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

pseudo-science

1 2 3 56

When tested rigorously, the evidence for so-called alternatives medicine (SCAM) is usually weak or even negative. This fact has prompted many SCAM enthusiasts to become utterly disenchanted with rigorous tests such as the randomised clinical trial (RCT). They seem to think that, if the RCT fails to generate the findings we want, let’s use different methodologies instead. In other words, they are in favour of observational studies which often yield positive results.

This line of thinking is prevalent in all forms of SCAM, but probably nowhere more so that in the realm of homeopathy. Homeopaths see that rigorous RCTs tend not to confirm their belief and, to avoid cognitive dissonance, they focus on observational studies which are much more likely to confirm their belief.

In this context, it is worth mentioning a recent article where well-known homeopathy enthusiasts have addressed the issue of observational studies. Here is their abstract:

Background: Randomized placebo-controlled trials are considered to be the gold standard in clinical research and have the highest importance in the hierarchical system of evidence-based medicine. However, from the viewpoint of decision makers, due to lower external validity, practical results of efficacy research are often not in line with the huge investments made over decades.

Method: We conducted a narrative review. With a special focus on homeopathy, we give an overview on cohort, comparative cohort, case-control and cross-sectional study designs and explain guidelines and tools that help to improve the quality of observational studies, such as the STROBE Statement, RECORD, GRACE and ENCePP Guide.

Results: Within the conventional medical research field, two types of arguments have been employed in favor of observational studies. First, observational studies allow for a more generalizable and robust estimation of effects in clinical practice, and if cohorts are large enough, there is no over-estimation of effect sizes, as is often feared. We argue that observational research is needed to balance the current over-emphasis on internal validity at the expense of external validity. Thus, observational research can be considered an important research tool to describe “real-world” care settings and can assist with the design and inform the results of randomised controlled trails.

Conclusions: We present recommendations for designing, conducting and reporting observational studies in homeopathy and provide recommendations to complement the STROBE Statement for homeopathic observational studies.

In their paper, the authors state this:

It is important to realize three areas where observational research can be valuable. For one, as already mentioned, it can be valuable as a preparatory type of research for designing good randomized studies. Second, it can be valuable as a stand-alone type of research, where pragmatic or ethical reasons stand against conducting a randomized study. Additionally, it can be valuable as the only adequate method where choices are involved: for instance, in any type of lifestyle research or where patients have very strong preferences, such as in homeopathy and other CAM. This might also lead to a diversification of research efforts and a broader, more realistic, picture of the effects of therapeutic interventions.

My comments to this are as follows:

  1. Observational research can be valuable as a preparatory type of research for designing good randomized studies. This purpose is better fulfilled by pilot studies (which are often abused in SCAM).
  2. Observational research can be valuable as a stand-alone type of research, where pragmatic or ethical reasons stand against conducting a randomized study. Such situations rarely arise in the realm of SCAM.
  3. Observational research can be valuable as the only adequate method where choices are involved: for instance, in any type of lifestyle research or where patients have very strong preferences, such as in homeopathy and other CAM. I fail to see that this is true.
  4. Observational research leads to a diversification of research efforts and a broader, more realistic, picture of the effects of therapeutic interventions. The main aim of research into the effectiveness of SCAM should be, in my view, to determine whether the treatment per se works or not. Observational studies are likely to obscure the truth on this issue.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that observational studies are useless; quite to the contrary, they can provide very important information. But what I am trying to express is this:

  • We should not allow double standards in medical research. The standards and issues of observational research as they exist in conventional medicine must also apply to SCAM.
  • Observational studies cannot easily determine cause and effect between the therapy and the outcome.
  • Observational studies cannot be a substitute for RCTs.
  • Depending on their exact design, observational studies measure the outcome caused by a whole range of factors, including the therapy per se, the placebo-effect, the natural history of the disease, the regression towards the mean.
  • Observational studies are particularly useful in effectiveness research, AFTER the efficacy of a therapy has been established by RCTs.
  • If RCT fail to show that a therapy is effective and observational studies seem to indicate that they work, the therapy in question is probably a placebo.
  • SCAM-enthusiasts’ preference for observational studies is transparently due to motivated reasoning.

Pisa syndrome (PS) is a condition in which there is sustained involuntary flexion of the body and head to one side and slight rotation of the trunk so the person appears to lean like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The PS can occur as a complication of Parkinson’s disease (PD). It can also be an adverse effect of some medications. It is characterized by a trunk lateral flexion higher than 10 degrees which is reversible when lying. The underlying pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the development of PS are poorly understood. One pathophysiological hypothesis is that PS in PD is caused by an altered verticality perception, due to a somatosensory impairment.

The management of PS remains a challenge. Physiotherapy with early rehabilitation emphasising stretching exercises for the external oblique and paraspinal muscles is usually recommended. Therapy is also needed to improve static, dynamic posture and the control of pain symptoms. Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) is also sometimes advocated for PS, but does it work?

The aim of the study was to assess OMT efficacy on postural control in PD-PS patients by stabilometry. In this single-blinded trial the investigators studied 24 PD-PS patients, 12 of whom were randomly assigned to receive a multidisciplinary physical therapy protocol (MIRT) and sham OMT, while the other 12 received OMT plus MIRT for one month. The primary endpoint was the eye closed sway area assessment after the intervention. Evaluation of trunk lateral flexion (TLF) was also performed.

At one month, the sway area of the OMT group significantly decreased compared to placebo (mean delta OMT – 326.00±491.24 mm2, p = 0.01). The experimental group TLF showed a mean inclination reduction of 3.33 degrees after treatment (p = 0.044, mean d = 0.54). Moreover, a significant positive association between delta ECSA and delta TLF was observed (p = 0.04, r = 0.46).

The authors concluded that among PD-PS patients, MIRT plus OMT showed preliminary evidence of postural control and TLF improvement, compared to the control group.

The authors entitled their paper ‘Efficacy of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on Postural Control in Parkinsonian Patients With Pisa Syndrome: A Pilot Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial’. As a pilot study, it should not test efficacy but explore the feasibility of a definitive trial. The fact the authors report outcome data, indicates to me that this is, in fact, not a pilot study, but a hopelessly underpowered clinical trial. This means that the findings could be due merely to chance alone. And this, in turn, means that the researchers owe it to their patients to conduct a properly powered RCT.

Michael Dixon LVOOBEMAFRCGP has been a regular feature of this blog (and elsewhere). He used to be a friend and colleague until … well, that’s a long story. Recently, I came across his (rather impressive) Wikipedia page. To my surprise, it mentions that Dixon

See the source image“has been criticised by professor of complementary medicine and alternative medicine campaigner Edzard Ernst for advocating the use of complementary medicine. Ernst said that the stance of the NHS Alliance on complementary medicine was “misleading to the degree of being irresponsible.”[31] Ernst had previously been sympathetic to building a bridge between complementary and mainstream medicine, co-writing an article with Michael Dixon in 1997 on the benefits of such an approach.[32] Ernst and Dixon write “missed diagnoses by complementary therapists giving patients long term treatments are often cited but in the experience of one of the authors (MD) are extremely rare. It can also cut both ways. A patient was recently referred back to her general practitioner by an osteopath, who was questioning, as it turned out quite correctly, whether her pain was caused by metastates. Good communication between general practitioner and complementary therapist can reduce conflicts and contradictions, which otherwise have the potential to put orthodox medicine and complementary therapy in an either/or situation.”

REFERENCES

31) February 2009, 24. “Academics and NHS Alliance clash over complementary medicine”. Pulse Today.

32) ^ Update – the journal of continuing education for General Practitioners, 7th May 1997

I have little recollection of the paper that I seem to have published with my then friend Michael, and it is not listed in Medline, nor can I find it in my (usually well-kept) files; the journal ‘Update’ does not exist anymore and was obviously not a journal good enough for keeping a copy. But I do not doubt that Wiki is correct.

In fact, it is true that, in 1997, I was still hopeful that bridges could be built between conventional medicine and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But I had always insisted that they must be bridges built on solid ground and with robust materials.

Put simply, my strategy was to test SCAM as rigorously as I could and to review the totality of the evidence for and against it. Subsequently, one could consider introducing those SCAMs into routine care that had passed the tests of science.

Dixon’s strategy differed significantly from mine. He had no real interest in science and wanted to use SCAM regardless of the evidence. Since the publication of our paper in 1997, he has pursued this aim tirelessly. On this blog, we find several examples of his activity.

And what happened to the bridges?

I’m glad you ask!

As it turns out, very few SCAMs have so far passed the test of science and hardly any SCAM has been demonstrated to generate more good than harm. The material to build bridges is therefore quite scarce, hardly enough for solid constructions. Dixon does still not seem to be worried about this indisputable fact. He thinks that INTEGRATED MEDICINE is sound enough for providing a way to the future. I disagree and still think it is ‘misleading to the degree of being irresponsible’.

Who is right?

Dixon or Ernst?

Opinions about this differ hugely.

Time will tell, I suppose.

By guest blogger Loretta Marron

If scientists were fearful of a clinical trial’s producing negative results, would they even pursue it? A draft Chinese regulation issued in late May aims to criminalise individual scientists and organisations whom China claims damage the reputation of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

Beijing has a reputation for reprimanding those who decry TCM. Such criticism is blocked on Chinese Internet. Silencing doctors is becoming the norm.

In January 2018, former anaesthetist, Tan Qindong, was arrested and spent more than three months in detention after criticising a widely advertised, best-selling ‘medicinal’ TCM liquor. Claiming that it was a ‘poison’, he believed that he was protecting the elderly and vulnerable patients with high blood pressure. Police claimed that a post on social media damaged the reputation of the TCM ‘liquor’ and of the company making it. Shortly after release, he suffered post-traumatic stress and was hospitalised.

On 30 December 2019, Chinese ophthalmologist, the late Dr Li Wenliang, was one of the first to recognise the outbreak of COVD-19. He posted a private warning to a group of fellow doctors about a possible outbreak of an illness resembling severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). He encouraged them to protect themselves from infection. Days later, after his post when viral, he was summoned to the Public Security Bureau in Wuhan and forced to “admit to lying about the existence of a worrying new virus”. Li was accused of violating the provisions of the “People’s Republic of China Public Order Management and Punishment Law” for spreading “unlawful spreading of untruthful topics on the internet” and of disturbing the social order. He was made to sign a statement that he would “halt this unlawful behaviour”.

In April 2020, Chinese physician Yu Xiangdong, a senior medico who worked on the front line battling COVID-19, posted on Weibo, a Twitter-like site, a criticism of the use of antibiotics and TCM to treat COVID-19. He was demoted from his positions as assistant dean at the Central Hospital in the central city of Huangshi and director of quality management for the city’s Edong Healthcare Group. Well known for promoting modern medicine amongst the Chinese, Yu had almost a million followers on social media. All his postings vanished.

Beijing insists that TCM has been playing a crucial role in COVID-19 prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Claims continue to be made for “effective TCM recipes”. However, no randomised clinical trial has been published in any reputable journal.

TCM needs proper scrutiny, but criticising it could land you years in prison. If the benefits of suggested herbal remedies are to be realised, good clinical studies must be encouraged. For TCM, this might never be permitted.

Don’t think for a moment that you are safe in Australia.

Article 8.25 of the Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China reads:

Traditional Chinese Medicine Services (“TCM”)

  1. Within the relevant committees to be established in accordance with this Agreement, and subject to available resources, Australia and China shall cooperate on matters relating to trade in TCM services.
  2. Cooperation identified in paragraph 2 shall:

(a)    include exchanging information, where appropriate, and discussing policies, regulations and actions related to TCM services; and

(b)   encourage future collaboration between regulators, registration authorities and relevant professional bodies of the Parties to facilitate trade in TCM and complementary medicines, in a manner consistent with all relevant regulatory frameworks. Such collaboration, involving the competent authorities of both Parties – for Australia, notably the Department of Health, and for China the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine – will foster concrete cooperation and exchanges relating to TCM.

‘HOMEOPATHY RESOURCE’ claim they are the online web site for accurate information on homeopathy, homeopaths and homeopathic organizations. On 18 June, they published an article entitled “Another Remarkable Demonstration of Homeopathy’s Effectiveness in Covid-19: ONLY 19 Deaths out of 35 million in Kerala, India”. Here it is in its full beauty:

The State of Kerela India has shown that homeopathy and grassroots health care works dramatically well in epidemic and pandemic situations.. The state, in spite of areas of great density, has reported only 19 deaths. This compares to the UK which has a population of 66 million people but a tragic 41,698 deaths.

The region’s Health Minister Shailaja Teacher has been called the “Coronavirus Slayer” after introducing homeopathy as a primary means of dealing with the epidemic. Kerala India has already come through two Nipah virus epidemics under her watch.

Tactics used by Shailaja included encouraging the use of homeopathy. In a recent media meeting, she talked about the need “to improve the immunity and resistance power of each individual not yet positive to Coronavirus, with the help of Homeopathic/ Ayurvedic medicines. That will help them resist the Coronavirus infection, help them to tide over the infection well, if at all they contract it…… everyone should take Homeopathic & Ayurvedic preventative treatments available.”

According to Dr E.S.Rajendran who practices in Kerala “The total number of people who received the homeopathic preventive medicine Ars alb 30 through Kerala government as on June 1st was 10 million. An equal number of people have also received the same through voluntary organisations. The remaining population is expected to receive the preventive medicine in another one month.” This distribution was carried out in each district with the help of resident associations and was achievable because there is a huge demand for homeopathy from the people.

_____________________________________

Do ‘HOMEOPATHY RESOURCE’ really think that this is ‘accurate information’?

Do they feel that it amounts to evidence that homeopathy prevents COVID-19 infections?

Do they believe that it is responsible to promote such a message?

If so, they are more deluded than their homeopathic remedies are diluted!

There is a plethora of factors that might have contributed to the low infection rate in Kerela. Here are some that spring into my mind (in descending order of probability):

  1. Social distancing measures might have been put in place at the right time.
  2. Hand-washing might have been better accepted than in the UK.
  3. Face-masks might have been more common.
  4. The government might have been less incompetent than the one in the UK.
  5. The pandemic might be arriving with some delay in Kerela (in the last 2 days the COVID cases have more than doubled in Kerela).
  6. The hot weather might have inhibited the spread of the infection.
  7. The Ayurvedic medicine mentioned by the health minister might have worked.
  8. There might be many more cases due to under-diagnosis and poor testing.
  9. The holy cows might have prevented infections.
  10. Homeopathy works dramatically well in epidemic and pandemic situations.

Call me a sceptic, but – whatever turns out to be true (and I sincerely hope that the case numbers stay low in Kerela) – I do not think that ‘HOMEOPATHY RESOURCE’ is providing accurate information with their recent post.

And call me a pessimist, but I fail to see any good evidence to assume that homeopathic remedies have any effect in treating or preventing viral infections. In fact,

HIGHLY DILUTE HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES ARE PURE PLACEBOS! 

Am I the only one who is tired of hearing that, in India, homeopathy is doing wonders for the current pandemic? All of the reports that I have seen are based on little more than hearsay, anecdotes or pseudo-science. If anyone really wanted to find out whether homeopathy works, they would need more than that; in fact, they would need to conduct a clinical trial.

But wait!

As it happens, there are already ~500 clinical trials of homeopathy. Many show positive effects, but the reliable ones usually don’t. Crucially, the totality of the evidence fails to be positive. So, running further studies is hardly a promising exercise. In fact, considering how utterly implausible homeopathy is, it even seems like an unethical waste of resources.

But many homeopaths disagree, particularly those in India. And it has been reported that several trials have been given the go-ahead in India and are now up and running. This regrettable fact is being heavily exploited for swaying public opinion in favour of homeopathy. The way I see it, the situation is roughly this:

  • a few trials of homeopathy are being set up;
  • they are designed by enthusiasts of homeopathy who lack research expertise;
  • therefore their methodology is weak and biased towards generating a false-positive result;
  • while this is going on, the homeopathic propaganda machine is running overtime;
  • when the results will finally emerge, they will get published in a 3rd rate journal;
  • homeopaths worldwide will celebrate them as a triumph for homeopathy;
  • critical thinkers will be dismayed at their quality and will declare that the conclusions drawn by over-enthusiastic homeopaths are not valid;
  • in the end, we will be exactly where we were before: quasi-religious believers in homeopathy will feel vexed because their findings are not accepted in science, and everyone else will be baffled by the waste of time, opportunity and resources as well as by the tenacity of homeopaths to make fools of themselves.

But criticising is easy; doing it properly is often more difficult.

So, how should it be done?

The way I see it, one should do the following:

  • carefully consider the implausibility of homeopathy;
  • thoroughly study the existing evidence on homeopathy;
  • abandon all plans to study homeopathy in the light of the above.

But this hardly is inconceivable considering the current situation in India. If further studies of homeopathy are unavoidable, the following procedure might therefore be reasonable:

  1. assemble a team of experts including trial methodologists, statisticians, epidemiologists and homeopaths;
  2. ask them to design a rigorous protocol of one or two studies that would provide a definitive answer to the research question posed;
  3. make sure that, once everyone is happy with the protocol, all parties commit to abiding by the findings that will emerge from these trials;
  4. conduct the studies under adequately strict supervision;
  5. evaluate the results according to the protocol;
  6. publish them in a top journal;
  7. do the usual press-releases, interviews etc.

In India, it seems that the last point in this agenda came far too early. This is because, in this and several other countries, homeopathy has become more a belief system than a medicine. And because it is about belief, the believers will avert any truly meaningful and rigorous test of homeopathy’s efficacy.

 

 

This was essentially the question raised in a correspondence with a sceptic friend. His suspicion was that statistical methods might produce false-positive overall findings, if the research is done by enthusiasts of the so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in question (or other areas of inquiry which I will omit because they are outside my area of expertise). Consciously or inadvertently, such researchers might introduce a pro-SCAM bias into their work. As the research is done mostly by such enthusiasts; the totality of the evidence would turn out to be heavily skewed in favour of the SCAM under investigation. The end-result would then be a false-positive overall impression about the SCAM which is less based on reality than on the wishful thinking of the investigators.

How can one deal with this problem?

How to minimise the risk of being overwhelmed by false-positive research?

Today, we have several mechanisms and initiatives that are at least partly aimed at achieving just this. For instance, there are guidelines on how to conduct the primary research so that bias is minimised. The CONSORT statements are an example. As many studies pre-date CONSORT, we need a different approach for reviews of clinical trials. The PRISMA guideline or the COCHRANE handbook are attempts to make sure systematic reviews are transparent and rigorous. These methods can work quite well in finding the truth, but one needs to be aware, of course, that some researchers do their very best to obscure it. I have also tried to go one step further and shown that the direction of the conclusion correlates with the rigour of the study (btw: this was the paper that prompted Prof Hahn’s criticism and slander of my work and person).

So, problem sorted?

Not quite!

The trouble is that over-enthusiastic researchers may not always adhere to these guidelines, they may pretend to adhere but cut corners, or they may be dishonest and cheat. And what makes this even more tricky is the possibility that they do all this inadvertently; their enthusiasm could get the better of them, and they are doing research not to TEST WHETHER a treatment works but to PROVE THAT it works.

In the realm of SCAM we have a lot of this – trust me, I have seen it often with my own eyes, regrettably sometimes even within my own team of co-workers. The reason for this is that SCAM is loaded with emotion and quasi-religious beliefs; and these provide a much stronger conflict of interest than money could ever do, in my experience.

And how might we tackle this thorny issue?

After thinking long and hard about it, I came up in 2012 with my TRUSTWORTHYNESS INDEX:

If we calculated the percentage of a researcher’s papers arriving at positive conclusions and divided this by the percentage of his papers drawing negative conclusions, we might have a useful measure. A realistic example might be the case of a clinical researcher who has published a total of 100 original articles. If 50% had positive and 50% negative conclusions about the efficacy of the therapy tested, his TI would be 1.

Depending on what area of clinical medicine this person is working in, 1 might be a figure that is just about acceptable in terms of the trustworthiness of the author. If the TI goes beyond 1, we might get concerned; if it reaches 4 or more, we should get worried.

An example would be a researcher who has published 100 papers of which 80 are positive and 20 arrive at negative conclusions. His TI would consequently amount to 4. Most of us equipped with a healthy scepticism would consider this figure highly suspect.

Of course, this is all a bit simplistic, and, like all other citation metrics, my TI provides us not with any level of proof; it merely is a vague indicator that something might be amiss. And, as stressed already, the cut-off point for any scientist’s TI very much depends on the area of clinical research we are dealing with. The lower the plausibility and the higher the uncertainty associated with the efficacy of the experimental treatments, the lower the point where the TI might suggest  something  to be fishy.

Based on this concept, I later created the ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME. This is a list of researchers who manage to go through life researching their particular SCAM without ever publishing a negative conclusion about it. In terms of TI, these people have astronomically high values. The current list is not yet long, but it is growing:

John Weeks (editor of JCAM)

Deepak Chopra (US entrepreneur)

Cheryl Hawk (US chiropractor)

David Peters (osteopathy, homeopathy, UK)

Nicola Robinson (TCM, UK)

Peter Fisher (homeopathy, UK)

Simon Mills (herbal medicine, UK)

Gustav Dobos (various, Germany)

Claudia Witt (homeopathy, Germany and Switzerland)

George Lewith (acupuncture, UK)

John Licciardone (osteopathy, US)

The logical consequence of a high TI would be that researchers of that nature are banned from obtaining research funds and publishing papers, because their contribution is merely to confuse us and make science less reliable.

I am sure there are other ways of addressing the problem of being mislead by false-positive research. If you can think of one, I’d be pleased to hear about it.

 

Guest post by: Loretta Marron

In March 1991, the Australian College of Allergy published an article in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) about a ‘bioresonance’ device for allergy testing. Titled “VEGA testing in the diagnosis of allergic conditions”, it stated that it was “an unorthodox method of diagnosing allergic and other diseases” with “no established scientific basis” and “no controlled trials to support its usefulness”.

The article raised concerns that this test “may lead to inappropriate treatment and expense to the patient and community”. VEGA is one of nearly 30 ‘energy medicine’ devices, some of which continue to cite Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) ‘listing numbers’.

Sometime costing more than $34,000, the sponsors tell practitioners that they can earn up to $150,000 annually with these computerised devices. Referring to ‘bioresonance’ as “the medicine of the future”, they claim that all toxins, viruses and bacteria have unique ‘frequency patterns’, which, when ‘neutralised’ by the device, restore the patient to health. They may also claim that it can cure addictions to alcohol, cocaine, crack, nicotine, heroin, opiates, cannabis, spice, ‘legal highs’ and other medications. Some claim that it can cure cancer, hay fever, allergies, auto-immune diseases, behavioural problems, smoking addiction and that they can kill parasites – the list goes on.

The devices are ‘based’ on acupuncture, homeopathy and ‘quantum physics’. More than 60 reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration (the ‘Gold Standard’ for evidence-based Medicine), have failed to find robust evidence for clinically significant outcomes for acupuncture for any disease or disorders. The National Health & Medical Research Council concluded, “there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective” and quantum physics “is not at work”. In February 2020, nearly 30 years after that MJA article, the TGA’s cancellation of two of these devices saw the last of them removed from their register, but not from permissible advertising or practice.

From 2014 to 2018, Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) had repeatedly written letters and submissions to the TGA asking for these devices to be investigated. Meeting with the national manager in 2016, we were told that these devices could not be cancelled because they were ‘biofeedback’ devices, which had a legitimate place in health care. In 2018, FSM sourced comments from informed experts here and overseas. These disputed the ‘biofeedback’ claim. FSM sent screenshots from more than 200 websites to the TGA advertising complaints. In 2019, after issuing a warning on bioresonance, the TGA closed the complaints and commenced an ‘education campaign’. They also engaged a credible Australian scientific organisation to review the evidence provided by eight ‘sponsors’ of 12 bioresonance’ devices listed in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods).

All devices have now been cancelled by their sponsors or by the TGA. The ‘education campaign’ continues. Even though the devices are still widely used, and courses still being run, FSM considers this a modestly satisfactory outcome.

Informed opinions:

Biofeedback:

o Michelle G Aniftos BCN, FCCLP, QEEGD, MEd, MPsych (Clinical), GradCertClinNeurophysiology, Fellow, Biofeedback Certification International Alliance, &

o Dr Tania M. Slawecki, PhD. Energy and the Environment Laboratory (formerly Materials Research Lab), Penn State University, USA (Author of “How to Distinguish Legitimate Biofeedback/Neurofeedback Devices”;

Electronic devices:

o Dr Stephen J Roberts, BSc ARCS DIC PhD. Consultant on electronic devices;

Psychology:

o Emeritus Professor Joseph P Forgas, AM, DPhil, Dsc (Oxford), FASSA, Scientia Professor, Psychology, UNSW &

Alternative medicine:

o Emeritus Professor Edzard Ernst MD, PhD, FMed Sci, FSB, FRCP, FRCP(Edin)

Their comments include the following:

· Ms Aniftos: “Having reviewed the specifications of the BICOM device, I find that its inclusion on the ARTG as a ‘biofeedback device’ is erroneous”;

· Dr Slawecki: “the BICOM device does not fit the criteria of a legitimate biofeedback device”;

· Dr Roberts: “The claims of how the BICOM and CyberScan work are preposterous.”Quantum physics” is not at work”;

· Professor Forgas: “The BICOM is NOT a biofeedback device and should be cancelled”; “The description of this device makes it crystal clear that it cannot possibly have any effective diagnostic or therapeutic function, and certainly has nothing at all to do with biofeedback.

“The claims made for the device amount to the worst kind of psychological manipulation, and their sole purpose is to mislead and exploit vulnerable people for financial gain. As a civilised society, we should not allow this kind of immoral exploitation to continue and the device should be banned forthwith”;

· Professor Ernst: “Bioresonance is not biologically plausible, not of proven effectiveness, potentially harmful and associated with exorbitant costs. I cannot recommend it for anyone or any purpose”.

I should never claim that I know all the cancer quackery that is out there! Because I don’t. There are just too many of them; and a new one seems to crop up every week.

For instance, I did not know about POWERLIGHT, a SCAM that is being promoted against many serious diseases, including cancer. Here is what the website states:

The very word “cancer” for patients is such a heavy burden, that psychological support actualy is necessary when a patient gets such a diagnosis. In this section we are pleased and proud to set an end to this terrifying illness.

A lot of different tumors in current language are called cancer. A cancer is based on epithelian tissue. This tissue occures in different organs. Because of that we find this tumore: as an

– Anal carcinoma

– Bronchial carcinoma

– Testicle carcinoma

– Laryngeal cancer

– Colon cancer

– Oesophageal cancer

– Gastric cancer

– Breast cancer

– Kidney carcinoma

– Ovary carcinoma

– Pancreas carcinoma

– Pharynx (throat) carcinoma

– Prostate carcinoma

Cancer is one of the most dreaded diseases we know.

We found the possibility to heal every kind of cancer, anyway what staging the tumor has. Also patients in the final stadium feel better after the third ampoule* and will be healed completly. The first ampoule brings a patient a better psychic situation.

For other tumors we have special medicines in our product list. Before taking Powerlight medicine it is necessary to have an exact diagnosis from a hospital. For example it was necessary to develope against carcinomas in the childhood other cluster stuctures – this is now our drug KIC. Tumores spreading from other tissues are to be treated with Powerlight NR, Powerlight H+NH and Powerlight LE.

If a patient started his treatment with conventional chemotherapy, the side effects will be bettered, when the patient gets Powerlight EG. The intake of Powerlight CA and Powerlight EG in the same period is not possible. In serious cases it has to be proved, whether the dangerous situation is caused primarily by the tumor or by the chemotherapy. According to this the heaviest burden has to be treated first.

All tumores that are not cancers, will not be healed by Powerlight CA. In these cases find an other correct medicine under  “Product list” in this homepage.

And how does POWERLIGHT work? The website provides the amazing answer:

The scientific background of our products is the physics of antimatter. With the help of positron radiation we can represent order patterns of living matter. Antimatter is able to copy patterns of organisms, when we put them into the electromagnetic field of antimatter. Such patterns show irregularities in the living matter. Normally living matter is structured by strict order patterns. The irregularities are causes of illness. Powerlight reconditions order patterns of living systems, because these order patterns also by heavy illnesses are not destroyed but only overlapped. The original order patterns are guide rails of the electron transfer by Clusters.

It has been reported that POWERLIGHT and some of the quacks offering it are now being sued in Austria after several cancer patients died who were naïve enough to believe this BS. According to the website, the firm originates in the Netherlands, however, MedWatch found out that it is not registered there either. This probably means that, officially, the firm does not even exist.

 

 

*the content has been analysed and seems to be a pure isotonic NaCl solution.

During the last few months, I have done little else on this blog than trying to expose misinformation about COVID-19 in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). However, the usefulness and accuracy of most viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 have so far not been investigated. Canadian researchers have just published a very nice paper that fills this gap.

They performed a YouTube search on 21 March 2020 using keywords ‘coronavirus’ and ‘COVID-19’, and the top 75 viewed videos from each search were analysed. Videos that were duplicates, non-English, non-audio and non-visual, exceeding 1 hour in duration, live and unrelated to COVID-19 were excluded. Two reviewers coded the source, content and characteristics of included videos. The primary outcome was usability and reliability of videos, analysed using the novel COVID-19 Specific Score (CSS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) and modified JAMA (mJAMA) scores.

Of 150 videos screened, 69 (46%) were included, totalling 257 804 146 views. Nineteen (27.5%) videos contained non-factual information, totalling 62 042 609 views. Government and professional videos contained only factual information and had higher CSS than consumer videos (mean difference (MD) 2.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.32, p=0.037); mDISCERN scores than consumer videos (MD 2.46, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.42, p=0.008), internet news videos (MD 2.20, 95% CI 0.19 to 4.21, p=0.027) and entertainment news videos (MD 2.57, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.49, p=0.004); and mJAMA scores than entertainment news videos (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.36, p=0.033) and consumer videos (MD 1.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.44, p=0.028). However, they only accounted for 11% of videos and 10% of views.

The authors concluded that over one-quarter of the most viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 contained misleading information, reaching millions of viewers worldwide. As the current COVID-19 pandemic worsens, public health agencies must better use YouTube to deliver timely and accurate information and to minimise the spread of misinformation. This may play a significant role in successfully managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

I think this is an important contribution to our knowledge about the misinformation that currently bombards the public. It explains not only the proliferation of conspiracy theories related to the pandemic, but also the plethora of useless SCAM options that are being touted endangering the public.

The authors point out that the videos included statements consisting of conspiracy theories, non-factual information, inappropriate recommendations inconsistent with current official government and health agency guidelines and discriminating statements. This is particularly alarming, when considering the immense viewership of these videos. Evidently, while the power of social media lies in the sheer volume and diversity of information being generated and spread, it has significant potential for harm. The proliferation and spread of misinformation can exacerbate racism and fear and result in unconstructive and dangerous behaviour, such as toilet paper hoarding and mask stealing behaviours seen so far in the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, this misinformation impedes the delivery of accurate pandemic-related information, thus hindering efforts by public health officials and healthcare professionals to fight the pandemic.

Good work!

I suggest to critically evaluate the statements of some UK and US politicians next.

 

1 2 3 56
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