quackery
Regular readers of this blog will know the US homeopath, Dana Ullman. He has been the star of several of my posts (for instance here, here, and here). Dana is prolific in his writing but he has published not published much in proper journals. Now he has almost doubled this list by publishing TWO (!) proper papers in real journals within just one month.
Congratulations, Dana!
The first is in CUREUS, a very unusual journal with a most unusual peer-review process. Allow me to show you the abstract of Dana’s article:
Homeopathic medicine is a controversial system of medicine that has been used worldwide for over 200 years. Recently, several governments, in part, owing to government-funded reviews of research on homeopathic medicine, have stopped reimbursements for homeopathic medicines and have discouraged their use by medical professionals. This review critically evaluates four government-funded reviews of clinical research on homeopathic medicine. An analysis of government-sponsored reviews of clinical research on homeopathic medicine was conducted, including two studies from Switzerland, one from England, and one from Australia. Three of the four government-funded reviews were critical of homeopathy, claiming that there was no reliable evidence that homeopathic medicines were effective. Three of these reviews had significant flaws, with potential ethical concerns raised in one of the reviews. The most comprehensive review of homeopathic research, including analysis of clinical and basic science concerns, found the most positive results for homeopathy.
The second paper was published in a journal called DOSE RESPONSE. The editor in chief of this journal is Prof E J Calabrese who has published numerous articles about homeopathy/hormesis. Here is the abstract of Dana’s 2nd article:
Serially diluted succussed solutions of a suitable drug/toxic substance can exhibit physicochemical and biological properties even far beyond Avogadro’s limit defying conventional wisdom. They can show hormesis, and homeopathy uses them as medicines. Many studies confirm that they can have an impact on gene expression different than controls. Water in the exclusion zone phase can have memory but for a short period. However, the nanoparticle as the physical substrate can hold information. Nanoparticle and exclusion zone duo as nanoparticle-exclusion zone shell can provide a prolonged memory. The Nanoparticle-Exclusion Zone Shell Model may be an important step toward explaining the nature and bioactivity of serially diluted succussed solutions used as homeopathic medicines. This model may also provide insight into the workings of hormesis. Hormesis is the primary phenomenon through which homeopathic phenomenon may have evolved exhibiting the principle of similars. Hahnemann exploited it to establish homeopathy. The nanoparticle-exclusion zone shells present in the remedy, selected on the principle of similars, can be patient-specific nanoparticles in a symptom syndrome-specific manner. They can carry the drug-specific information for safer clinical applications in an amplified form for high yielding. It suggests homeopathy is a type of nanopharmacology.
So, are Dana’s two articles significant? Both are reviews. The 1st tries to persuade us that homeopathy has clinical effects beyond placebo and that reports that say otherwise are full of errors and fraud and thus not reliable. The second tells us that these clinical effects of homeopathy can be explained by nano-pharmacology.
Is he right?
Please tell me what you think.
We have discussed Marma massage, we have repeatedly discussed acupuncture, of course, but we have so far never considered marmapuncture. The ‘British Institute of Marmapuncture‘ explains what it is:
Marmapuncture is traditionally known as Bhedan karma (meaning the action of piercing through) is a time tested therapeutic intervention, which treats the energetic body through an elaborate network of channels known as srotas.
Despite the widely held belief that Marmapuncture is a derivative of Chinese Acupuncture, that was popularised in 200-400 BC in text of the Yellow Emperor) modern archaeological evidence points to the fact that Suchi Bhaden, Shira Bhedan and Bhadhan Karma where practised in Sri Lanka well before this time. Finds discovered in caves in the Balangoda region of Sri Lanka, suggest there has been continuous habitation for over 37,000 years. Micro lithic tools were crafted from flint, fish bones and a type of rock known as Chert. These where used to penetrate the skin, which affected a therapeutic response in the body.
Another website informs us what marmapuncture can achieve: 
Marmapuncture can relieve a wide range of symptoms associated with musculoskeletal pain or injury, chronic fatigue, bowel complaints (IBS) and indigestion, stress, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, skin complaints, asthma and breathing disorders, low/excessive appetite and infertility (male and female).
And why do I mention all this? Last weekend, I read the Guardian (3/7/2021) and there it was: a half-page article entitled MARMAPUNCTURE. THIS INNOVATIVE FACIAL TREATMENT IS MORE THAN SKIN DEEP. WE FIND OUT HOW IT IS USED IN AYURVEDIC MEDICINE AND PUT IT TO THE TEST. In the article, Mattie Lacey-Davidson had the treatment and found that marmapuncture (dubbed ‘natural Botox’) is not truly comparable to botox. Then Mattie mentioned a 2013 study that allegedly reported ‘promising results as a therapy for facial elasticity with evidence of skin tightening across the face’. I think I found the study; here it is:
Background. The use of acupuncture for cosmetic purposes has gained popularity worldwide. Facial cosmetic acupuncture (FCA) is applied to the head, face, and neck. However, little evidence supports the efficacy and safety of FCA. We hypothesized that FCA affects facial elasticity by restoring resting mimetic muscle tone through the insertion of needles into the muscles of the head, face, and neck. Methods. This open-label, single-arm pilot study was implemented at Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong from August through September 2011. Participants were women aged 40 to 59 years with a Glogau photoaging scale III. Participants received five treatment sessions over three weeks. Participants were measured before and after FCA. The primary outcome was the Moire topography criteria. The secondary outcome was a patient-oriented self-assessment scale of facial elasticity. Results. Among 50 women screened, 28 were eligible and 27 completed the five FCA treatment sessions. A significant improvement after FCA treatment was evident according to mean change in Moire topography criteria (from 1.70 ± 0.724 to 2.26 ± 1.059, P < 0.0001). The most common adverse event was mild bruising at the needle site. Conclusions. In this pilot study, FCA showed promising results as a therapy for facial elasticity. However, further large-scale trials with a controlled design and objective measurements are needed.
As we see, it is neither a study of marmapuncture or a controlled trial. Its results are utterly meaningless. But is there any evidence at all to support the many claims made for marmapuncture?
No!
Last question: who is Mattie Lacey-Davidson?
She is a blogger/influencer/content creator based in London.
Say no more!
It was recently reported that about one-third of people who had been infected with COVID report suffering from long COVID:
- Some 37% of people experienced at least one symptom lasting 12 weeks or more
- Almost 15% said they had three or more symptoms for at least 12 weeks
- Long-term problems were more common in women, and with increasing age
- Higher weight, smoking, lower incomes, having a chronic illness, and having been hospitalized with Covid were linked to a higher chance of experiencing long-lasting symptoms
- Tiredness was one of the most common symptoms, and in people who were severely ill with Covid, shortness of breath was a dominant long-lasting symptom
These are worrying figures indeed. Common symptoms of ‘long COVID’ include persistent breathlessness, fatigue, and cough; less common symptoms are chest pain, palpitations, neurological and cognitive deficits, rashes, and gastrointestinal dysfunction. Several research papers describe abnormalities confirming pathophysiological damage ranging from abnormal blood tests to organ damage seen on MRI imaging or in postmortem findings.
Yes, there are good reasons to be worried. Yet others might see this situation as an opportunity. One does not need to be clairvoyant to predict that, in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), long-COVID will be the next big thing. Whenever there is a new, common, difficult-to-treat condition, SCAM practitioners and SCAM entrepreneurs fall over themselves claiming that their therapy is the solution. Gwyneth Paltrow’s bizarre was one of the first with her methods of easing long Covid symptoms. The Hollywood star and snake oil saleswoman said she had embarked on a “keto and plant-based” regime on the advice of an alternative medicine doctor. And, of course, it did her a world of good … Gwyneth approves of anything that is alternative.
On Medline, we already find an abundance of articles such as this one:
There is currently no drug or therapy that can cure the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is highly contagious and can be life-threatening in severe cases. Therefore, seeking potential effective therapies is an urgent task. An older female at the Leishenshan Hospital in Wuhan, China, with a severe case of COVID-19 with significant shortness of breath and decrease in peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), was treated using manual acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine granule formula Fuzheng Rescue Lung with Xuebijing Injection in addition to standard care. The patient’s breath rate, SpO2, heart rate, ratio of neutrophil/lymphocyte (NLR), ratio of monocyte/lymphocyte (MLR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and chest computed tomography were monitored. Acupuncture significantly improved the patient’s breathing function, increased SpO2, and decreased her heart rate. Chinese herbal medicine might make the effect of acupuncture more stable; the use of herbal medicine also seemed to accelerate the absorption of lung infection lesions when its dosage was increased. The combination of acupuncture and herbs decreased NLR from 14.14 to 5.83, MLR from 1.15 to 0.33 and CRP from 15.25 to 6.01 mg/L. These results indicate that acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine, as adjuvants to standard care, might achieve better results in treating severe cases of COVID-19.
A telephone survey included 495 COVID patients in India. 26% of them said they had people used 161 SCAM products and home remedies during and after COVID infections. More than half of the participants (59.6%) among them had consumed Ayurvedic Kadha. Many respondents consumed more than one SCAM product or home remedy.
A recent review evaluated the effect of SCAM on COVID patients. A total of 14 studies performed on 972 COVID patients were included. The results suggested that different SCAM interventions (acupuncture, Traditional Chinese medicine [TCM], relaxation, Qigong) significantly improved various psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, stress, sleep quality, negative emotions, quality of life) and physical symptoms (inflammatory factors, physical activity, chest pain, and respiratory function) of COVID patients. The authors concluded that various SCAM interventions have a positive effect on improving the various dimensions of coronavirus disease but since there are few studies in this regard, further studies using different CAM approaches are recommended.
This conclusion is, of course, pure wishful thinking; the available evidence is in fact more than flimsy, and claims of effectiveness are not justified. But will this stop SCAM enthusiasts to make such claims? I fear not. My prediction is that, as this homeopath already indicated, they will see COVID as an opportunity: For homeopathy, shunned during its 200 years of existence by conventional medicine, this outbreak is a key opportunity to show potentially the contribution it can make in treating COVID-19 patients.
I recently discussed the incredible paper by Walach et al. To remind you, here is its abstract again:
COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits.
Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases
with fatal side effects.
Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.
Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.
In my post, I pointed out that the analysis was deeply flawed and its conclusion ridiculous. Many other observers agreed, and several editorial board members of the journal, Vaccines, that unbelievably had published this junk resigned. Yesterday, the journal reacted by retracting the paper. Here is their statement:
The journal retracts the article, The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy.
Serious concerns were brought to the attention of the publisher regarding misinterpretation of data, leading to incorrect and distorted conclusions.
The article was evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief with the support of several Editorial Board Members. They found that the article contained several errors that fundamentally affect the interpretation of the findings.
These include, but are not limited to:
The data from the Lareb report (https://www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen) in The Netherlands were used to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects per 100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination. Thus, reporting of a death following vaccination does not imply that this is a vaccine-related event. There are several other inaccuracies in the paper by Harald Walach et al. one of which is that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists. It should be known that even this false claim does not imply causation, which the authors imply. Further, the authors have called the events ‘effects’ and ‘reactions’ when this is not established, and until causality is established they are ‘events’ that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. It does not matter what statistics one may apply, this is incorrect and misleading.
The authors were asked to respond to the claims, but were not able to do so satisfactorily. The authors were notified of the retraction and did not agree.
Two questions still remain to be answered:
- Were Walach et al just incompetent or did they wilfully try to mislead us?
- How much nonsense is Walach allowed to publish before he is finally stopped?
The use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is common among cancer patients and it may reflect the individual and societal beliefs on cancer therapy. This paper aimed to evaluate the trends of CAM use among patients with cancer between 2006 and 2018.
The researchers included 2 Cohorts of patients with cancer seen at the Oncology Department at King Abdulaziz Medical City of Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, KSA, who were recruited for Cohort 1 between 2006 and 2008 and for Cohort 2 between 2016 and 2018. The study is a cross-sectional study obtaining demographic and clinical information and inquiring about the types of SCAM used, the reasons to use them and the perceived benefits. The researchers compared the changes in the patterns of SCAM use and other variables between the two cohorts.
A total of 1416 patients were included in the study, with 464 patients in Cohort 1 and 952 patients in Cohort 2. Patients in Cohort 2 used less SCAM (78.9%) than Cohort 1 (96.8%). Cohort 1 was more likely to use SCAM to treat cancer compared to Cohort 2 (84.4% vs. 73%, respectively, p < 0.0001,); while Cohort 2 used SCAM for symptom management such as pain control and improving appetite among others. Disclosure of SCAM use did not change significantly over time and remains low (31.6% in Cohort 1 and 35.7% for Cohort 2). However, physicians were more likely to express an opposing opinion against SCAM the use in Cohort 2 compared to Cohort 1 (48.7% vs. 19.1%, p < 0.001, respectively).
The authors concluded that there is a significant change in SCAM use among cancer patients over the decade, which reflects major societal and cultural changes in this population. Further studies and interventions are needed to improve the disclosure to physicians and to improve other aspects of care to these patients.
I think that these are interesting findings. Should both patients and conventional healthcare professionally truly become more sceptical about SCAM? It would be good, in my view, but can we be sure?
The answer is NO!
Firstly, we would need data from other countries (SCAM use is known to show marked national differences). Secondly, we would require more up-to-date evidence. The present paper has suggested that, within one decade, SCAM use can change. Therefore, it is only reasonable to assume that it has changed again since 2016/18.
My hope is that progress continues. And by progress, I mean that those forms of SCAM that are demonstrably useful in palliative and supportive cancer care are employed wisely, while all the many bogus alternative cancer ‘cures’ are rapidly falling by the wayside.
While working on yesterday’s post, I discovered another recent and remarkable article co-authored by Prof Harald Walach. It would surely be unforgivable not to show you the abstract: 
The aim of this study is to explore experiences and perceived effects of the Rosary on issues around health and well-being, as well as on spirituality and religiosity. A qualitative study was conducted interviewing ten Roman Catholic German adults who regularly practiced the Rosary prayer. As a result of using a tangible prayer cord and from the rhythmic repetition of prayers, the participants described experiencing stability, peace and a contemplative connection with the Divine, with Mary as a guide and mediator before God. Praying the Rosary was described as helpful in coping with critical life events and in fostering an attitude of acceptance, humbleness and devotion.
The article impressed me so much that it prompted me to design a virtual study for which I borrowed Walach’s abstract. Here it is:
The aim of this study is to explore experiences and perceived effects of train-spotting on issues around health and well-being, as well as on spirituality. A qualitative study was conducted interviewing ten British adults who regularly practiced the art of train-spotting. As a result of using a tangible train-spotter diary and from the rhythmic repetition of the passing trains, the participants described experiencing stability, peace, and a contemplative connection with the Divine, with Mary as a guide and mediator before the almighty train-spotter in the sky. Train-spotting was described as helpful in coping with critical life events and in fostering an attitude of acceptance, humbleness, and devotion.
These virtual results are encouraging and encourage me to propose the hypothesis that Rosary use and train-spotting might be combined to create a new wellness program generating a maximum holistic effect. We are grateful to Walach et al for the inspiration and are currently applying for research funds to test our hypothesis in a controlled clinical trial.
Prof Harald Walach is well-known to regular readers of this blog (see, for instance, here, here, and here). Those who are aware of his work will know that he is not an expert in infectious diseases, epidemiology, virology, or vaccinations. This did not stop him to publish an analysis that questions the safety and rationale of the current COVID-19 vaccination programs. Here is the abstract:
COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits.
Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases
with fatal side effects.
Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.
Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.
I hesitate to comment because some could think that I have a personal grudge, as Walach propagated lies about me. And crucially, like he, I am not a vaccination expert. Yet, I feel I ought to point out that the data that form the basis of Walach’s calculations should not be used in this way for at least two reasons.
- Death after vaccination does not mean that this event was caused by the vaccine. For example, if someone had a fatal accident after vaccination, it would count as a vaccine incident according to Walach’s calculation.
- Vaccine effectiveness cannot be measured by calculating how many people must receive a vaccine to prevent one case of COVID-19 vaccination. Since vaccines have a protective effect on the community, this would be an outright miscalculation. The more people who receive a vaccine, the fewer people need to receive it to prevent a single case. This situation is the exact opposite of what Walach assumes in his paper.
Conclusion: amongst all his previous nonsense, Walach’s new publication stands out, I feel, as the most stupid and the most dangerous. The mistakes seem too obvious to not be deliberate. Let’s hope the journal editor in chief (who failed miserably when publishing this idiocy) has the wisdom to retract it swiftly. One of its editors already tweeted:
I have resigned from the Editorial Board of
following the publication of this article. It is grossly negligent and I can’t believe it passed peer-review. I hope it will be retracted.
And another ed-board member had this to say:
Some time ago, we published a systematic review of adverse effects of homeopathic remedies. It prompted a spade of angry letters to the editor essentially claiming that homeopathic are so dilute that they cannot possibly cause problems. But they can! And here is another case in point.
It has been reported that, in Germany, several patients suffered from adverse effects such as visual disturbances and dry mouth after taking a homeopathic atropine remedy purchased from a pharmacy.
A 56-year-old man experienced taste and visual disturbances and drowsiness about 15 minutes after taking 30 drops of a homeopathic solution prepared at the pharmacy. Two further patients also experienced increased symptoms of malaise, slurred speech, dry mouth, hypertension, and dizziness after taking the homeopathic product. In each case, the symptoms improved one to two days after discontinuation of intake. In one case, the effects were observed again after repeated intake.
The pharmacy prepared the homeopathic prescriptions on the prescription of a Heilpraktiker. For this purpose, the pharmacy first diluted an Atropinum sulfuricum D4 dilution in a ratio of 1:10. The diluted solution was then added to three other OTC homeopathics. The proportion of the diluted solution was 50 percent (M/M) in each case.
Laboratory analyses found an increased atropine content of up to a factor of 800 in all the solutions tested. It was determined that the pharmacy’s manufacturing process was not the cause of the problem. The steps taken to produce the homeopathic remedy were demonstrably correct.
Eventually, the company that supplied the atropine solution discovered a mix-up: what was declared to be a D4 dilution was in fact the mother tincture of atropine, i.e. undiluted substance. The pharmacist had therefore used the mother tincture instead of the D4 dilution to prepare the formulations.
The story shows that, unsurprisingly, the quality control of homeopathic remedies can be deficient. When this happens, remedies that should contain nothing suddenly contain something. It is, I think, indisputable that this has the potential to harm patients. And this leads me to the conclusions that:
- homeopathic remedies are dangerous when they contain nothing because they leave illness untreated;
- homeopathic remedies are dangerous when they contain something because they may poison patients.
Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and legal advisor of Donald Trump, is already facing a billion-dollar lawsuit for defamation. He also had his license to practice law revoked by the New York Bar Association for spreading lies about the 2020 election. I therefore can imagine that he needs some cheering up and could do with some good news.
Well, Rudy, here it is!
Giuliani has been given a very special award.
In recognition of his truly outstanding achievements in dishonesty and his contribution to disinformation, Rudy Giuliani is the winner of the Center for Inquiry’s first Full of Bull Award!
A rogue’s gallery of celebrity hucksters was drawn up who best represent the threat posed by the wholesale rejection of reality. Calling out these infamous purveyors of flimflam and nonsense, the Center for Inquiry asked the public to vote for who was the worst offender.
It could not have been an easy choice, but now the voters have spoken: 41.7 percent of voters chose Giuliani over these other superspreaders of the infodemic:
- Friend to Viruses Robert F. Kennedy Jr.;
- The Human False Flag Alex Jones;
- The Snake Oil Profiteer Gwyneth Paltrow;
- Holy Hypocrite Jerry Falwell Jr.;
- The Mendacious Medium Thomas John.
Why Giuliani? He really gave his all to rise above the field over the past year as a dedicated champion of bogus COVID-19 cures at the peak of a global pandemic and chief spreader of the highly dangerous Big Lie about the 2020 election. “America’s Mayor” no more, Giuliani has slid to the fringes of conspiracy theories and quack medicine, truly embodying what it takes to be an all-around Full of Bull champion.
At the time of reporting, no reaction of the awardee was available. Yet, we can be confident that Rudy will treasure the award above all other distinctions and that he will display it prominently in his office. The Center for Inquiry wants to thank everyone for voting and for being a part of the reality-based community, it intends to remain committed to taking on bull artists of all stripes.
In the UK, a new post-Brexit regulatory framework is being proposed for food supplements by the government. The nutraceutical sector is estimated to be worth £275bn globally and £4bn in the UK. A new report claims that “science is starting to point the way to a new sector of nutritional products with increasingly explicable and/or verifiable medicinal benefits, which needs to be reflected in our regulatory framework.” Tory MP George Freeman, one of the authors of the report, was quoted saying:
“We are living through an extraordinary period of technological change – not just in life science but in host of sectors: from AI to robotics to agri-tech, nutraceuticals, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, biofuels, satellites and fusion energy. The UK is indeed a ‘science superpower’. But we have traditionally been woeful at commercialising here in the UK. There are many reasons. But, in recent years, the EU’s increasingly slow, bureaucratic and ‘precautionary’ approach – copied in Whitehall – has made the EU and the UK an increasingly poor place to commercialise new technology.”
If a product like a food or a herbal remedy makes ‘medicinal’ claims, it is currently regulated by the MHRA. If a product only makes general ‘health’ claims, it is regulated by the Department of Health and Social Care in England, by the FSA in Wales and Northern Ireland, and by Food Standards Scotland in Scotland. This ‘patchwork of regulators’ is bound to change as it is deemed to create additional costs and uncertainty for businesses who would like to see the relevant functions brought together in a central regulatory body and a clearer UK landscape.
In response to the task force’s report, PM Boris Johnson stated that bold and ambitious ideas such as these are needed to encourage growth and innovation:
“The Government, through our Better Regulation Committee, is already hard at work on reform of the UK’s regulatory framework. Your bold proposals provide a valuable template for this, illustrating the sheer level of ambitious thinking needed to usher in a new golden age of growth and innovation right across the UK. So we will give your report the detailed consideration it deserves, consult widely across industry and civil society, and publish a response as soon as is practicable.”
Am I the only one who feels more than a little uneasy about all this? I honestly do not see much new science that, according to the report, points to ‘verifiable medicinal benefits’ of food supplements or nutraceuticals. What the report does however point to, I fear, is that the UK government is about to deregulate quackery with a view to making some entrepreneurs wealthy snake oil salesmen at the cost of public health and wealth.
I hope I am mistaken.
