risk
I sometimes like to browse through old articles of mine and amaze myself. It is now 15 years ago that I published this paper:
Since 1994 chiropractic has been regulated by statute in the UK. Despite this air of respectability, a range of important problems continue to bedevil this profession. Professional organizations of chiropractic and their members make numerous claims which are not supported by sound evidence. Many chiropractors adhere to concepts which fly in the face of science and most seem to regularly violate important principles of ethical behaviour. The advice chiropractors give to their clients is often dangerously misleading. If chiropractic in the UK is to grow into an established health care profession, the General Chiropractic Council and its members should comply with the accepted standards of today’s health care.
This begs the question: HAVE THINGS IMPROVED AT ALL?
- Have professional organizations of chiropractic stopped making claims which are not supported by sound evidence?
- Have their members stopped making claims which are not supported by sound evidence?
- Do chiropractors no longer adhere to concepts which fly in the face of science?
- Have they ceased violating important principles of ethical behaviour?
- Is the advice chiropractors give to their clients no longer dangerously misleading?
Here are my answers to these questions:
- No.
- No.
- No.
- No.
- No.
Yes, there are moments when I surprise myself. And there are also those when I ask whether any of my work has ever had any effect. And then, after some reflection, I discover that my job is not nearly as bad as some others.
I only just came across the announcements for two conferences that made me almost speachless:
No 1 Homeopathy in Cancer Care – Aug. 29, 2024
Hosted by the newly formed Special Interest Group (SIG) on Research in Homeopathy in Cancer Care, this webinar aims to shed light on the role of homeopathy in cancer care, focusing on both its research status and practical applications in supportive treatment.
Supportive and palliative care are pivotal components of cancer treatment, offering avenues to enhance quality of life and potentially extend survival rates. Homeopathy emerges as a prominent integrative modality embraced by patients worldwide, notably in Europe, India, and Latin America. Despite varying perspectives on its efficacy, homeopathy’s emphasis on empathic listening and its unique approach to symptom management garner significant attention.
In the United States, homeopathy’s popularity surged during the 1990s, with over 5 million people reported to have used it by 2015. While some attribute its effects to a placebo response, clinical studies suggest tangible benefits in cancer care, particularly in alleviating symptoms like fatigue, anxiety, and hot flashes. Homeopathy is one of the leading integrative oncology modalities in Europe. Observations from France reveal that homeopathy supplements conventional treatments in about 30% of cancer patients, yielding notable improvements in symptomatology. Homeopathy was the most commonly used integrative therapy in cancer care in Belgium and in the top five in six other countries Turkey, Czech Republic, Sweden, Italy, Spain, and Greece. (Molassiotis 2005)
The speakers are:
Dr. Moshe Frenkel is a clinical associate professor at the University of Texas and founder of the Integrative Medicine Clinic, at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston Texas where he served as a full faculty until he returned to Israel in 2010. Up to 2014 Dr Frenkel was chairing the clinical practice committee of The Society of Integrative Oncology and was acting as the chair of The Israeli Society of Complementary Medicine (A section of The Israel Medical Association) until 2016. Currently, Dr Frenkel is the medical director of the Integrative Oncology Service in RAMBAM Medical Center Oncology Department, a comprehensive oncology center and the largest in Northern Israel, as well as leading a feasibility study in homeopathy in cancer care.
Elio Rossi, MD will provide a brief overview of his practice and discuss symptom management, particularly focusing on radio dermatitis and leading homeopathic remedies that he utilizes. Director of the homeopathy outpatient clinic at the Campo di Marte public hospital in Lucca Italy, was established in 1998 and to date more than 7,500 patients have been consecutively examined. Of these 1100 are cancer patients who required an ‘integrated’ homeopathic treatment to reduce the adverse effects of anti-cancer therapies and improve their quality of life. Works as a homeopathic doctor and expert in integrative medicine, collaborating with a local oncologist. Collaborated as Co-Chair, in the organization of many national and international congresses on Integrative Oncology (2017, 2019), specific sessions within other congresses organized in Italy (ECIM 2012 Florence, WCIMH 2023 Rome) and regional workshops, which have been attended by hundreds of CIM experts and oncologists.
Jean Lionel Bagot, MD will share insights from his practice, focusing on homeopathic remedies for fatigue and potential remedies for skin afflictions. A specialist in integrative cancer supportive care treatments in private practice as well as coordinating doctor of the Outpatients Department for Integrative Care in Groupe Hospitalier Saint Vincent Strasbourg, France; President of the International Homeopathic Society of Supportive Care in Oncology (SHISSO); Scientific officer of the French Society for Integrative Oncology (SFOI); Associated Member of the University College of Integrative and Complementary Medicine (CUMIC); Lecturer in the Medicine and Pharmacy Faculty in Strasbourg University.
Elizabeth Thompson, MD will have the opportunity to briefly describe her previous NHS practice and discuss symptom management, specifically addressing hot flushes and leading homeopathic remedies. Homeopathic Physician in NHS, NCIM Founder, CEO & Integrative Medicine Doctor, National Centre for Integrative Medicine (NCIM) www.ncim.org.uk, Chair, Integrative and Personalized Medicine Congress, London, June 2022. Past President ECIM 2021 and Board Member European Society Integrative Medicine, Council Member British Society of Integrative Oncology, Council Member College of Medicine.
No 2: “Pushing the Boundaries” Yes to Life Annual Conference 2024, 28th September
Integrative Medicine is a living, rapidly expanding science, with new understandings and potential being unveiled on a daily basis. This year’s conferences – one online in the Summer, and one in-person in the Autumn – share the title ‘Pushing the Boundaries’, as we have decided to devote them both to looking at the latest developments in Integrative Medicine, across the board. So that includes new techniques, new scientific understandings, and new applications for existing therapies, and you’ll be hearing fresh insights from some of your most trusted clinicians and scientists, and led into unfamiliar territory by pioneering speakers who may be as yet unfamiliar. The conferences are being co-created by Patricia Peat from Cancer Options and the Peat Institute and Yes to Life, with the aim of sending our audiences home with a wealth of resources on which to be able to draw for their own needs. Both events will be priced for accessibility, and the in-person Autumn Conference will include an extensive Exhibition that will offer yet more knowledge and resources to delegates.
The speakers are:
- Dr Penny Kechagioglou MBBS (Honours), MRCP, CCT (Clin Onc), MPH, MBA Clinical oncologist
- Dr Britt Cordi PhD
- Dr Robert Verkerk MSc DIC PhD FACN
- Robin Daly Yes to Life Founder and Chairman
- Patricia Peat Founder of Cancer Options
- Mark Sean Taylor Patient Led Oncology Founder
_____________________________
Yes, you remembered correctly: some of the speakers have in the past featured on this blog, e.g.:
- Dr Elizabeth Thompson, NCIM Holistic Doctor & Clinical Lead, says she has had the coronavirus and recommends homeopathy
- When orthodox medicine has nothing more to offer
- Homeopathy in Bristol: from bad to dismal
- Robert Verkerk (Alliance for Natural Health) at his finest
- Corona pandemic: What Quacks Don’t Tell You
Crucially, we have encountered the YES TO LIFE charity:
- Survive cancer, but not thanks to this charity called ‘SURVIVE CANCER’
- Is the promotion of dubious therapies a charitable activity? The Charity Commission wants to know
- Uncharitable charities? The example of ‘YES TO LIFE’
But please do not let me spoil your enthusiasm of attending these meetings!
I do mean it: can someone please attend?
I offter a guest post to any critical thinker who wants to write up his/her experience.
GOOD LUCK
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society for Integrative Oncology have collaborated to develop guidelines for the application of integrative approaches in the management of:
- anxiety,
- depression,
- fatigue,
- use of cannabinoids and cannabis in patients with cancer.
These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to improve outcomes and quality of life by enhancing conventional cancer treatment with integrative modalities.
All studies that informed the guideline recommendations were reviewed by an Expert Panel which was made up of a patient advocate, an ASCO methodologist, oncology providers, and integrative medicine experts. Panel members reviewed each trial for quality of evidence, determined a grade quality assessment label, and concluded strength of recommendations.
The findings show:
- Strong recommendations for management of cancer fatigue during treatment were given to both in-person or web-based mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, and tai chi or qigong.
- Strong recommendations for management of cancer fatigue after cancer treatment were given to mindfulness-based programs.
- Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial.
- The recommended modalities for managing anxiety included Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs), yoga, hypnosis, relaxation therapies, music therapy, reflexology, acupuncture, tai chi, and lavender essential oils.
- The strongest recommendation in the guideline is that MBIs should be offered to people with cancer, both during active treatment and post-treatment, to address depression.
The authors concluded that the evidence for integrative interventions in cancer care is growing, with research now supporting benefits of integrative interventions across the cancer care continuum.
I am sorry, but I find these guidelines of poor quality and totally inadequate for the purpose of providing responsible guidance to cancer patients and carers. Here are some of my reasons:
- I know that this is a petty point, particularly for me as a non-native English speaker, but what on earth is an INTEGRATIVE THERAPY? I know integrative care or integrative medicine, but what could possibly be integrative with a therapy?
- I can vouch for the fact that the assertion “all studies that informed the guideline recommendations were reviewed” is NOT true. The authors seem to have selected the studies they wanted. Crucially, they do not reveal their selection criteria. I have the impression that they selected positive studies and omitted those that were negative.
- The panel of experts conducting the research should be mentioned; one can put together a panel to show just about anything simply by choosing the right individuals.
- The authors claim that they assessed the quality of the evidence, yet they fail to tell us what it was. I know that many of the trials are of low quality and their results therefore less than reliable. And guidance based on poor-quality studies is misguidance.
- The guidelines say nothing about the risks of the various treatments. In my view, this would be essential for any decent guideline. I know that some of the mentioned therapies are not free of adverse effects.
- They also say nothing about the absolute and relative effect sizes of the treatments they recommend. Such information would ne necessary for making informed decisions about the optimal therapeutic choices.
- The entire guideline is bar any critical thinking.
Overall, these guidelines provide more an exercise in promotion of dubious therapies than a reliable guide for cancer patients and their carers. The ASCO and the Society for Integrative Oncology should be ashamed to have given their names to such a poor-quality document.
In January 2024, this remarkable paper was published in a top journal:
Macrophages are associated with innate immune response and M1-polarized macrophages exhibit pro-inflammatory functions. Nanoparticles of natural or synthetic compounds are potential triggers of innate immunity. As2O3 is the major component of the homeopathic drug, Arsenic album 30C.This has been claimed to have immune-boosting activities, however, has not been validated experimentally. Here we elucidated the underlying mechanism of Ars. alb 30C-mediated immune priming in murine macrophage cell line. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) used for the structural analysis of the drug reveals the presence of crystalline As2O3 nanoparticles of cubic structure. Similarly, signatures of M1-macrophage polarization were observed by surface enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) in RAW 264.7 cells with concomitant over expression of M1 cell surface marker, CD80 and transcription factor, NF-κB, respectively. We also observed a significant increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines like iNOS, TNF-α, IL-6, and COX-2 expression with unaltered ROS and apoptosis in drug-treated cells. Enhanced expression of Toll-like receptors 3 and 7 were observed both in transcriptional and translational levels after the drug treatment. In sum, our findings for the first time indicated the presence of crystalline As2O3 cubic nanostructure in Ars. alb 30C which facilitates modulation of innate immunity by activating macrophage polarization.
On 21 August 2024, this paper was retracted; here is the retraction notice:
After publication, concerns were raised about the reagents used in this study, in particular that the arsenic trioxide solution is diluted beyond the point at which any active molecules are expected to be present. Post-publication peer review confirmed that the nature of the particles detected in the study is unclear. This means that without further corroborative evidence, the data presented in the paper are not sufficient to attribute the effects observed after treating cells with the compound. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results reported in this Article.
Swift retractions of sloppy science, errors, fraud, scientific misconduct, misinterpretaton of results, etc. are necessary to prevent the harm caused by such unfortunate publications. The editors of SCIENTIFIC REPORTS should be congratulated to have achieved this so quickly and elegantly. This is in sharp contrast to similar events like the protracted hoo-hah that occurred until THE LANCET finally retracted the fraudulent study of Andrew Wakefield or the deplorable ongoing saga of THE ONCOLOGIST, the editor of which has still not retracted the fraudulent paper by Michael Frass et al claiming that homeopathy could prolong the survival of cancer patients.
This paper employs a governmentality framework to explore resistance by sceptics to homeopathy’s partial settlement in the public health systems of England and France, resulting in its defunding in both countries in 2018 and 2021, respectively. While partly dependent upon long-standing problematisations – namely, that homeopathy’s ability to heal is unproven, its mechanisms implausible, and its consequences for patients potentially dangerous – the defunding of homeopathy was also driven by the conduct of sceptics towards so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), who undermined homeopathy’s position in strikingly different ways in both contexts. This difference, we suggest, is a consequence of the diverging regulatory arrangements surrounding homeopathy (and SCAMs more generally) in England and France—and the ambivalent effects of SCAM’s regulation. If law and regulation have been a key component of SCAM’s integration and (partial) acceptance over the past four decades, the fortunes of homeopathy in England and France highlight their unpredictability as techniques of governmentality: just as the formal regulatory systems in England and France have helped to normalise homeopathy in different ways, they have also incited and galvanised opposition, providing specific anchor-points for resistance by SCAM sceptics.
The authors state that they approach the sceptics’ actions as a form of resistance to the normalising power of governmentality—a resistance that is also shaped by the possibilities and spaces offered by legal orderings. From a Foucauldian perspective, resistance is immanent to relations of power: the two presuppose one another. If regimes of governmentality have increasingly let SCAMs ‘in’ as a means of normalising them, then this paper attends to some of the resistances the modes of SCAM’s regulation have incited and shaped, and how resistance to SCAM has taken different forms in different regulatory contexts. At times, resistance has emanated from some SCAM healers themselves, who regard their practice as inimical to the standardisation and bureaucratisation required by formal regulation. In the case of homeopathy, much resistance has come from those outside of the SCAM professions. Such resistance seemingly rejects per se the notion that ‘good’ homeopathy (or SCAMs more generally) can be distinguished from ‘bad’—and, hence, the idea that state institutions should grant any form of legitimacy to such practices. By grounding our analysis in a governmentality perspective, we invite a closer consideration of the means by which homeopathy’s regulation (and its conditional acceptance by formal institutions)—a core component of its normalisation—has incited irritations, aggravations and resistances which have paradoxically helped to challenge its place in the national healthcare systems of England and France.
The authors further explain that SCAM sceptics’ initial resistance to homeopathy began to emerge in a coordinated fashion in the mid 2000s, and can best be described as a cumulative build-up of dispersed sceptic activism and campaigning on the part of a loose coalition of prominent non-state, non-official individuals, often, but not always, from outside the medical profession itself. It included high profile scientists and academics such as Edzard Ernst and David Colquhoun, and sceptic campaigning groups, such as Sense About Science (SAS), which was founded in 2002. In other words, the multifaceted nature of their campaigning and the dispersal of their targets appeared to be a reaction to the diffuse, decentred provision and regulation of homeopathy in England and the involvement of a broad range of actors ‘beyond the state’.
__________________________
I find this version of events interesting (I encourage you to read the full text of the paper) and somewhat amusing, as I hardly recognise it. The way I experienced and recall this story is roughly as follows:
- In the 1970/80s EBM had become the generally accepted norm and logic in healthcare. It had begun to generate significant, tangible advantages for the fate of suffering patients.
- Thus many areas of medicine came under scrutiny and those that were non-compliant with EBM were rightly criticised.
- From the early 1990s, I and others started to apply the principles of EBM to homeopathy (and other SCAMs).
- This soon made it obvious that homeopathy was lacking convincing evidence of efficacy.
- Now, it was merely a question of time that the regulators had to act accordingly.
- England and France happened to do this first, but, in my view, it is virtually inevitable that other countries will follow – not because of any organised activism but because ethical medicine must always follow the evidence and cannot tolerate quackery.
I disagree with the authors of the above paper; there was no coordinated resistance, cumulative build-up, activism, coalition of individuals, multifacetet campaigning to speak of. The actions that occurred were merely the inevitable consequence of the scientific evidence that emerged from the 1990s onwards. In other words, the principles of EBM were simply taking their course. The defunding is thus not unique to homeopathy but has happened (and will continue to happen) in many other areas of healthcare that do not demonstrably generate more good than harm.
The authors of the above article mention my name repeatedly and seem to imply that I assumed the role of a key activist. Interestingly, they do not cite a single of my papers, presumably because none of them can demonstrate the points they are trying to make. The truth is that, until my retirement from academia in 2012/13, my role was merely that of a researcher. The activism that did happen consisted mostly of diverse and unfunded actions of rationalists who felt that homeopathy was making a mockery of EBM.
Looking back, I am still surprised that these actions were achieved almost entirely by altruistic amateurs. I even feel a little ashamed that the vast majority of doctors seemed to care so little (and were put to shame by the amateurs) about upolding the values of EBM, the best interest of patients and the importance of medical ethics.
This prospective, community-based, active surveillance study aimed to report the incidence of moderate, severe, and serious adverse events (AEs) after chiropractic (n = 100) / physiotherapist (n = 50) visit in offices throughout North America between October-2015 and December-2017.
Three content-validated questionnaires were used to collect AE information: two completed by the patient (pre-treatment [T0] and 2-7 days post-treatment [T2]) and one completed by the provider immediately post-treatment [T1]. Any new or worsened symptom was considered an AE and further classified as mild, moderate, severe or serious.
From the 42 participating providers (31 chiropractors; 11 physiotherapists), 3819 patient visits had complete T0 and T1 assessments. The patients were on average 50±18 years of age and 62.5% females. Neck/back pain was the most common presenting condition (70.0%) with 24.3% of patients reporting no condition/preventative care.
From the patients visits with a complete T2 assessment (n = 2136 patient visits, 55.9%), 21.3% reported an AE, of which:
- 7.9% were mild,
- 6.2% moderate,
- 3.7% severe,
- 1.5% serious,
- 2.0% had missing severity rating.
The most common symptoms reported with moderate or higher severity were:
- discomfort/pain,
- stiffness,
- difficulty walking,
- headache.
The authors concluded that this study provides valuable information for patients and providers regarding incidence and severity of AEs following patient visits in multiple community-based professions. These findings can be used to inform patients of what AEs may occur and future research opportunities can focus on mitigating common AEs.
They also note that:
- The incidence of AEs reported in their study was lower than the 30%-50% reported in a recent scoping review of 250 observational and experimental studies of manual treatments of the spine.
- A similar prospective clinic-based survey collected data from 4712 encounters from Norwegian chiropractors found that 55% of these encounters had an AE.
- A clinical trial of chiropractic care for patients with neck pain found that 30% reported an AE.
- The Scandinavian College of Naprapathic Manual Medicine collected AE information from 767 patients and found that 51% of those who had at least 3 SMT treatments reported an AE.
The authors did not mention our systematic review:
The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence about the risks of spinal manipulation. Articles were located through searching three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), contacting experts (n =9), scanning reference lists of relevant articles, and searching departmental files. Reports in any language containing data relating to risks associated with spinal manipulation were included, irrespective of the profession of the therapist. Where available, systematic reviews were used as the basis of this article. All papers were evaluated independently by the authors. Data from prospective studies suggest that minor, transient adverse events occur in approximately half of all patients receiving spinal manipulation. The most common serious adverse events are vertebrobasilar accidents, disk herniation, and cauda equina syndrome. Estimates of the incidence of serious complications range from 1 per 2 million manipulations to 1 per 400,000. Given the popularity of spinal manipulation, its safety requires rigorous investigation.
Whatever the true rate of AEs turns out to be, one thing is very clear: it is unacceptably high, particularly if we consider that the benefits of spinal manipulations are doubtful and at best small.
‘Conversion therapy’ has previously been a subject on this blog, e.g.:
- Surprise, surprise! Lesbianism is not ‘cured’ by homeopathy (warning: includes very rude language)
- The ‘Association of Catholic Doctors’ and homeopathic conversion therapy
But sadly it is not just a field for homeopaths. It has long been known that religious cults dabble it conversion therapy. Now, it has been reported that a church body enabling “gay exorcism” as conversion therapy and believing in witchcraft is conducting a major expansion in Scotland. The attitudes of the “Forward In Faith Church International Incorporated” (FIFCII) have been described as promoting “vicious homophobia and misogyny”. The FIFCII has even been accepted by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR), despite these extreme beliefs. The church states that women should provide sex for their husbands whenever they desire it. Its ministers regularly oversee miracles, which allow crippled people to suddenly walk and all manner of ailments to be suddenly cured at mass evangelical gatherings.
Two overseers for Scotland have been appointed – seeking to set up in Glasgow, Fife, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Premises have already been bought in Edinburgh for a Scottish HQ. The National Secular Society (NSS) has raised concerns about FIFCII. NSS human right lead Alejandro Sanchez said: “This organisation promotes vicious homophobia and misogyny, and may well be endangering lives with reckless allegations of witchcraft. Any suggestion it is acting in the public benefit and worthy of charitable status is absurd. We know from experience OSCR has been either unable or unwilling to take action against religious charities that foster intolerance and extreme views. It is now time legislators urgently review ‘the advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose. It must not be used as a back door for religious groups to promote conversion therapy and the subjugation of women.”
The website of FIFCII describes the exorcism of a man possessed by a “homosexual spirit”. One “Apostle’s Update” blog post on the charity’s website in 2017 describes how the spirit “bound him for many years” but that he was freed during a “miracle night” in St Kitts and Nevis. The blog states: “The atmosphere on Sunday was electric as there was too much joy in the church.” Another blog entry describes the ‘deliverance’ of a 14 year old girl in Zimbabwe who was taken nightly to “eat human flesh and drink human blood” as part of a ‘witchcraft’ ritual.
The founder of the Forward in Faith Church reportedly amassed a personal fortune of $130 million by the time of his death last year, aged 100. “Apostle” Guti was regarded as spiritual leader by many but was criticised by some for his support for Robert Mugabe. Guti formed the Zimbabwe Assemblies of God Africa (Zaoga) in 1960. That led to the creation of a media empire, a university, a hospital and numerous schools, as well as more than 100 publications. His church has the third largest membership in Zimbabwe after the Roman Catholic Church and the Johanne Marange Apostolic Church. It claims to have spread its ministeries to 168 countries, with over three million members.
At an event at last year’s Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University – formed by the church’s leader in the city of Bindura, a team of evangelists were reported to have been set free from possession. The report states: “We thank our father Apostle Dr Joseph Joe Guti for sending us a powerful team of evangelists during the week of Spiritual Revival Festival. Many people were set free from spiritual husbands/wives, some were delivered from abnormal period pains and blood flow, others delivered from witchcraft, satanism and marine spirits as well as healings from sight problems.” A blog from 2015 praises the deliverance of 17 people in Zimbabwe from “spiritual husbands, bitterness, homosexuality, witchcraft, satanism – to mention a few”.
In its UK annual report for 2023, FIFCII, reveals its blueprint for Scotland. It declares that the it is growing fast due to “tithing” – where the congregation hand over 10% of their income to the church. It states: “Scotland has seen a big increase in numbers due to the influx from Zimbabwe through the work visa program. This has benefited us in many ways, not least with tithing but also as many of them were already leaders in Zimbabwe. They are eager to do the work of God in their new places of worship. An area calling for attention for church growth is the possibility of new assemblies. We are looking to establish one in Dundee in 2024 and possibly Fife as well, areas which are both to the east between Edinburgh and Aberdeen assemblies. Scotland Province might be small in size but mighty in heart and serving a big God. We are confident that 2024 will be a year with bigger, greater, mightier blessings than we have already seen or even believed possible.”
At the end of 2022, FIFCII bought its own ”provincial centre”, for Scotland in Edinburgh, which is still being renovated, with use of donations. The organisation admits that its extreme beliefs can be a blocker – due to equality laws. The report states: “Finding affordable places of worship can be challenging in some places from practices that are against our guidance, rules and policy, like being asked to sign an agreement to support same sex marriages.”
In the UK, charities are legally required to act in the public benefit but OSCR has tended to turn a blind eye to the most controversial Old Testament beliefs if they are held in the name of religion. The Scottish Government is seeking to legally ban “conversion therapy” that aims to change any individual’s sexuality. A public consultation was launched in January this year and legislation could follow. Equalities Minister Emma Roddick announced the consultation in a statement that claims conversion practice are “damaging and destructive acts” that violate the human rights of those who undergo them. She adds: “Sadly, these practices happen today, and they have absolutely no place in Scotland. We are committed to bringing an end to conversion practices, and to protect LGBTQI+ people from the trauma and harm they can cause.”
According to its website, the ministry has “spread to most of the major cities of the United Kingdom including, London, Manchester, Birmingham, Belfast, Glasgow and Cardiff.
It has been reported that the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked the certifications for two prominent US physicians. They are both (in)famous for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
- Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website.
- Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine.
Marik is the chief scientific officer and Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.
Kory and Marik stated, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.” The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Kory and Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.” Kory and Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Kory and Marik lost an appeal. In a 2023 statement, Kory and Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”
To this, Wikipedia adds that, Marik is the inventor of the “Marik protocol”, also known as the “HAT” protocol, which proposes intravenous administration of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine as a treatment for preventing sepsis for people in intensive care. Marik’s own initial research, published with four other authors in Chest in 2017, showed a dramatic evidence of benefit. The single-center, observational study compared outcomes of 47 consecutive sepsis patients who were treated with HAT during a 7-month period to 47 consecutive control patients during the preceding 7-month period. The study reported 19 deaths in the control group and 4 deaths in the treatment group. Marik’s findings received attention on social media and National Public Radio, but drew criticism from the wider medical community for being science by press conference. ER doctor Jeremy Faust was one of a number of skeptics of the results, noting the low reliability of the study design and potential for bias. The controversy prompted other groups to conduct studies of the HAT protocol. A systematic review of six randomized and five non-randomized controlled trials in 2021 eventually concluded that the claimed benefits of the protocol could not be confirmed.
In November 2022, Pierre Kory and the FLCCC began marketing a cocktail of supplements and drugs (e.g. ivermectin and nitazoxanide) for other viruses, influenza and Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Like the FLCCC-advocated COVID treatments, the recommendations lacked credible supporting scientific evidence. The cocktail could cost over $500.
Wikipedia also mentions that, in March 2024, Kory and Marik published an op-ed in The Hill claiming that long COVID was caused by COVID-19 vaccination instead of COVID-19 infection. The op-ed was republished by the German disinformation outlet Disclose.tv. The fact-checking website Health Feedback found that the op-ed relied on anecdotes that did not provide evidence to support the claim.
Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggested that gut microbiota-based therapies may be effective in treating autoimmune diseases, but a systematic summary is lacking. This systematic review was aimed at filling the gap.
The literature searches identified total of 80 RCTs. They related to 14 types of autoimmune disease:
- celiac sprue,
- SLE,
- lupus nephritis (LN),
- RA,
- juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA),
- spondyloarthritis,
- psoriasis,
- fibromyalgia syndrome,
- MS,
- systemic sclerosis,
- type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM),
- oral lichen planus (OLP),
- Crohn’s disease,
- ulcerative colitis.
The results showed that gut microbiota-based therapies may improve the symptoms and/or inflammatory factor of:
- celiac sprue,
- SLE,
- LN,
- JIA,
- psoriasis,
- PSS,
- MS,
- systemic sclerosis,
- Crohn’s disease,
- ulcerative colitis.
However, gut microbiota-based therapies may not improve the symptoms and/or inflammatory factor of spondyloarthritis and RA. Gut microbiota-based therapies may relieve the pain of fibromyalgia syndrome, but the effect on fibromyalgia impact questionnaire score is not significant. Gut microbiota-based therapies may improve HbA1c in T1DM, but its effect on total insulin requirement does not seem to be significant. Probiotics did not seem to increase the incidence of adverse events.
The authors concluded that gut microbiota-based therapies may improve several autoimmune diseases (celiac sprue, SLE and LN, JIA, psoriasis, fibromyalgia syndrome, PSS, MS, T1DM, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis).
This sounds promissing, perhaps even a bit too good to be true?
To answer this question, It seems important to look at the quality of the primary studies:
- Twenty-nine RCTs failed to describe the random sequence generation methods.
- Seventeen RCTs were not blinded and their results contained subjective indicators.
- Seven RCTs were rated as high risk of bias.
And what about other caveats?
- The effect sizes vary but are often small.
- There is much heterogeneity.
- For some of the conditions there are only very few trials
- There is no uniform, plausible mode of action.
In summary, while these findings are no doubt interesting, I recommend taking them with a pinch of salt.
The German Magazine FürSie recently published an article on homeopathy. To be exact it is an article on how to lose weight with homeopathy. Here are a few excerpts:
Globules are used in homeopathy and are said to be able to alleviate complaints. Some globules are also said to have a positive effect on weight loss. We present them to you below.
Which globules help with weight loss?
Calcium carbonicum D12 helps against eating out of grief and frustration and brings body and soul back into balance. Dosage and intake: 5 globules 3 times a day.
Fucus vesiculosus D2 stimulates the metabolism and reduces appetite. Dosage and administration: 5 globules 3 times a day. Important: The remedy should not be used for thyroid disorders.
Coffea D6 promotes fat burning and helps you lose weight. Dosage and intake: Melt 3 globules on the tongue in the morning before breakfast.
Is your weight loss stagnating? Then Capsicum D4 can help. Metabolism and fat burning are boosted. It also produces happiness hormones. Dosage and intake: 5 globules 3 times a day.
Lycopodium D12 helps against an unpleasant bloated stomach. The remedy stimulates fat metabolism and regulates digestion. Dosage and intake: 5 globules twice daily.
Argentum nitricum D12 has a balancing effect and curbs cravings in stressful situations. Calorie intake is regulated. Dosage and intake: 5 globules 3 times a day.
Taking Petroselinum D6 will make you look slimmer. The ingredients support the elimination of excess water in the body. Dosage and intake: 3 globules 5 times a day…
Slimming globules are particularly impressive because they contain active ingredients that are satiating, boost the metabolism and stimulate fat burning. Another positive aspect is that, as is usual in homeopathy, the globules are purely herbal remedies. Chemical-free, they are regarded as virtually risk-free miracle pills.
Slimming processes, the disappearance of annoying kilos and a good sense of well-being can be achieved more quickly with homeopathic remedies.
I find this article so very remarkable because the author(s) (who is/are not named) managed to make all the above statements without a single one of them being true, supported by evidence or even remotely plausible. The only way one might lose weight by using homeopathy is, if one pays for it with a handful of coins from ones pocket. There is not a shred of sound evidence that homeopathy reduces body weight.
The magazine includes this disclaimer: “This article contains, among other things, product recommendations. When selecting the products, we are free from the influence of third parties. For a referral via our affiliate links, we receive a commission from the relevant service provider/online shop when a purchase or referral is made, with the help of which we can continue to offer independent journalism.”
Independent journalism?
I beg to differ: this is not independent nor is it journalism.
The question I ask myself is this: are such magazines allowed to publish any nonsense, or is there an authority that might control or reprimand them in an attempt to protect consumers?
