quality of life

1 2 3 5

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus (DM) that can cause annoying symptoms. To address this condition, several treatment approaches have been proposed, including static magnetic field (SMF) therapy, which has shown promise in treating neurological conditions. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of SMF therapy on symptomatic DPN and the quality of life (QoL) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted from April to October 2021. Sixty-four DPN patients (20 males, 44 females) were recruited for the study via invitation. The participants were divided into two groups: the magnet group, which used magnetic ankle bracelets (155 mT) for 12 weeks, and the sham group, which used non-magnetic ankle bracelets for the same duration. Neuropathy Symptom Score (NSS), Neuropathic Disability Score (NDS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used to assess neuropathy symptoms and pain. In addition, the Neuropathy Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (Neuro-QoL) tool was used to measure the patients’ quality of life.

Before treatment, there were no significant differences between the magnet and sham groups in terms of the NSS scores (P = 0.50), NDS scores (P = 0.74), VAS scores (P = 0.17), and Neuro-QoL scores (P = 0.82). However, after 12 weeks of treatment, the SMF exposure group showed a significant reduction in NSS scores (P < 0.001), NDS scores (P < 0.001), VAS scores (P < 0.001), and Neuro-QoL scores (P < 0.001) compared to the baseline. The changes in the sham group, on the other hand, were not significant.

The authors concluded that according to obtained data, SMF therapy is recommended as an easy-to-use and drug-free method for reducing DPN symptoms and improving QoL in diabetic type-2 patients.

Our own study and systematic review of the effects of magnetic bracelets and similar devices suggested that the effects of such treatments are due to placebo responses. Therefore, I find the findings of this new study most surprising. Not only that, to be honest, I also find them suspect. Apart from the fact that the treatment has no biological plausibility, I have three main reasons for my skepticism.

  1. The authors stated that there was no distinguishable difference between the sham and SMF devices in terms of their appearance, weight, or texture, which helped to ensure that the study was double-blinded. This is nonsense, I am afraid! The verum device is magnetic and the sham device is not. It is hardly conceivable that patients who handle such devices for any length of time do not discover this simple fact and thus de-blind themselves. In turn, this means that a placebo effect can easily explain the outcomes.
  2. Authors who feel that their tiny study of a highly implausible therapy lends itself to concluding that their therapy ‘is recommended as an easy-to-use and drug-free method for reducing DPN symptoms and improving QoL’ can, in my view, not be taken seriously.
  3. Something that always makes me suspicious of clinical trials is a lack of a placebo response where one would normally expect one. In this study, the control group exhibits hardly any placebo response. Wearing a strap around your ankle that allegedly emits therapeutic radiation would result in quite a strong placebo effect, according to our own findings.

So, forgive me if I do not trust this study any further than I can throw it! And pardon me if I still think that our previous conclusion is correct: The evidence does not support the use of static magnets for pain relief, and therefore magnets cannot be recommended as an effective treatment.

Menopausal symptoms are systemic symptoms that are associated with estrogen deficiency after menopause. Although widely practiced, homeopathy remains under-researched in menopausal syndrome in terms of quality evidence, especially in randomized trials. The efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) was evaluated in this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in the treatment of the menopausal syndrome.

Group 1 (n = 30) received IHMs plus concomitant care, while group 2 (n = 30) had placebos plus concomitant care. The primary outcome measures were the Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) total score and the menopause rating scale (MRS) total score. The secondary endpoint was the Utian quality of life (UQOL) total score. Measurements were taken at baseline and every month up to 3 months.

Intention-to-treat sample (n = 60) was analyzed. Group differences were examined by two-way (split-half) repeated-measure analysis of variance, primarily taking into account all the estimates measured at monthly intervals, and secondarily, by unpaired t-tests comparing the estimates obtained individually every month. The level of significance was set at p < 0.025 two-tailed. Between-group differences were nonsignificant statistically—GCS total score (F1, 58 = 1.372, p = 0.246), MRS total score (F1, 58 = 0.720, p = 0.4), and UQOL total scores (F1, 58 = 2.903, p = 0.094). Some of the subscales preferred IHMs significantly against placebos—for example, MRS somatic subscale (F1, 56 = 0.466, p < 0.001), UQOL occupational subscale (F1, 58 = 4.865, p = 0.031), and UQOL health subscale (F1, 58 = 4.971, p = 0.030). Sulfur and Sepia succus were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harm or serious adverse events were reported from either group.

The authors concluded that, although the primary analysis failed to demonstrate clearly that the treatment was effective beyond placebo, some significant benefits of IHMs over placebo could still be detected in some of the subscales in the secondary analysis.

The article was published in the recently re-named JICM, a journal that, when it was still called JCAM, featured regularly on this blog. As such, the paper is remarkable: who would have thought that this journal might publish a trial of homeopathy with a squarely negative result?

Yes, I know, the surprise is tempered by the fact that the authors make much in the conclusions of their article about the significant findings related to secondary analyses. Should we tell them that these results are all but irrelevant?

Better not!

A ‘manifesto’ is not something that I come across often in my area of research, i.e. so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). This one is in German, I, therefore, translated it for you:

Manifesto for healthy medicine
With the Manifesto for healthy medicine, we, the citizens and patients alliance weil’s hilft! (‘BECAUSE IT HELPS’) demand a fundamental change in our healthcare system, towards a diverse medicine that focuses on people and health. Be part of it! Sign the manifesto and become part of the movement.

It’s of paramount importance, the Manifesto for healthy medicine. About the way we live. It’s about our health. It’s about you and it’s about me.

We want our healthcare system to actually focus on health.

We want a medicine that doesn’t ask what’s missing, but what is possible.

We want a medicine that cares about people, that takes care, gets to the bottom of things, and uses innovative technologies to do so.

We want more bio, so that the chemistry is right, and we want naturopathic procedures and naturally effective medicines to be recognized, promoted, and researched further.

We want research that creates knowledge because, in addition to studies, it also takes into account the experience of physicians and the needs of patients.

We want carers and doctors to be able to work in a way that is good for their patients and for themselves.

We want people from all healthcare professions to work together as equals.

We want a medicine that creates awareness for a good and healthy life because climate protection also begins in one’s own body.

We want an integrative medicine that puts people at the center and self-evidently combines conventional and natural healing methods.

And we want this medicine to be accessible and affordable for everyone.

We fight for a healthy medicine of the future.
Be part of it!

(sorry, if some of it might sound badly translated but the German original is in parts pure gibberish)


Who writes such tosh composed of every thinkable platitude and then pompously calls it a MANIFESTO?

BECAUSE IT HELPS! (weil’s hilft!) is a citizens’ movement that demands a change in the health care system – towards the needs and preferences of patients, towards a holistic view of people, and a focus on health instead of disease. The sensible combination of natural medicine and conventional medicine, an integrative medicine, makes an indispensable contribution to this. This is because it relies fully on the patients and involves them as active partners in the treatment. Modern medicine of the future, therefore, needs the equal cooperation of natural medicine and conventional medicine – in the everyday life of physicians and patients, in the reimbursement by the health insurance companies as well as in research and teaching.

On the information platform weil’s hilft! informs about current developments in integrative medicine, provides background information, and publishes a podcast once a month. The movement is also active on social media at and

weil’s hilft! is supported by the health and patient organizations GESUNDHEIT AKTIV, KNEIPP-BUND, and NATUR UND MEDIZIN. Together, the alliance represents the interests of more than 220,000 people.


One could easily disclose the funny side of this, the utter stupidity of the arguments, the platitudes, fallacies, misunderstandings, ignorance, etc. Yes, that would hardly be difficult. But it would ignore how worrying this and similar movements are. They systematically misinform consumers with the sole aim of persuading them that the integration of unproven or disproven treatments into medical routine is in their interest. Yet, if we only scratch the surface of their arguments, we realize that it is exclusively in the interest of those who profit from this type of misinformation.

Social prescribing (SP) has been mentioned here several times before. It seems important to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), as some enthusiasts – not least King Charles – are trying to use it as a means to smuggle nonsensical treatments into routine healthcare.

SP is supposed to enable healthcare professionals to link patients with non-medical interventions available in the community to address underlying socioeconomic and behavioural determinants. The question, of course, is whether it has any relevant benefits.

This systematic review included all randomised controlled trials of SP among community-dwelling adults recruited from primary care or community setting, investigating any chronic disease risk factors defined by the WHO (behavioural factors: smoking, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet and excessive alcohol consumption; metabolic factors: raised blood pressure, overweight/obesity, hyperlipidaemia and hyperglycaemia). Random effect meta-analyses were performed at two time points: completion of intervention and follow-up after trial.

The researchers identified 9 reports from 8 trials totalling 4621 participants. All studies evaluated SP exercise interventions which were highly heterogeneous regarding the content, duration, frequency and length of follow-up. The majority of studies had some concerns about the risk of bias. A meta-analysis revealed that SP likely increased physical activity (completion: mean difference (MD) 21 min/week, 95% CI 3 to 39, I2=0%; follow-up ≤12 months: MD 19 min/week, 95% CI 8 to 29, I2=0%). However, SP may not improve markers of adiposity, blood pressure, glucose and serum lipid. There were no eligible studies that primarily target unhealthy diet, smoking or excessive alcohol-drinking behaviours.

The authors concluded that SP exercise interventions probably increased physical activity slightly; however, no benefits were observed for metabolic factors. Determining whether SP is effective in modifying the determinants of chronic diseases and promotes sustainable healthy behaviours is limited by the current evidence of quantification and uncertainty, warranting further rigorous studies.

Great! Regular exercise improves physical fitness.

But do we need SP for this?

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against connecting patients with social networks to improve their health and quality of life. I do, however, object if SP is used to smuggle unproven or disproven SCAMs into EBM. In addition, I ask myself whether we really need the new profession of a ‘link worker’ to facilitate SP. I remember being taught that a good doctor should look after his/her patients holistically, and surely that includes mentioning and facilitating social networks for those who need them.

I, therefore, fear that SP is taking something valuable out of the hands of doctors. And the irony is that SP is favoured by those who are all too quick to turn around and say: LOOK AT HOW FRIGHTFULLY REDUCTIONIST AND HEARTLESS DOCTORS HAVE BECOME. WE NEED MORE HOLISM IN MEDICINE AND THAT CAN ONLY BE PROVIDED BY SCAM PRACTITIONERS!

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common chronic disorder associated with psychological distress and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Therefore, stress management is often employed in the hope of alleviating IBS symptoms. But does it work?

This systematic review investigated the effects of stress management for adults with IBS on typical symptoms, HRQoL, and mental health. The predefined criteria included:

  • patients: adults with IBS;
  • intervention: stress management;
  • control: care as usual or waitlist;
  • outcome: patient-relevant;
  • study-type: controlled trials.

Two researchers independently reviewed the publications retrieved through electronic searches and assessed the risk of bias using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklist. The researchers performed a meta-analysis with homogeneous trials of acceptable quality.

After screening 6656 publications, 10 suitable randomized trials of acceptable (n = 5) or low methodological quality (n = 5) involving 587 patients were identified. The meta-analysis showed no effect of stress management on IBS severity 1-2 months after the intervention (Hedges’ g = -0.23, 95%-CI = -0.84 to -0.38, I2 = 86.1%), and after 3-12 months (Hedges’ g = -0.77, 95%-CI = -1.77 to -0.23, I2 = 93.3%). One trial found a short-term reduction of symptoms, and one trial found symptom relief in the long term (at 6 months). One of two studies that examined HRQoL found an improvement (after 2 months). One of two studies that examined depression and anxiety found a reduction of these symptoms (after 3 weeks).

The authors concluded that stress management may be beneficial for patients with IBS regarding the short-term reduction of bowel and mental health symptoms, whereas long-term benefits are unclear. Good quality RCTs with more than 6 months follow-up are needed.

Considering the actual evidence, I find the conclusions rather odd. Would it not have been more honest to state something along the following lines?:

There is currently no convincing evidence to suggest that stress management benefits IBS patients.

So why, be not more open and less misleading?

Could some of the authors’ affiliations provide a clue?

  • Department for Internal and Integrative Medicine, Sozialstiftung Bamberg Hospital, Bamberg, Germany.
  • Department for Integrative Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Medical Faculty, Bamberg, Germany.

Quite possibly, yes!

Massages are experienced as agreeable by most patients. But that does not necessarily mean that it improves our quality of life. This study tests whether it does.

This study compared three massage dosing strategies among inpatients receiving palliative care consultation. It was designed as a three-armed randomized trial examining three different doses of therapist-applied massage to test change in overall quality of life (QoL) and symptoms among hospitalized adult patients receiving palliative care consultation for any indication:

  • Arm I: 10-min massage daily × 3 days;
  • Arm II: 20-min massage daily × 3 days;
  • Arm III: single 20-min massage.

The primary outcome measure was the single-item McGill QoL question. Secondary outcomes measured pain/symptoms, rating of peacefulness, and satisfaction with the intervention. Data were collected at baseline, pre-and post-treatment, and one-day post-last treatment (follow-up). Repeated measure analysis of variance and paired t-test were used to determine significant differences.

A total of 387 patients participated  (55.7 (±15.49) years old, mostly women (61.2%) and African-American (65.6%)). All three arms demonstrated within-group improvement at follow-up for McGill QoL (all P < 0.05). No significant between-group differences were found. Finally, repeated measure analyses demonstrated time to predict immediate improvement in distress (P ≤ 0.003) and pain (P ≤ 0.02) for all study arms; however, only improvement in distress was sustained at follow-up measurement in arms with three consecutive daily massages of 10 or 20 minutes.

The authors concluded that massage therapy in complex patients with advanced illness was beneficial beyond dosage. Findings support session length (10 or 20 minutes) was predictive of short-term improvements while treatment frequency (once or three consecutive days) predicted sustained improvement at follow-up.

I like this study because it teaches us an important lesson:


This study does not have a proper control group. Therefore, we cannot know whether the observed outcomes were due to the different interventions or to non-specific effects such as expectation, the passing of time, etc.

The devil’s advocate conclusion of the findings is thus dramatically different from that of the authors: the results of this trial are consistent with the notion that massage has no effect on QoL, no matter how it is dosed.

Menopausal symptoms are a domaine of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), not least because many women are worried about hormone treatments and therefore want ‘something natural’. TCM practitioners are only too keen to offer their services. But do their treatments really work?

This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of acupuncture combined with Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) on mood disorder symptoms for menopausal women.

A total of 95 qualified Chinese participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

  • 31 in the acupuncture combined with CHM group (combined group),
  • 32 in the acupuncture combined with CHM placebo group (acupuncture group),
  • 32 in the CHM combined with sham acupuncture group (CHM group).

The patients were treated for 8 weeks and followed up for 4 weeks. The data were collected using the Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS), self-rating depression scale (SDS), self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), and safety index.

The three groups each showed significant decreases in the GCS, SDS, and SAS after treatment (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the effect on the GCS total score and the anxiety domain lasted until the follow-up period in the combined group (p < 0.05). Within the three groups, there was no difference in GCS and SAS between the three groups after treatment (p > 0.05). However, the combined group showed significant improvement in the SDS, compared with both the acupuncture group and the CHM group at 8 weeks and 12 weeks (p < 0.05). No obvious abnormal cases were found in any of the safety indexes.

The authors concluded that the results suggest that either acupuncture, or CHM or combined therapy offer safe improvement of mood disorder symptoms for menopausal women. However, the combination therapy was associated with more stable effects in the follow-up period and a superior effect on improving depression symptoms.

Previous reviews have drawn conclusions that are far less positive, e.g.:

It seems therefore wise to take the conclusions of the new study with a pinch of salt. The intergroup difference observed in this trial may well be due to residual biases, multiple testing, or coincidence. And the reported intragroup differences are in complete accord with the fact that the employed therapies are mere placebos.

This, of course, begs the question of whether SCAM has anything else to offer for women suffering from menopausal symptoms. To answer it, I can refer you to one of our systematic reviews:

Some evidence exists in favour of phytosterols and phytostanols for diminishing LDL and total cholesterol in postmenopausal women. Similarly, regular fiber intake is effective in reducing serum total cholesterol in hypercholesterolemic postmenopausal women. Clinical evidence also exists on the effectiveness of vitamin K, a combination of calcium and vitamin D or a combination of walking with other weight-bearing exercise in reducing bone mineral density loss and the incidence of fractures in postmenopausal women. Black cohosh appears to be effective therapy for relieving menopausal symptoms, primarily hot flashes, in early menopause. Phytoestrogen extracts, including isoflavones and lignans, appear to have only minimal effect on hot flashes but have other positive health effects, e.g. on plasma lipid levels and bone loss. For other commonly used CAMs, e.g. probiotics, prebiotics, acupuncture, homeopathy and DHEA-S, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are scarce and the evidence is unconvincing. More and better RCTs testing the effectiveness of these treatments are needed.

Every now and then, I like to look at what our good friend and SCAM entrepreneur Gwyneth Paltrow is offering via her extraordinary ripoff called GOOP. When I recently browsed through her goodies, I find lots of items that made me blush (common decency does not permit me to go into details here). But I also found something that I am sure many of us might need after the over-indulgence of recent weeks:Preview Changes (opens in a new tab)

“The Martini” Emotional Detox Bath Soak

The product is described as follows:

This body-and-spirit-centering bath soak, infused with Himalayan pink salt, helps take the edge off during turbulent times (or after a crazy day). Called “The Martini” after the traditional name for the last take of the day in filmmaking,  the soak is made with pharmaceutical-grade Epsom salts, chia-seed oil, passionflower, valerian root, myrrh, Australian sandalwood, and wild-crafted frankincense.

Here at goop we believe in making every choice count, which is why we’ve always been outspoken about the toxic ingredients used in personal-care and beauty products (all are effectively unregulated in this country). We’re also passionate about the idea that beauty comes from the inside out. So we use clinically proven and best-in-class ingredients at active levels to create skin care, skin-boosting ingestibles, and body essentials that are luxurious, deliver high-performance results, and enliven the senses with exquisite textures and beautiful scents. We don’t rest until we think our products are perfect—safe enough and powerful enough for noticeable results. (All our products are formulated without parabens, petroleum, phthalates, SLS, SLES, PEGs, TEA, DEA, silicones, or artificial dyes or fragrances. And our formulas are not tested on animals.) We hope you love them as much as we do.

Yes, there is a whole world out there of which a retired chap like myself knows as good as nothing. And it has its very own terminology: 

  • emotional detox
  • body-and-spirit-centering
  • pharmaceutical-grade Epsom salts
  • wild-crafted
  • clinically proven and best-in-class ingredients
  • skin-boosting ingestibles
  • body essentials
  • high-performance results

By now, I am sure, you are dying to learn what the Emotional Detox Bath Soak contains:

Sodium Chloride, Magnesium Sulfate, Passiflora Incarnata Extract, Valeriana Officinalis Root Extract, Salvia Hispanica Seed Oil, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Rosmarinus Officinalis (Rosemary), Leaf Extract, Maltodextrin, Boswellia Carterii Oil, Commiphora Myrrha Oil, Fusanus Spicatus Wood Oil, Cyperus Scariosus (Nagarmotha) Oil, Vetiveria Zizanoides Root Oil, Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba) Seed Oil, Tocopherol.

Clinically proven, you ask?

Well, perhaps not in the sense that sad, retired academics tend to understand the term, but you have to realize, this is a different world where words have different meanings, the meaning entretreneurs want them to have. What is proven though is this: at $40 a tiny jar, the detox bath will eliminate some cash from your pocket – after all, that’s what detox is all about, isn’t it?

Acupuncture is emerging as a potential therapy for relieving pain, but the effectiveness of acupuncture for relieving low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) during pregnancy remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of acupuncture on pain, functional status, and quality of life for women with LBPP pain during pregnancy.

The authors included all RCTs evaluating the effects of acupuncture on LBPP during pregnancy. Data extraction and study quality assessments were independently performed by three reviewers. The mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for pooled data were calculated. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and quality of life. The secondary outcomes were overall effects (a questionnaire at a post-treatment visit within a week after the last treatment to determine the number of people who received good or excellent help), analgesic consumption, Apgar scores >7 at 5 min, adverse events, gestational age at birth, induction of labor and mode of birth.

Ten studies, reporting on a total of 1040 women, were included. Overall, acupuncture

  • relieved pain during pregnancy (MD=1.70, 95% CI: (0.95 to 2.45), p<0.00001, I2=90%),
  • improved functional status (MD=12.44, 95% CI: (3.32 to 21.55), p=0.007, I2=94%),
  • improved quality of life (MD=−8.89, 95% CI: (−11.90 to –5.88), p<0.00001, I2 = 57%).

There was a significant difference in overall effects (OR=0.13, 95% CI: (0.07 to 0.23), p<0.00001, I2 = 7%). However, there was no significant difference in analgesic consumption during the study period (OR=2.49, 95% CI: (0.08 to 80.25), p=0.61, I2=61%) and Apgar scores of newborns (OR=1.02, 95% CI: (0.37 to 2.83), p=0.97, I2 = 0%). Preterm birth from acupuncture during the study period was reported in two studies. Although preterm contractions were reported in two studies, all infants were in good health at birth. In terms of gestational age at birth, induction of labor, and mode of birth, only one study reported the gestational age at birth (mean gestation 40 weeks).

The authors concluded that acupuncture significantly improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Additionally, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are still needed to further confirm these results.

What should we make of this paper?

In case you are in a hurry: NOT A LOT!

In case you need more, here are a few points:

  • many trials were of poor quality;
  • there was evidence of publication bias;
  • there was considerable heterogeneity within the studies.

The most important issue is one studiously avoided in the paper: the treatment of the control groups. One has to dig deep into this paper to find that the control groups could be treated with “other treatments, no intervention, and placebo acupuncture”. Trials comparing acupuncture combined plus other treatments with other treatments were also considered to be eligible. In other words, the analyses included studies that compared acupuncture to no treatment at all as well as studies that followed the infamous ‘A+Bversus B’ design. Seven studies used no intervention or standard of care in the control group thus not controlling for placebo effects.

Nobody can thus be in the slightest surprised that the overall result of the meta-analysis was positive – false positive, that is! And the worst is that this glaring limitation was not discussed as a feature that prevents firm conclusions.

Dishonest researchers?

Biased reviewers?

Incompetent editors?

Truly unbelievable!!!

In consideration of these points, let me rephrase the conclusions:

The well-documented placebo (and other non-specific) effects of aacupuncture improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are not needed to further confirm these results.


I find it exasperating to see that more and more (formerly) reputable journals are misleading us with such rubbish!!!

I just got this email with sad news: Ken Frazier “died peacefully this morning, three weeks after being diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. Judy and I were fortunate to spend time with Ken and Ruth last week and tell Ken personally how much he has meant to us over our entire lives.”

Ken was a part of CFI history quite literally from Day One. In May 1976, writing for Science News, Ken reported on the formation of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). In 1977, Ken joined CSICOP to serve as editor of The Zetetic, which became Skeptical Inquirer in 1978. He held that position ever since, spending the better part of five decades defining and steering the work of the skeptical community in combatting disinformation and pseudoscience. Ken has also published numerous papers and books, e.g.:

Ken’s book Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience was featured by Science News for its “engaging, insightful, and often surprising essays by researchers and journalists” about “what science is and is not, and what happens when the facts get twisted.” And he was working on yet another book; only a few months ago he wrote to me taking me for help with it:

… I am completing [ a book] on science and pseudoscience, titled Shadows of Science.  It was just accepted by Prometheus Books for publication in Fall 2023.  I am now working on a final chapter on “Pseudomedicine,” pseudoscience in medicine.  This is not my area of expertise so I am relying on many medical professionals who have investigated and written about medical pseudoscience, most prominently you.

My chapter is mainly concerned with broad points and principles in identifying and describing pseudoscience in medicine — SCAM.

I merely ask if you mind if I quote from and paraphrase from a number of your writings—all with full credit to you in the text itself in addition to in the bibliography

I have always been particularly impressed with the Introduction to your So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM) for Cancer as well as parts of your earlier book SCAM: So-Called Alternative Medicine (which carries my testimonial to you on the back cover!).  This includes your definition of SCAM and your list of popular therapies and perhaps some of your common assumptions about SCAM. I also would love to draw upon some of the information in your boxes in the opening parts of SCAM…

Ken has on many occasions been most helpful and kind to me, and it goes without saying that I was delighted to assist.

He was a giant amongst the US skeptics, and we will all miss him badly.

1 2 3 5
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.