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

pseudo-science

1 2 3 126

A long article on chiropractic casts doubt that chiropractic is useful. Here is an abbreviated version of it:

The chemistry and biology graduate from the University of Georgia, 28-year-old Caitlin Jensen, visited a chiropractor to sort out her lower back pain. During the session, the therapist performed an adjustment.  It severed four arteries in her neck. She collapsed shortly after, unable to speak or move. The injury had caused her to suffer a series of strokes. Today, she has regained some movement in her head, legs and arms but she is still unable to speak, is partially blind and relies on a wheelchair.

While shocking and extreme, experts say Caitlin’s story is evidence of the risks of chiropractic. And although such cases are rare, they are not unheard of. Yet despite these risks, the treatment has only become more popular recently. Currently it is being driven by a social media craze for videos of chiropractors manipulating spines to make terrifying cracking sounds. The more brutal the crack, the higher the views.
And now chiropractors in the UK are pushing for their services, which are largely private, to be rolled out on the NHS. According to a report commissioned by the British Chiropractic Association, employing chiropractors in the health service could save £1.5 billion and cut physiotherapist waiting lists. Last week The Mail on Sunday’s GP columnist Dr Ellie Cannon expressed concerns over the safety of the scheme, writing that she was worried that the forceful manipulation of the body involved can be dangerous, causing serious injuries. Dr Cannon asked readers for their own experiences – and was flooded with responses. Scores claimed they’d found relief from joint pain and other issues thanks to a chiropractor, when nothing else worked. Yet, disturbingly, among these were accounts from those who’d suffered horrific injuries.
  • One 66-year-old grandmother said a visit to a chiropractor to treat her sore shoulder left her covered in bruises, hearing ringing in her ears and with a splitting pain in her jaw. She was later diagnosed by doctors with trigeminal neuralgia – a chronic pain disorder caused by a trapped or irritated nerve in the neck that causes sudden, electric shock-like pain in the face. She believes the condition – which, three years later, still sometimes leaves her unable to open her mouth wide enough to speak to her grandchildren – was triggered by a chiropractic adjustment of her neck.
  • A 55-year-old woman was left with chronic neck and shoulder pain after visiting a chiropractor for a sore back. The pain was so bad she once spent 72 hours immobile and unable to sleep despite taking a concoction of painkillers.
  • And a 66-year-old man says his back went into spasm as he was leaving his first chiropractor appointment – which left him hospitalised and bedbound for weeks. The intense treatment, he later learned, had pushed one of the discs of his spine out of place, causing him to lose feeling in his right leg for ever.
In the UK, several film and TV shows – including Love Island – have bragged of having a resident chiropractor on set. And the number of British chiropractors has risen by more than 60 per cent in the past four years, according to regulatory board the General Chiropractic Council.
Orthopaedic surgeon Dr Simon Fleming worries that vulnerable patients are turning to chiropractors without knowing its risks. He says: ‘It’s not that there aren’t safe chiropractors, it’s that there’s such a high risk of potentially doing harm. Adults can make their own choices – but if they want to go down that route, we need to ensure they do it with their eyes open.’
The NHS currently lists neck, back, shoulder and elbow pain as issues that can be treated with chiropractic – adding that there’s little evidence it can help with more serious conditions, or problems that don’t affect the muscles or joints. It warns: ‘There is a risk of more serious problems, such as stroke, from spinal manipulation.’
Chiropractic is not widely available on the health service, other than in exceptional circumstances where no other options, such as physiotherapy, are available. But a report released by the University of York last week called for the practice to be brought under the NHS in order to cut the number of patients with musculoskeletal issues waiting for physiotherapy. And according to Mark Gurden, president of the Royal College of Chiropractors, it will help the NHS more generally by offering up a skilled and competent workforce during a national staffing crisis. ‘It’s a profession just like physiotherapy is a profession, and can offer a range of interventions that include both soft tissue techniques and spinal manipulation,’ he says. ‘Chiropractors are regulated healthcare professionals who undergo four-years training and must be registered with the General Chiropractic Council. It’s an entirely safe procedure when done by competent professionals.’
Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter and author of ‘Chiropractic: Not All That It’s Cracked Up To Be‘, says hundreds of patients have suffered a stroke after getting their necks manipulated – with some dying from the damage. Recent instances include the tragic case of 29-year-old Joanna Kowalczyk, who suffered a fatal tear of her blood vessels after having her neck adjusted by a chiropractor, as well as Playboy model Katie May, 34, who died after getting the treatment for a pinched nerve in her neck sustained during a photoshoot. And Professor Ernst believes even more patients may have sustained injuries than we know of.
____________________________
You might be interested in what I actually wrote in response to the questions posed by the journalist from the ‘Mail-online’. Here are his questions (Q) and my replies (R), both unabbreviated:
Q: Should chiropractic treatment be available on the NHS?
R: The NHS cannot even pay for all effective therapies; as chiropractic is of at best doubtful effectiveness, it should, in my view, not be reimbursed by the public purse.
Q: Are chiropractic therapies dangerous? If so, why?
R: Chiropractors manipulate the spine of virtually every patient. These manipulations often move the spine beyond its physiological range of motion and can thus cause severe structural damage.
Q: Are all chiropratic adjustments risky? Or just those that involve certain areas of the body (ie, neck)?
R: The neck is, of course, particularly vulnerable; but damage can occur along the entire spine.
Q: Equally, is it a case of some chiropractors just not being very good at their jobs?
R: Some chiropractors are surely more dangerous than others. Yet none are risk-free.
Q: I’ve seen stories of awful injuries / deaths at the hands of a chiropractor. But if the practice is so risky why don’t we see more injuries than we do?
R: There is no reporting system of side effects of chiropractic – so, if we don’t look, we don’t see.
Q: Lots of our readers have written in to say it’s helped massively with their pain or other ailment. Can it have any positive effect on our health and wellbeing?
R: True some people swear by chiropractic. But let’s not forget that having your bones cracked is bound to have a considerable placebo response.
Q: Should babies be getting chiropractic adjustments?
R: Most definitely no!
Q: Are some people more prone to injury from these treatments than others?
R: Yes, some people may, for instance, have fragile arteries that then might burst when the neck is being forcefully manipulated.
Q: What do you think needs to happen to reform the chiropractic industry?
R: If it wants to be called a valuable form of healthcare, chiropractic needs to abide by the principles of evidence-based medicine. In other words, it needs to demonstrate through rigorous research that it does more good than harm and for which condition. At present, chiropractic is very far from having achieved this. And that means, I fear, that it should not be part of rational healthcare.
_______________________
I am glad that, these days, I usually insist on doing interviews with journalists via email

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.

The US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy (JFKJr) famously claimed that vitamin A could work “as a prophylaxis” of measles infection. That claim is not just wrong, it also is dangerous. Overuse of vitamin A can have serious health consequences. As a result of JFKJr yet again promoting dangerous nonsense, doctors treating patients during the measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico are now facing the problem of vitamin A toxicity.

At Covenant Children’s Hospital in Lubbock, near the outbreak’s epicenter, several patients have been found to have abnormal liver function on routine lab tests, a probable sign that they’ve taken too much of the vitamin, according to Dr. Lara Johnson, pediatric hospitalist and chief medical officer for Covenant Health-Lubbock Service Area.

Vitamin A is fat-soluble. It therefore accumulate in organs like the liver when over-doesed. Excess vitamin A can cause dry skin and eyes, blurry vision, bone thinning, skin irritation, liver damage and other serious issues. In pregnant women, it can even lead to birth defects. Recovery for patients with acute toxicity is normally rapid, if the vitamin is discontinued. But the more serious problems with vitamin A toxicity are not always reversible.

The Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade association for dietary supplement and functional food manufacturers, issued a statement warning parents against using high doses of vitamin A to try to keep their children from getting measles. “While vitamin A plays an important role in supporting overall immune function, research hasn’t established its effectiveness in preventing measles infection. CRN is concerned about reports of high-dose vitamin A being used inappropriately, especially in children,” the statement says.

JFKJr made his remarks in an interview with Fox News medical correspondent Dr. Marc Siegel. Snippets of the interview were featured in four Fox News or Fox Business segments airing on March 4. “They have treated most of the patients, actually, over 108 patients in the last 48 hours. And they’re getting very, very good results, they report from budesonide, which is a steroid, it’s a 30-year-old steroid,” Kennedy said in the longest of the segments. “And clarithromycin [an antibiotic] and also cod liver oil, which has high concentrations of vitamin A and vitamin D. We need to look at those therapies and other therapies,” he said in another segment. “We need to really do a good job of talking to the front-line doctors and see what is working on the ground, because those therapeutics have really been ignored by the agency for a long, long time.”

Local doctors are increasingly concerned about the growing popularity of unproven remedies for preventing and treating measles. They fear that they are causing people to delay critical medical treatment and to reject vaccination, the only proven way to prevent a measles infection.

The measles outbreak has now affected at least 379 people across Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Kansas has reported 23 measles cases, and officials said that they may also be linked to the outbreak. The best measure to get to grips with the outbreak, I think, would be to make JFKJr shut up and let those who understans the issues get on with it.

Qi-gong is a branch of Traditional Chinese Medicine that employs meditation, exercise, deep breathing and other techniques with a view of strengthening the assumed life force ‘qi’ and thus improving health and prolong life. Qi-gong has ancient roots in China and has recently also become popular in other countries. There are several distinct forms of qi-gong which can be categorized into two main groups, internal qi-gong and external qi-gong. Internal qi-gong refers to a physical and mental training method for the cultivation of oneself to achieve optimal health in both mind and body. Internal qi-gong is not dissimilar to tai chi but it also employs the coordination of different breathing patterns and meditation. External qi-gong refers to a treatment where qi-gong practitioners direct their qi-energy to the patient with the intention to clear qi-blockages or balance the flow of qi within that patient. According to Taoist and Buddhist beliefs, qi-gong allows access to higher realms of awareness.

The assumptions of qi-gong are not scientifically plausible. But this does not stop enthusiasts to submit it to clinical trials.

A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study was conducted with 231 adolescent girls aged 13-17 years suffering from premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Participants underwent a 4-week Qi Gong therapy program, with five 45-minute sessions weekly. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire and Modified PMS Scale, analysing pre- and post-intervention symptoms through descriptive statistics, paired t-tests and chi-square tests.

The intervention significantly reduced PMS severity, with mild PMS cases increasing from 48 (20.78%) to 166 (71.86%) post-intervention. Paired t-tests revealed a highly significant mean difference in PMS scores (T = 12.251, p < 0.001).

The authors concluded that Qi Gong therapy offers a holistic, non-invasive approach for managing PMS by addressing both physiological and emotional dimensions to the condition. Its ability to balance hormones, alleviate stress and improve overall quality of life makes it a valuable addition to PMS care. 

This study originated from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecological Nursing, Nootan college of Nursing, Sankalchand Patel university, Visnagar, Gujarat, India; the Department of Pediatric Nursing of the same institution and the Department of Psychiatric Nursing of the same institution. One would have hoped that its authors know better than to draw such conclusions from such a study. Here are some points of concern:

  • There is no reason why the treatment should be holistic.
  • The study did not have a control group; causal inferences are thus not waarranted.
  • The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment addressed either physiological or emotional dimensions.
  • The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment did anything to hormones.
  • The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment alleviated stress.
  • The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment improved quality of life.
  • I see no resason why the treatment should be promoted as a valuable addition to PMS care.
  • The PMS severity changed after the treatment and not necessarily because of it.
  • The true reasons it changed might be multifold, e.g.: placebo, regression towards the mean, social desirability.
  • Misleading the public by drawing far-reaching conclusions has the potential to do untold harm.

I have said it often, and it saddens me to have to say it again:

If the quality of research into so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) does not improve dramatically, nobody can blame the public to not take SCAM seriously any more.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), America’s anti-vaxer in-chief, famously claimed his brain has been eaten by a worm. While this assumption is as ridiculous as the man himself, the actions and delusions of RFK Jr. seem almost to confirm that something fundamental must be wrong with his intellectual abilities.

Recently he said that he will be working to get cell phones out of schools. “Cell phones produce electric magnetic radiation, which has been shown to do neurological damage to kids when it’s around them all day … It’s also been shown to cause cellular damage and even cancer … Cell phone use and social media use on the cell phone has been directly connected with depression, poor performance in schools, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse … The states that are doing this have found that it is a much healthier environment when kids are not using cell phones in schools.”

There are two separate issues here:

  • Limiting children’s use of cell phones might be – for several (not health-related) reasons –  a reasonable idea.
  • The assumption that cell phones cause the type of damage that RFK Jr. claimed is nonsense.

There is plenty of evidence on the subject, some more reliable than others. The most reliable data do not support what RFK Jr. claims. Here are a few systematic reviews on the subject:

A recent systematic review included 63 aetiological articles, published between 1994 and 2022, with participants from 22 countries, reporting on 119 different E-O pairs. RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones (ever or regular use vs no or non-regular use) was not associated with an increased risk of glioma [meta-estimate of the relative risk (mRR) = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.89-1.13), meningioma (mRR = 0.92, 95 % CI = 0.82-1.02), acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 0.85-1.24), pituitary tumours (mRR = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.61-1.06), salivary gland tumours (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.78-1.06), or paediatric (children, adolescents and young adults) brain tumours (mRR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.51), with variable degree of across-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0 %-62 %). There was no observable increase in mRRs for the most investigated neoplasms (glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma) with increasing time since start (TSS) use of mobile phones, cumulative call time (CCT), or cumulative number of calls (CNC). Cordless phone use was not significantly associated with risks of glioma [mRR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.46; I2 = 74 %) meningioma, (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.70-1.18; I2 = 59 %), or acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.16; 95 % CI = 0.83-1.61; I2 = 63 %). Exposure from fixed-site transmitters (broadcasting antennas or base stations) was not associated with childhood leukaemia or paediatric brain tumour risks, independently of the level of the modelled RF exposure. Glioma risk was not significantly increased following occupational RF exposure (ever vs never), and no differences were detected between increasing categories of modelled cumulative exposure levels.

Another recent systematic review included 5 studies that reported analyses of data from 4 cohorts with 4639 participants consisting of 2808 adults and 1831 children across three countries (Australia, Singapore and Switzerland) conducted between 2006 and 2017. The main source of RF-EMF exposure was mobile (cell) phone use measured as calls per week or minutes per day. For mobile phone use in children, two studies (615 participants) that compared an increase in mobile phone use to a decrease or no change were included in meta-analyses. Learning and memory. There was little effect on accuracy (mean difference, MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02) or response time (MD -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02) on the one-back memory task; and accuracy (MD -0.02; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.00) or response time (MD -0.01; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.03) on the one card learning task (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). Executive function. There was little to no effect on the Stroop test for the time ratio ((B-A)/A) response (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04, very low certainty) or the time ratio ((D-C)/C) response (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05, very low certainty), with both tests measuring susceptibility to interference effects. Complex attention. There was little to no effect on detection task accuracy (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08), or response time (MD 0.02;95% CI 0.01 to 0.03), and little to no effect on identification task accuracy (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05) or response time (MD 0.00;95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). No other cognitive domains were investigated in children. A single study among elderly people provided very low certainty evidence that more frequent mobile phone use may have little to no effect on the odds of a decline in global cognitive function (odds ratio, OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58, 649 participants) or a decline in executive function (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.05, 146 participants), and may lead to a small, probably unimportant, reduction in the odds of a decline in complex attention (OR 0.67;95%CI 0.27 to 1.68, 159 participants) and a decline in learning and memory (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.99, 159 participants). An exposure-response relationship was not identified for any of the cognitive outcomes.

A 2022 systematic review concluded that the body of evidence allows no final conclusion on the question whether exposure to RF EMF from mobile communication devices poses a particular risk to children and adolescents.

That RFK Jr. spouts BS almost every time he opens his mouth should be an embarrassment to all US citizens. For the rest of the world, it is more than that. In fact, it is fast becoming a serious concern: sooner or later, his insane delusions will affect public health on a global scale!

The primary aim of this ‘mixed-methods, feasibility pilot study’ was to evaluate the feasibility of providing Reiki at a behavioral health clinic serving a low-income population. The secondary aim was to evaluate outcomes in terms of patients’ symptoms, emotions, and feelings before and after Reiki.
The study followed a pre-post experimental design. Reiki was offered to adult outpatients at a community behavioral health center in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients with a stable mental health diagnosis completed surveys before and after the Reiki intervention and provided qualitative feedback. Patients were asked to report their ratings of:
  • pain,
  • anxiety,
  • fatigue,
  • feelings (eg, happy, calm)

on 0- to 10-point numeric rating scales. Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests.

Among 91 patients who completed a Reiki session during the study period, 74 (81%) were women. Major depressive disorder (71%), posttraumatic stress disorder (47%), and generalized anxiety disorder (43%) were the most common diagnoses. The study was feasible in terms of recruitment, retention, data quality, acceptability, and fidelity of the intervention. Patient ratings of pain, fatigue, anxiety, stress, sadness, and agitation were significantly lower, and ratings of happiness, energy levels, relaxation, and calmness were significantly higher after a single Reiki session.
The authors concluded that the results of this study suggest that Reiki is feasible and could be fit into the flow of clinical care in an outpatient behavioral health clinic. It improved positive emotions and feelings and decreased negative measures. Implementing Reiki in clinical practice should be further explored to improve mental health and well-being.
One might have expected better science from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester; in fact, this is not science at all; it’s pure pseudo-science! Here are some critical remarks:
  • What on earth is a ‘mixed-method, feasibility, pilot study’? A hallmark of pseudo-researchers seems to be that they think they can invent their own terminology.
  • There is no objective, validated outcome measure.
  • The conclusion that ‘Reiki is feasible‘ has been known and does not need to be tested any longer.
  • The conclusion that ‘Reiki improved positive emotions and feelings and decreased negative measures’ is false. As there was no control group, these improvements might have been caused by a whole lot of other things than Reiki – for instance, the extra attention, placebo effects, regression towards the mean or social desirability.
  • The conclusion that ‘implementing Reiki in clinical practice should be further explored to improve mental health and well-being’ is therefore not based on the data provided. In fact, as Reiki is an implausible esoteric nonsense, it is a promotion of wasting resources on utter BS.

Does it matter?

Why not let pseudo-scientists do what they do best: PSEUDO-SCIENCE?

I think it matters because:

  • Respectable institutions like the Mayo Clinic should not allow its reputation being destroyed by quackery.
  • The public should not be misled by charlatans.
  • Patients suffering from mental health problems deserve better.
  • Resources should not be wasted on pseudo-research.
  • ‘Academic journals like ‘Glob Adv Integr Med Health’ have a responsibility for what they publish.
  • ‘The ‘Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health‘ that seems to be behind this particular journal claim to be “the world’s most comprehensive community for advancing the practice of whole health, with leading expertise in research, clinical care, and education. By consolidating the top institutions in the integrative medicine space, all working in unison with a common goal, the Academic Consortium is the premier organizational home for champions of whole health. Together with over 86 highly esteemed member institutions from the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Canada and Mexico, our collective vision is to transform the healthcare system by promoting integrative medicine and health for all.” In view of the above, such statements are a mockery of the truth.

 

On this blog, we have discussed all sorts of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) but only rarely we scrutinize any of the many gadets and devices that are being promoted under the SCAM umbrella. Therefore, I will in future try to fill this gap.

This study investigated the effects of a magnetic pain relief patch (MPRP) on gait variability in adults. In 10 young men and women, MPRP was attached to 18 bilateral lower limb muscle areas (biceps femoris, gastrocnemius medialis, gastrocnemius lateralis, rectus femoris, soleus, semitendinosus, tibialis anterior, vastus medialis, and vastus lateralis) for 24 hours. Gait parameters collected from the accelerometer sensor were ground contact time, cadence, stance phase, swing phase, double support, stride length, and swing width, and were analyzed as gait variability. Data analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Significant differences were found in the left and right gait cycle time coefficient of variation (CV) (p=0.047 in left, p=0.028 in right), cadence CV (p=0.047 in left and right), and double support CV (p=0.028 in left and right) before and after attachment of the MPRP.

The author concluded that MPRP enhances gait variability and can be utilized as a potential tool to complement noninvasive pain management and rehabilitation strategies. However, further studies are required to prove the long-term benefits and optimal application protocol of MPRP use.

My interpretation is very different!

The author of the paper, Do-Youn Lee from the College of General Education, Kookmin University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, urgently needs some general education. He claims that “several studies have demonstrated the potential benefits of magnetotherapy to relieve pain”. As he quotes our systematic review on the subject, he must know that this statement is not quite true:

Background: Static magnets are marketed with claims of effectiveness for reducing pain, although evidence of scientific principles or biological mechanisms to support such claims is limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical evidence from randomized trials of static magnets for treating pain.

Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted from inception to March 2007 for the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and the UK National Research Register. All randomized clinical trials of static magnets for treating pain from any cause were considered. Trials were included only if they involved a placebo control or a weak magnet as the control, with pain as an outcome measure. The mean change in pain, as measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale, was defined as the primary outcome and was used to assess the difference between static magnets and placebo.

Results: Twenty-nine potentially relevant trials were identified. Nine randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing pain with a visual analogue scale were included in the main meta-analysis; analysis of these trials suggested no significant difference in pain reduction (weighted mean difference [on a 100-mm visual analogue scale] 2.1 mm, 95% confidence interval -1.8 to 5.9 mm, p = 0.29). This result was corroborated by sensitivity analyses excluding trials of acute effects and conditions other than musculoskeletal conditions. Analysis of trials that assessed pain with different scales suggested significant heterogeneity among the trials, which means that pooling these data is unreliable.

Interpretation: The evidence does not support the use of static magnets for pain relief, and therefore magnets cannot be recommended as an effective treatment. For osteoarthritis, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a clinically important benefit, which creates an opportunity for further investigation.

Our systematic review did evidently not stop the author to do his own study – good for him!

But what a study it is!!!

Alert readers will have noticed that the study has no control group. Others might have remarked that the notion of static magnets of this kind doing anything meaningful to our bodies lacks plausibility. Thus the observed effects cannot possibly attributed to the magnet therapy. Most likely they are due to the considerable attention the volunteers received.

Some might argue that such gadgets do no harm – so, why not use them? I would disagree with this notion. Firstly, they cost money and thus harm the finances of gullible consumers. Secondly, they distract people from effective treatments and thus have the potential to prolong the suffering of patients.

In view of all this, I feel I should rewrite the conclusions as follows:

Attention can improve pain and enhance gait variability. MPRP is neither biologically plausibe nor has it been shown to be clinically effective. Responsible clinicians should stop using MPRP and employ effective treatments instead. Future research on MPRP must be categorized as a waste of resources.

Guest post by Ken McLeod 

O’Neill has graced these pages several times. Now we report on the developing conflict between her and the Seventh Day Adventist Church she uses to facilitate her lecture tours.

The General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the top governing body for the SDA worldwide, has issued a statement calling banned naturopath Barbara O’Neill “disingenuous”, referring to the “questionable nature” of her teachings. Signed by Fred Hardinge, the General Conference’s nutrition and lifestyle specialist, says “it [the Conference] is not able to recommend her as a speaker for churches or any gatherings”.[1]

O’Neil was made the subject of a Permanent Prohibition Order in 2019 by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, which found that she provided dangerous advice to vulnerable patients, that she did not have any qualifications in a health-related field, and that she failed to meet the expected standards of unregistered health professionals. [2]

That action stopped her from conducting her health seminars in Australia, so she has taken her business overseas. She has toured the world, conducting her health ‘lectures’ for the more credulous and naïve.[3]

At first her lecture tours were arranged via the Seventh Day Adventist Church community, and one interview refers to her program as “her ministry” several times.[4] Over time the Church leadership has become more concerned about the health misinformation that O’Neill provided to their congregants in that ‘ministry’.[5]

The General Conference statement was made public in the SDA newspaper The Fulcrum on 4 February 2025.  The paper listed the SDA’s history of their concerns about O’Neill and reprinted a report to the General Conference by Hardinge.[6]

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church states “We encourage responsible immunisation/vaccination and have no religious or faith-based reason not to encourage our adherents to responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunisation programs. We value the health and safety of the population, which includes the maintenance of ‘herd immunity.” [7] O’Neill is an anti-vaxxer.

However, the statement does not mean that O’Neil is banned from SDA facilities. It says: “We are not the conscience of the individual church member and recognise individual choices.”

One insider told us that the General Conference has some authority, but it is not set in stone as would be a Catholic Church ex-cathedra ruling. SDA congregations could still invite her, but it becomes less likely because the local conferences will keep an eye on them, especially if they’re intending on having her speak in the church itself. “Adventists are very gullible when it comes to this kind of thing”, they said.

At first, Barbara O’Neill’s main venue was Living Springs Retreat in Alabama. Recordings of some of her recent seminars appear on their website but all they say now is “Please Note: We Occasionally Host Programs With Barbara O’Neill But She Is Not Here.” [8]

O’Neill’s current events program is quite packed and, at time of writing, included five lecture series at SDA venues in the USA and 19 at non-SDA venues.[9] Some of those non-SDA venues are linked to SDA churches.  Queries were sent to each church asking if they intended to ignore the General Conference’s ‘recommendation’ but did not receive a response.

This is opening a schism of sorts within the Church, with some churches hosting her lectures, overtly or covertly.

Most of the 826 comments (so far) following The Fulcrum’s article are bitterly opposed to the General Conference’s statement and supportive of O’Neill, with posts like “Is the GC getting money from big pharma” and “Recommendations such as this from conference level and higher, means ‘uninvitable’ or, you know, risk losing your church building. It’s called soft power and our leaders are experts in that. This whole saga is nothing more than an attack on our God-given health message.” The phrase “Big Pharma” appears eight times.

O’Neill and her husband Michael have conducted interviews with supporters and attacked the General Conference. In one of seven video interviews that we found on YouTube, Barbara O’Neill says: “Honestly, just even writing this letter and distributing it to conferences and churches, this is not following the counsel of Jesus. … God is moving, and in the background, my beloved church is attacking the very work that God ordained me to do.”

Following that, the SDA magazine ‘Adventist Today’ ran another article on 14 March 2025  headlined ‘Defying General Conference Advice: Amazing Facts Promotes Aussie Health Crackpot Barbara O’Neill’[10] attacking her while naming and shaming the SDA broadcaster “Amazing Facts’ and the recalcitrant Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church. (Amazing Facts is an SDA broadcaster ‘with multiple television and radio programs on hundreds of media outlets around the world.’ [11])

It seems that there is a real campaign going on within the Church to jettison her.  Good.

References

1 SDA magazine The Fulcrum https://www.fulcrum7.com/news/2025/2/4/the-gc-takes-a-stand-against-barbara-oneill

2 https://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/decisions-orders/public-statements-and-warnings/public-statement-and-statement-of-decision-in-relation-to-in-relation-to-mrs-barbara-o-neill

3 For example https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/controversial-wellness-coach-barbara-oneill-set-to-host-talk-in-ireland-this-month/a1781099169.html

4 Belt Of Truth Live Ep 30 February 2025 https://www.youtube.com/live/A8-LJUMQP_I

5 https://atoday.org/whos-protecting-adventists-from-misinformation-part-2-health-quackery/

6 https://www.fulcrum7.com/news/2025/2/4/the-gc-takes-a-stand-against-barbara-oneill

7 https://gc.adventist.org/official-statements/immunization/

8 https://www.livingspringsretreat.com/june-training-with-barbara-oneill?rq=Barbara%20o%27neill

9 https://officialbarbaraoneill.com/pages/events

10 https://atoday.org/amazing-facts-endorses-health-crackpot-barbara-oneill/

11 https://www.amazingfacts.org/about-us/our-story

This study investigated the impact of spirituality and SCAM (so-called alternative medicine) use on perceptions of vaccine harmfulness, with a focus on COVID-19 and mandatory childhood vaccinations. Additionally, it examined whether spirituality indirectly influences vaccine hesitancy through SCAM use and beliefs in conspiracies.

A cross-sectional probability-based survey was conducted with over 1300 participants from South Tyrol, Italy, in 2023, using the GrAw-7 (Gratitude/Awe) scale as a measure of the experiential aspect of non-religious spirituality. Statistical analysis encompassed Spearman’s correlation and linear regression to assess the associations between spirituality and vaccine perceptions. A mediation model was applied to evaluate the role of spirituality in shaping attitudes towards vaccination.

The results show that higher experiential spirituality was associated with increased perceived harmfulness of COVID-19 and mandatory childhood vaccinations. Spirituality as well as perceived harmfulness of COVID-19 vaccination and mandatory childhood vaccination were correlated with age, increased SCAM utilisation and conspiracy ideation, while institutional distrust was solely associated with vaccine scepticism but not with spirituality; well-being and altruism were only associated with spirituality. Mediation analysis revealed that experiential spirituality accounted for a modest but significant portion of the influence of SCAM use and conspiracy thinking on vaccine perceptions.

The authors concluded that their study underscores the association between experiential spirituality and vaccine perceptions, particularly among individuals with a predisposition towards SCAM and those who exhibit conspiracy-related beliefs, highlighting the intricate relationships without implying causation. While spirituality does not appear to directly hinder vaccine uptake, it correlates with heightened perceptions of vaccine risks, particularly within contexts where alternative health practices and distrust in mainstream medical authorities are prevalent. This relationship emphasises that people who score high on spiritual awareness may be indirectly influenced to differ from others with respect to vaccination attitudes by promoting scepticism towards vaccine safety and efficacy. Even if we cannot change the spirituality of people, we know now that we can address information campaigns not only by attempting to build trust but also by addressing information to people preferring SCAM use and being spiritual at once. We think that this result is an important insight when focusing vaccine campaigns on vaccine-hesitant persons. These findings emphasise the importance of incorporating spiritual awareness, convictions, and beliefs into public health communication strategies. To address vaccine hesitancy within spiritually inclined populations, public health campaigns could explore framing vaccination in ways that resonate with values such as community care, personal responsibility, or altruism while ensuring that these messages are tailored to the diverse beliefs and perspectives of these groups. Moreover, collaboration with spiritual and community leaders could serve as a strategy to strengthen vaccine acceptance in populations that perceive health through a spiritual perspective. Future research should further explore the interactions between spirituality, SCAM use, and beliefs in conspiracies, with an emphasis on understanding how spirituality mediates health behaviours in culturally and religiously diverse contexts. Longitudinal studies and analyses across broader demographic groups are necessary to generalise these findings and refine public health interventions aimed at addressing spirituality-linked vaccine hesitancy.

My interpretation of these findings is that they confirm what we have repeatedly discussed here: There is a link between SCAM use and vaccination hesitance. It most likely is due to a cross-correlation: a certain mindset (that includes spirituality and several other phenomena) influences the distrust in vaccinations as well as the use of SCAM (and other things like, for instance, the belief in conspiracy theories).

Measles had been declared eliminated from the US in 2000. Now the disease is back with a vengeance. In February, an unvaccinated Texan child became the first person in a decade to die from measles in the US. Another death occurred in New Mexico.

The reason for the outbreak is simple: the uptake of the measles vaccine dropped below the 95% rate that is necessary for herd immunity. In the region where the current outbreak began, only 82% of the kids were vaccinated. This triggered the outbreak and, in turn, might mean that the US will lose its ‘measles elimination status’.

Only days after his appointment, Trump pledged to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization and to drastically cut the US Agency for International Development. Both moves are likely to cause more cases of measles and similarly vaccine-preventable diseases in the US and around the world. To make matters worse, Trump administration has fired hundreds of workers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

And to make matters even worse, Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the US most deluded antivaxer. Since being appointed, Kennedy has downplayed the importance of the current measles outbreak, postponed a meeting of the CDC vaccine advisers, made statements like “vaccinations are over-rated” and claimed that good nutrition and treatment with vitamin A as ways to reduce measles severity. He even praised the benefits of cod liver oil as a measure against measles. “There are adverse events from the vaccine,” Kennedy said in a March 11 interview. “It does cause deaths every year. It causes all the illnesses that measles itself causes, encephalitis and blindness, et cetera. And so people ought to be able to make that choice for themselves.” Further confirming his cluelessness Kennedy also stated: “When you and I were kids, everybody got measles, and measles gave you … lifetime protection against measles infection. The vaccine doesn’t do that… The vaccine wanes 4.5% per year.”

But Kennedy does not just propagate BS in interviews, he also plans to investigate whether vaccines cause autism — an assumption that has been discredited ad nauseam. A spokesperson for the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) said: “The rate of autism in American children has skyrocketed. CDC will leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out what exactly is happening.”

Meanwhile in Texas, some parents, who evidently believe Kennedy’s deluded nonsense, are giving unvaccinated children vitamin A, which, of course, is toxic at high doses.

1 2 3 126
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