy.
  • Such hypotheses are best tested with controlled clinical trials where a group of patients is divided into two subgroups and only one is given the therapy to be tested; subsequently the results of both groups are compared.
  • Experience does not amount to evidence and is a poor indicator of efficacy; it can be influenced by several phenomena, e.g. placebo effects, natural history of the condition, regression towards the mean.
  • If the results of clinical studies are contradictory, the best available evidence is usually a systematic review of the totality of rigorous trials.
  • Systematic reviews are methods to minimise random and selection biases. The most reliable systematic reviews are, according to a broad consensus, those from the Cochrane Collaboration.

[1] https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speech/article-hrh-prince-wales-titled-science-and-homeopathy-must-work-harmony-daily-telegraph

[2] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Harmony-New-Way-Looking-World/dp/0007348037

In case you want to know even more – and I hope you do – please get yourself a copy.

The use of the doctor title by chiropractors has long been a controversial issue. A recent statement from the UK General Chiropractic Council (GCC) is aimed at creating clarity for UK chiropractors. It is directly from the website of the GCC:

Recently, the GCC has received some queries regarding the use of ‘Doctor’ for chiropractors.

As a reminder, if the courtesy title of ‘Doctor’, or its abbreviation ‘Dr’ or ‘DC’ is used, any public-facing content must state clearly that this is not as a registered medical practitioner, but a ‘Doctor of Chiropractic’.

We urge all registrants to review their public-facing materials, on- and offline, to ensure that they fully comply with these requirements. To assist, we have published three communication-focussed toolkits on social mediaadvertising and websites, providing useful guidance and advice on how best to remain compliant to GCC and Advertising Standards Authority requirements.

Internationally, chiropractors seem keen on the doctor title. So much so, that they even claim that DD and BJ Palmer, the inventors of chiropractic, were doctors:

Chiropractic as a profession was established by Dr. D. D. Palmer in 1895 … The International Chiropractors Association (ICA) is here to serve the chiropractic community worldwide.  Established in 1926 in Davenport, Iowa, USA by Dr. B.J. Palmer, the ICA is the world’s oldest international chiropractic professional organization representing practitioners, students, chiropractic assistants, educators and lay persons globally.

In the US, it seems therefore entirely normal that chiropractors use the doctor title. In the UK, however, it is less common.

Remember the tragic case of John Lawler? He consulted a ‘Dr.’ thinking she was a medical doctor. She turned out to be a chiro and the patient paid with his life. Recently, the GCC found that the chiro was not guilty of any wrongdoing. It took me less than 10 minutes on the Internet to find plenty who do use the doctor title or allow it to be used on their website:

  •  Thanks to Dr Jasper for helping me to get rid of the terrible back pain
  • Dr. Mo is a chiropractor in Manchester and Stockport helping with back pain, sciatica, neck pain, headaches.
  • Dr Maria Madge is an experienced chiropractor working in Norfolk.
  • Dr James Shervell has 25 years’ experience to help with your pain…

So, in the spirit of goodwill and constructive criticism, may I make a suggestion to the GCC? Instead of issuing reminders like the one above, could you please invest a little time (a few hours would probably suffice), identify all of those of your members who still misuse the title, and instruct them to stop? It just might prevent tragedies like the above-mentioned Lawler case from happening again!

 

 

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories