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

progress

1 2 3 34

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.

On this blog and elsewhere, I have heard many strange arguments against COVID-19 vaccinations. I get the impression that most proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) hold or sympathize with such notions. Here is a list of those arguments that have come up most frequently together with my (very short) comments:

COVID is not dangerous

It’s just a flu and nothing to be really afraid of, they say. Therefore, no good reason exists for getting vaccinated. This, I think, is easily countered by pointing out that to date about 5.5 million people have died of COVID-19. In addition, I fear that the issues of ‘long-COVID’ is omitted in such discussions

It’s only the oldies who die

As an oldie myself, I find this argument quite distasteful. More importantly, it is simply not correct.

Vaccines don’t work

True they do not protect us 100% from the infection. But they very dramatically reduce the likelihood of severe illness or death from COVID-19.

Vaccines are unsafe

We have now administered almost 10 billion vaccinations worldwide. Thus we know a lot about the risks. In absolute terms, there is a vast amount of cases, and it would be very odd otherwise; just think of the rate of nocebo effects that must be expected. However, the risks are mostly minor, and serious ones are very rare. Some anti-vaxxers predicted that, by last September, the vaccinated population would be dead. This did not happen, did it? The fact is that the benefits of these vaccinations hugely outweigh the risks.

Vaccines are a vicious tracking system

Some claim that ‘they‘ use vaccines to be able to trace the vaccinated people. Who are ‘they‘, and why would anyone want to trace me when my credit card, mobile phone, etc. already could do that?

Vaccines are used for population control

They‘ want to reduce the world population through deadly vaccines to ~5 billion, some anti-vaxxers say. Again, who are ‘they‘ and would ‘they‘ want to do that? Presumably ‘they‘ need us to pay taxes and buy their goods and services.

There has not been enough research

If those who make this argument would bother to go on Medline and look for COVID-related research, they might see how ill-informed this argument is. Since 2021, more than 200 000 papers on the subject have emerged.

I trust my immune system

This is just daft. I am triple-vaccinated and also hope that I can trust my immune system – this is why I got vaccinated in the first place. Vaccinations rely on the immune system to work.

It’s all about making money

Yes, the pharma industry aims to make money; this is a sad reality. But does that really mean that their products are useless? I don’t see the logic here.

People should have the choice

I am all for it! But if someone’s poor choice endangers my life, I do object. For instance, I expect other people not to smoke in public places, stop at red traffic lights and drive on the correct side of the street.

Most COVID patients in hospitals have been vaccinated

If a large percentage of the population has been vaccinated and the vaccine conveys not 100% protection, it would be most surprising, if it were otherwise.

I have a friend who…

All sorts of anecdotes are in circulation. The thing to remember here is that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not evidence.

SCAM works just as well

Of course, that argument had to be expected from SCAM proponents. The best response here is this: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! In response SCAM fans have so far only been able to produce ‘studies’ that are unconvincing or outright laughable.

In conclusion, the arguments put forward by anti-vaxxers or vaccination-hesitant people are rubbish. It is time they inform themselves better and consider information that originates from outside their bubble. It is time they realize that their attitude is endangering others.

 

Cupping is a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that has been around for millennia in many cultures. We have discussed it repeatedly on this blog (see, for instance, here, here, and here). This new study tested the effects of dry cupping on pain intensity, physical function, functional mobility, trunk range of motion, perceived overall effect, quality of life, psychological symptoms, and medication use in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain.

Ninety participants with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomized. The experimental group (n = 45) received dry cupping therapy, with cups bilaterally positioned parallel to the L1 to L5 vertebrae. The control group (n = 45) received sham cupping therapy. The interventions were applied once a week for 8 weeks.

Participants were assessed before and after the first treatment session, and after 4 and 8 weeks of intervention. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured with the numerical pain scale at rest, during fast walking, and during trunk flexion. Secondary outcomes were physical function, functional mobility, trunk range of motion, perceived overall effect, quality of life, psychological symptoms, and medication use.

On a 0-to-10 scale, the between-group difference in pain severity at rest was negligible: MD 0.0 (95% CI -0.9 to 1.0) immediately after the first treatment, 0.4 (95% CI -0.5 to 1.5) at 4 weeks and 0.6 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.6) at 8 weeks. Similar negligible effects were observed on pain severity during fast walking or trunk flexion. Negligible effects were also found on physical function, functional mobility, and perceived overall effect, where mean estimates and their confidence intervals all excluded worthwhile effects. No worthwhile benefits could be confirmed for any of the remaining secondary outcomes.

The authors concluded that dry cupping therapy was not superior to sham cupping for improving pain, physical function, mobility, quality of life, psychological symptoms or medication use in people with non-specific chronic low back pain.

These results will not surprise many of us; they certainly don’t baffle me. What I found interesting in this paper was the concept of sham cupping therapy. How did they do it? Here is their explanation:

For the experimental group, a manual suction pump and four acrylic cups size one (internal diameter = 4.5 cm) were used for the interventions. The cups were applied to the lower back, parallel to L1 to L5 vertebrae, with a 3-cm distance between them, bilaterally. The dry cupping application consisted of a negative pressure of 300 millibars (two suctions in the manual suction pump) sustained for 10 minutes once a week for 8 weeks.

In the control group, the exact same procedures were used except that the cups were prepared with small holes < 2 mm in diameter to release the negative pressure in approximately 3 seconds. Double-sided adhesive tape was applied to the border of the cups in order to keep them in contact with the participants’ skin.

So, sham-controlled trials of cupping are doable. Future trialists might now consider the inclusion of testing the success of patient-blinding when conducting trials of cupping therapy.

For my last post of the year 2021, I take the liberty to borrow parts of a BMJ editorial entitled A NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION OF HEALTH WORKERS:

The prospect of a return to normality seems within reach. But what will that normality look like? We believe that health workers, who have been at the frontline of the pandemic, must offer a vision of a healthier future. We must not let the terrible events of this year recast the pre-pandemic world in a glowing light. The normality we departed from at the onset of the pandemic was unjust, unsustainable, and shaped the evolution of, and responses to, the pandemic with devastating consequences, particularly for the most deprived and vulnerable.

The start of a new year offers an opportunity to question old ways of working and to ask how we can create a better future for everyone. It is a cliché to say that you should never waste a crisis. Just as in wartime and in the global financial crisis, many have profited greatly from the pandemic, whether as providers of online services or by taking advantage of the rush to procure essential goods such as personal protective equipment.

But many were far less fortunate, living in circumstances that rendered them vulnerable to an infection that spread especially rapidly through communities where successive generations had been living ever more precarious lives. As the recovery begins, the powerful groups who benefited from the social and economic systems that created those conditions will, once again, seek to shape the world to their advantage. Health workers cannot remain silent. They must offer a compelling vision of how we should reconfigure the world so that it produces and sustains health for all, resilient in the face of future threats…

A country navigating the pandemic is like a ship navigating treacherous and unpredictable waters in a storm. If the ship, its crew, and its passengers are to come through the experience unscathed it needs three things. First, it needs an experienced captain who understands the ship and commands the trust of the crew. Unfortunately, in some of the countries worst affected, captains were either away from the bridge, denied there was a storm, or had lost the trust of those on whom they depended.

Second, it needs a crew that is adequate for the size of the ship, that is well trained, and that is working as a team to achieve the same goal. Yet in too many countries, skeleton crews were working in health systems that were highly fragmented. Dissenting voices who raise the alarm about the integrity of the ship, the working of the team, or its leadership must not be silenced or lives can be lost. It also needs passengers who are as seaworthy as possible so that they can withstand the storm. One of the sentinel challenges of covid-19 was finding large segments of the population weighted by a disproportionate burden of preventable disease that predisposed them to severe covid-19 once infected.

Third, we need a ship that is securely constructed. Yet in many of the countries that have fared worst, we have been working in vessels that are full of holes. Social safety nets have been ripped asunder, allowing too many people to fall through the holes. We have made many demands on our people—to stay at home, to face loss of income—and we have added greater uncertainty to what were already difficult situations, particularly for certain racially and economically marginalised groups. The disproportionate exposure to covid-19 of many in these groups—a consequence of precarious jobs and social circumstances that denied them the luxury of social distancing—drove, in large part, the high burden of covid-19 among minority and marginalised groups worldwide.

As we look to the prospect of a covid-19 secure future, with effective vaccines, new treatments, and continued countermeasures as necessary, we must ask how we can strengthen the foundations of our societies, coming together to repair the torn safety nets. We must never be afraid to challenge our political leaders when they are going in the wrong direction, and we must insist that they really are guided by the science, and not just those bits that support their beliefs. And we must ensure that our fellow citizens are as healthy as possible so they can withstand the inevitable storms that lie ahead. We must insist that our health systems and other public systems are adequately staffed, with the tools needed to do the job, with teams that are working together, pulling in the same direction. If we do all this, then we, and the populations we serve, can be confident that we can weather any future storms.

___________________________

The editorial was written by 4 authors:

  1. Martin McKee, professor of European public health
  2. May C I van Schalkwyk, NIHR doctoral research fellow
  3. Nason Maani, assistant professor in public health evaluation
  4. Sandro Galea, dean

I think it is most sensible and thought-provoking and I suspect many of us agree with its sentiments. If it did not make you think, perhaps this information will do so:

The editorial was published one year ago in the Christmas issue of the BMJ

2020!

Yes, 2021 has disappointed many of our hopes and turned out to be a difficult year.

I wish us all that 2022 will be better, much better.

THE GUARDIAN published an interesting article about vaccination hesitancy yesterday. Here is a short passage from it:

One major missing piece of the puzzle, currently under consideration, is a strategy that gets to the bottom of why 5 million people remained unvaccinated, especially those in communities with an ingrained distrust of authority.

No 10 even turned to an artificial intelligence (AI) company earlier in the year to determine the causes of vaccine hesitancy, but Whitehall sources acknowledge there is still a lack of understanding about how many of the unvaccinated remain so because of entrenched anti-vax ideology, misconceptions that could be turned around, a lack of time or transport to get to vaccine centres, or just apathy.

Yesterday, it was also reported in DER STANDARD that the Austrian Science Minister Martin Polaschek has commissioned a study from Statistics Austria, which for the first time was to look at the vaccination status of the population according to socio-economic characteristics.

The study yielded fascinating findings that might shed some light on the phenomenon of ‘entrenched anti-vax ideology’:

  • Across all age groups, the proportion of vaccinated persons, including recovered persons, is 67%.
  • Slightly less than four percent of the population are only recovered, and about 30% are neither one nor the other.
  • There are no marked differences between men and women.
  • The willingness to vaccinate is strongly related to the level of education.
  • The vaccination rate in the group of 25-64 year-olds with a university degree is about 84% and thus significantly higher than among those who have only basic education (68%).
  • In this age group, it also seems important whether someone has a job (76%) or not (69%).
  • People employed in the information and communication sector (85%) and public administration (83%) are the most likely to be vaccinated.
  • Workers in agriculture and forestry (67%) and construction (65%) are the least likely to accept vaccinations.
  • Health and social services personnel have a vaccination rate of 79%.
  • More than half of the 600,000 schoolchildren had already been vaccinated, and in the upper secondary school it was even 72%.
  • The rate among teachers is also high, at 85%.
  • 86% of the approximately 395,000 students at universities had been vaccinated.
  • As 92% of all medical students were vaccinated.
  • The vaccination rate among Austrian nationals, at about 70%, is clearly higher than that of people without an Austrian passport (52%).
  • The difference between those born in Austria and those not born in Austria is only five percentage points.
  • The willingness to be vaccinated is higher among people from Turkey (73%) than among those born in Austria (68%).
  • Among Germans and Afghans, it is around 72%.
  • People from Romania (43%) and the Russian Federation (45%) have the lowest vaccination rates.
  • The percentage of vaccinated people is highest among those between 75 and 84 years.

Similar findings have, of course, been reported from other countries. However, what seems new to me here is the finding that vaccination rates are strongly correlated to the level of education: the anti-vax brigade tends to be uneducated and ignorant. If confirmed, this suggests that education might be a way to make them accept vaccinations.

PS

Of course, correlation is not causality. But there seems to be a dose-response relationship between education and willingness to vaccinate. This makes a causal effect more likely.

 

Image

THOSE WHO KNOW NOTHING MUST BELIEVE EVERYTHING

 

 

Bloodletting therapy (BLT) has been widely used for centuries until it was discovered that it is not merely useless for almost all diseases but also potentially harmful. Yet in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) BLT is still sometimes employed, for instance, to relieve acute gouty arthritis (AGA). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of BLT in treating AGA.

Seven databases were searched from the date of establishment to July 31, 2020, irrespective of the publication source and language. BLT included fire needle, syringe, three-edged needle, and bloodletting followed by cupping. The included articles were evaluated for bias risk by using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool.

Twelve studies involving 894 participants were included in the final analysis. A meta-analysis suggested that BLT was highly effective in relieving pain (MD = -1.13, 95% CI [-1.60, -0.66], P < 0.00001), with marked alterations in the total effective (RR = 1.09, 95% [1.05, 1.14], P < 0.0001) and curative rates (RR = 1.37, 95%CI [1.17, 1.59], P < 0.0001). In addition, BLT could dramatically reduce serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level (MD = -3.64, 95%CI [-6.72, -0.55], P = 0.02). Both BLT and Western medicine (WM) produced comparable decreases in uric acid (MD = -18.72, 95%CI [-38.24, 0.81], P = 0.06) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) levels (MD = -3.01, 95%CI [-6.89, 0.86], P = 0.13). Lastly, we demonstrated that BLT was safer than WM in treating AGA (RR = 0.36, 95%CI [0.13, 0.97], P = 0.04).

The authors concluded that BLT is effective in alleviating pain and decreasing CRP level in AGA patients with a lower risk of evoking adverse reactions.

This conclusion is optimistic, to say the least. There are several reasons for this statement:

  • All the primary studies came from China (and we have often discussed that such trials need to be taken with a pinch of salt).
  • All the studies had major methodological flaws.
  • There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies.
  • The treatments employed were very different from study to study.
  • Half of all studies failed to mention adverse effects and thus violate medical ethics.

In Germany, the anti-vax movement is frighteningly strong and it constitutes one of the main reasons for the relatively immunization rate. In no small part, this is due to the many anti-vax Heilpraktiker who practice in Germany. In an attempt to put the record straight, the ‘Verband Klassischer Homöopathen Deutschlands’ (VKHD, Association of Classical Homeopaths of Germany) recently published an article entitled ‘Heilpraktiker – Homeopathy – Vaccination’ (Heilpraktiker – Homöopathie – Impfen). Here is a short excerpt (my translation):

… There is a clear conceptual similarity between homeopathy and vaccination [1]. From a historical point of view, this was already reflected in the early days of homeopathy, when its discoverer, Samuel Hahnemann, expressed himself very positively with regard to the smallpox vaccination newly introduced at that time [2]. Thus, it is historically wrong to insinuate that users of homeopathy have a fundamentally negative attitude towards vaccinations [3]. In this context, terms such as “vaccination opponents” or “vaccination refusers” are misleading and defamatory [4].

A critical (not skeptical) approach to the topic of vaccinations is basically a characteristic of people with medical expertise. Such an attitude corresponds to the critical consideration necessary in daily practice and in each individual case to advise on suitable therapy options [5]. Properly working alternative practitioners give differentiated advice accordingly [6]. A fundamentally vaccine-rejecting attitude is precisely not a characteristic of a critical assessment that has taken place. The same applies to an unreflective recommendation of vaccinations or therapy methods, without taking into account individual factors as well as scientific and social backgrounds [7].

For the VKHD, we cannot give exact figures on recovered, vaccinated, or unvaccinated members. It is not the responsibility of a professional association to demand such information from its members [8]. We assume that alternative practitioners who provide information on vaccinations do so in accordance with a responsible ethical attitude, regardless of their own vaccination status [9] …

I have taken the liberty of inserting some references into this text. They relate to my comments, which are as follows:

  1.  A conceptual similarity between vaccination and homeopathy exists only in the minds of homeopaths. They often claim that both use highly diluted remedies. This is wrong because homeopathic remedies do not usually contain active ingredients, whereas vaccines do. This fact also explains why homeopathics do not produce immune reactions, whereas vaccines do.
  2.  Correct! Hahnemann was in favor of vaccination. That is why he would be ashamed today if he knew how many homeopaths oppose vaccination.
  3. What has this got to do with ‘historical’? I assume that the ‘insinuations’ refer to the situation today. Further, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that all homeopaths are ‘fundamentally’ opposed to vaccination. However, that many of them are anti-vaxers is an indisputable fact.
  4. I would rather think they are accurate.
  5. Correct.
  6. How can they without any medical background?
  7. Is it to be implied here that real medical people do?
  8. Maybe not ‘demand’, but inquire or request would be possible and desirable, wouldn’t it?
  9. It is nice that you believe this. But belief is not evidence.

 

Conversion therapy has been banned last week in Canada. These therapies – also known as sexual orientation change effort (SOCE), reparative therapy, reintegrative therapy, reorientation therapy, ex-gay therapy, and gay cure – rely on the assumption that sexual orientation can be changed, an idea long discredited by major medical associations in the US, the UK, France, and elsewhere. The new law makes “providing, promoting, or advertising conversion therapy” a criminal offense. It will also be an offense to profit from the provision of conversion therapy. In addition, the bill states a person cannot remove a “child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hailed the law’s Royal Assent: “It’s official: Our government’s legislation banning the despicable and degrading practice of conversion therapy has received Royal Assent — meaning it is now law.”

Conversion therapy is the attempt to change an individual’s sexual or gender identity by psychological, medical, or surgical interventions. Often, informed consent is insufficient or lacking. In conventional medicine, numerous treatments have been tried for this purpose, some of them dangerous and all of them ineffective. In alternative medicine, approaches that have been advocated include:

  • Homeopathy (see below),
  • Hypnotherapy,
  • Spiritual healing,
  • Prayer,
  • Eye Movement Desensitization,
  • Rebirthing,
  • and others.
Survey data imply that conversion therapy is still disturbingly popular, often leads to undesirable outcomes, and is most frequently practiced by:
  • Faith-based organizations or leaders
  • Licensed healthcare professionals
  • Unlicensed healthcare professionals

As previously reported, the German ‘Association of Catholic Doctors’ claimed that homeopathic remedies can cure homosexuality. Specifically, they advised that ‘…the working group ‘HOMEOPATHY’ of the Association notes homeopathic therapy options for homosexual tendencies…repertories contain special rubrics pointing to characteristic signs of homosexual behavior, including sexual peculiarities such as anal intercourse. And a homeopathic remedy called ‘Dr. Reckeweg R20 Glandular Drops for Women’ was claimed to treat “lesbian tendencies.” The product is “derived and potentised from fetal tissues.”

Several countries are now in the process of banning conversion therapy. France has already banned it and so has Germany. The UK government intends to introduce a legislative ban on the practice of conversion therapy. The consultation on how to best do this is open until 4 February 2022.

Compelling evidence has long shown that diagnostic imaging for low back pain does not improve care in the absence of suspicion of serious pathology. However, the effect of imaging use on clinical outcomes has not been investigated in patients presenting to chiropractors. The aim of this study was to determine if diagnostic imaging affects clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care.

A matched observational study using prospective longitudinal observational data with a one-year follow-up was performed in primary care chiropractic clinics in Denmark. Data were collected from November 2016 to December 2019. Participants included low back pain patients presenting for chiropractic care, who were either referred or not referred for diagnostic imaging at their initial visit. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years, had a diagnosis of underlying pathology, or had previously had imaging relevant to their current clinical presentation. Coarsened exact matching was used to match participants referred for diagnostic imaging with participants not referred for diagnostic imaging on baseline variables including participant demographics, pain characteristics, and clinical history. Mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of imaging on back pain intensity and disability at two weeks, three months, and one year, and on global perceived effect and satisfaction with care at two weeks.

A total of 2162 patients were included, and 24.1% of them were referred for imaging. Near perfect balance between matched groups was achieved for baseline variables except for age and leg pain. Participants referred for imaging had slightly higher back pain intensity at two weeks (0.4, 95%CI: 0.1, 0.8) and one year (0.4, 95%CI: 0.0, 0.7), and disability at two weeks (5.7, 95%CI: 1.4, 10.0), but these differences are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. No difference between groups was found for the other outcome measures. Similar results were found when a sensitivity analysis, adjusted for age and leg pain intensity, was performed.

The authors concluded that diagnostic imaging did not result in better clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain presenting for chiropractic care. These results support that current guideline recommendations against routine imaging apply equally to chiropractic practice.

This study confirms what most experts suspected all along and what many chiropractors vehemently denied for years. One could still argue that the outcomes do not differ much and therefore imaging does not cause any harm. This argument would, however, be wrong. The harm it causes does not affect the immediate clinical outcomes.  Needless imaging is costly and increases the cancer risk.

1 2 3 34
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