risk/benefit
The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has signed a memorandum of understanding with NHS England, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to collaborate where there is suspected criminal activity on the part of a GCC member in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making.
I find this interesting and most laudable!
But I also have seven questions, e.g.:
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor explains that the patient’s problem is caused by a subluxation of the spine, an entity that does not even exist? Apparently this happens every day.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor treats a patient without prior informed consent? Apparently, this happens regularly.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor fails to warn a patient that his/her manipulations can cause harm and even put him/her in a wheelchair? Apparently this (the lack of warning) happens all the time, and some chiropractors even insist that their manipulations are entirely safe.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor claims that spinal manipulations are effective for curing the patient’s problem, while the evidence does not support the claim? Apparently this happens more often than not.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor persuades a patient to have expensive long-term maintenance therapy for preventing health problems, while the evidence for that appoach is less than convincing? Apparently this happens rather frequently.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if the chiropractor issues advice that is both outside his/her competence and detrimental to the health of the patient (for instance, advising parents not to vaccinate their kids)? Apparently this happens a lot.
- Does it amount to criminal activity in relation to the provision of clinical care or care decision-making, if a chiropractor advises a patient not to do what a real doctor told him/her to do? Apparently this is far from a rare occurance.
I would be most grateful, if the GCC would take the time to answer the above questions.
Many thanks in advaance.
This update of a systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of spinal manipulations as a treatment for migraine headaches.
Amed, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Mantis, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to September 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating spinal manipulations (performed by various healthcare professionals including physiotherapists, osteopaths, and chiropractors) for treating migraine headaches in human subjects were considered. Other types of manipulative therapy, i.e., cranial, visceral, and soft tissue were excluded. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.
Three more RCTs were published since our first review; amounting to a total of 6 studies with 645 migraineurs meeting the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of six trials showed that, compared with various controls (placebo, drug therapy, usual care), SMT (with or without usual care) has no superior effect on migraine intensity/severity measured with a range of instruments (standardized mean difference [SMD] − 0.22, 95% confidence intervals [CI] − 0.65 to 0.21, very low certainty evidence), migraine duration (SMD − 0.10; 95% CI − 0.33 to 0.12, 4 trials, low certainty evidence), or emotional quality of life (SMD − 14.47; 95% CI − 31.59 to 2.66, 2 trials, low certainty evidence) at post-intervention. A meta-analysis of two trials showed that compared with various controls, SMT (with or without usual care) increased the risk of adverse effects (risk ratio [RR] 2.06; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.41, numbers needed to harm = 6; very low certainty evidence). The main reasons for downgrading the evidence were study limitations (studies judged to be at an unclear or high risk of bias), inconsistency (for pain intensity/severity), imprecision (small sizes and wide confidence intervals around effect estimates) and indirectness (methodological and clinical heterogeneity of populations, interventions, and comparators).
We cocluded that the effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of migraines remains unproven. Future, larger, more rigorous, and independently conducted studies might reduce the existing uncertainties.
The only people who might be surprised by these conclusions are chiropractors who continue to advertise and use SMT to treat migraines. Here are a few texts by chiropractors (many including impressive imagery) that I copied from ‘X’ just now (within less that 5 minutes) to back up this last statement:
- So many people are suffering with Dizziness and migraines and do not know what to do. Upper Cervical Care is excellent at realigning the upper neck to restore proper blood flow and nerve function to get you feeling better!
- Headache & Migraine Relief! Occipital Lift Chiropractic Adjustment
- Are migraines affecting your quality of life? Discover effective chiropractic migraine relief at…
- Neck Pain, Migraine & Headache Relief Chiropractic Cracks
- Migraine Miracle: Watch How Chiropractic Magic Erases Shoulder Pain! Y-Strap Adjustments Unveiled
- Tired of letting migraines control your life? By addressing underlying issues and promoting spinal health, chiropractors can help reduce the frequency and severity of migraines. Ready to experience the benefits of chiropractic for migraine relief?
- Did you know these conditions can be treated by a chiropractor? Subluxation, Back Pain, Chronic Pain, Herniated Disc, Migraine Headaches, Neck Pain, Sciatica, and Sports Injuries.
- When a migraine comes on, there is not much you can do to stop it except wait it out. However, here are some holistic and non-invasive tips and tricks to prevent onset. Check out that last one! In addition to the other tips, chiropractic care may prevent migraines in your future!
Evidence-based chiropractic?
MY FOOT!
THE TIMES recently published an interview with (my ex-friend) Michael Dixon, a person who has featured regularly on this blog. Here is a short passage relevant to our many discussions about homeopathy:
“Can I say on the record I’ve never studied homeopathy,” he says. “I’ve never even offered homeopathy. What I have done is said that if patients feel they’ve benefited from homeopathy, what’s the problem?”
The problem, scientists would argue, is that homeopathy undermines trust in real, evidence-based medicine. Homeopathic remedies are made by diluting active ingredients in water, often so that none of the original substance remains. Homeopathy has been banned on the NHS since 2017, because it is “at best a placebo”.
For Dixon, however, this “trench warfare” divide between alternative and conventional medicine is too binary. Even if something is scientifically impossible, as long as it helps his patients that is all that matters, Dixon says. “Many years ago, a Christian faith healer started seeing some of my patients. She made a lot of them better. I didn’t care a damn if it’s placebo — they got better,” he says.
While he thinks homeopathy can serve a purpose on the NHS, he draws a line at the “madness of some of the more wayward complementary practitioners” who will argue for using homeopathy to vaccinate children. “I would always advocate against anyone going for complementary medicine if there’s good evidence-based conventional medicine.”
Apart from
- the hilarious implication that a faith healer is NOT a “wayward practitioner”,
- the fact that, as far as I know, nobody ever claimed that Dixon studied homeopathy,
- the fact that Dixon does not understand what, according to scientists, the problems with homeopathy are,
his statements seem very empathetic at first glance.
Dixon’s key argument – if patients feel they’ve benefited from homeopathy, why not prescribe it – is an often-voiced notion. But that does not make it correct!
A physician’s duty is not primarily to please the patient. His/her duty foremost is to behave responsibly and to treat patients in the most effective way. And this includes, in a case where the patient feels to have benefitted from a useless or dangerous treatment, to inform the patient about the current best evidence. To me, this is obvious, to others, including Dixon, it seems not. Let me therefore ask you, the reader of these lines: what is the right way to act as a GP?
SCENARIO DIXON
Patient wants a treatment that is far from optimal and claims to have experienced benefit from it. The GP feels this is enough reason to prescribe it, despite plenty of evidence that shows the treatment in question has at best a placebo effect. Thus the doctor agrees to his/her patient taking homeopathy.
SCENARIO ERNST
Patient wants a treatment that is far from optimal and claims to have experienced benefit from it. The doctor takes some time to explain the the therapy is not effective and that, for the patient’s condition, there are treatments that would be better suited. The patient reluctantly agrees and the doctor prescribes a therapy that is backed by sound evidence (in case the patient resists, he/she is invited to see another doctor).
I admit that risking to lose a patient to another colleague is not an attractive prospect, particularly if the patient happens to be your King. But nobody ever said that medicine was easy – and it certainly is not a supermarket were customers can pick and choose as they please.
What do you think?
A journalist from the DAILY MAIL alerted me to the fact that yet another celebrity having decided to sell dietary supplements, interviewed me on the subject, and eventually published an article about it. One would not have thought that the Beckhams are short of money – so, why did David Beckham turn into a snake-oil salesman? I am far from being able to answer this question. What I now do know is that, via his firm ‘IM8’, he has started marketing two supplements (one of his slogans is ‘Built by Science, Trusted by Beckham’):
Daily Ultimate Essentials: All-in-One Supplement
This is a ‘multi-everything’ supplement. The only truly remarkable thing about it is its price tag. There are hundreds of similar products on the market. Almost all of them are much cheaper, and none is helpful for anyone who is healthy and consumes a balanced diet, as far as I can see.
Daily Ultimate Longevity: Healthy Aging
The implication here seems to be not a trivial one; the name clearly implies that we live longer, if we regularly bought this supplement. Not onlly that, we would also be healthier! I can see no evidence for either of these claims, yet a simple calculation tells me that we would be considerably poorer, if we fell for this advertising gimmick.
On the website, we learn a bit more:
At IM8, our commitment to science goes beyond innovation—it’s the foundation of everything we do. A world-class team of experts from space science, medicine, and academia has united with one goal: to revolutionize wellness. We’ve pioneered CRT8™ (Cell Rejuvenation Technology 8), designed to enhance cellular rejuvenation and push the limits of what’s possible in health.
Each of our products undergoes rigorous third-party testing and clinical trials, ensuring purity, efficacy, and results you can trust. With IM8, you’re getting scientifically driven core nutrition for optimal health and longevity.
___________________
I feel embarrassed for the ‘world-class team of experts from space science, medicine, and academia’ who give their good name to this hyped up nonsense. Moreover, I ask myself whether David Beckham’s new attempt to increase his wealth might be a case for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
The alleged harm of Covid-vaccinations is a topic that still leads to misunderstandings, perhaps nowhere more than in the realm of so-called alternative medicine. Therefore, this paper seems relevant.
The first dose of COVID-19 vaccines led to an overall reduction in cardiovascular events, and in rare cases, cardiovascular complications. There is less information about the effect of second and booster doses on cardiovascular diseases. Using longitudinal health records from 45.7 million adults in England between December 2020 and January 2022, this study compared the incidence of thrombotic and cardiovascular complications up to 26 weeks after first, second and booster doses of brands and combinations of COVID-19 vaccines used during the UK vaccination program with the incidence before or without the corresponding vaccination.
The incidence of common arterial thrombotic events (mainly acute myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke) was generally lower after each vaccine dose, brand and combination. Similarly, the incidence of common venous thrombotic events, (mainly pulmonary embolism and lower limb deep venous thrombosis) was lower after vaccination. There was a higher incidence of previously reported rare harms after vaccination: vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia after first ChAdOx1 vaccination, and myocarditis and pericarditis after first, second and transiently after booster mRNA vaccination (BNT-162b2 and mRNA-1273).
The authors concluded that these findings support the wide uptake of future COVID-19 vaccination programs.
The authors stress that their study has several limitations.
- First, residual confounding, including that linked to delayed vaccination in high-risk individuals, may persist despite extensive adjustments for available covariates. We were able to identify some, but not all people who were clinically vulnerable (and hence might have been eligible for earlier vaccination): for example, younger adults in long-stay settings could not be reliably identified.
- Second, we did not adjust for potential confounding by time-varying post-baseline factors that may have influenced receipt of vaccination and the outcomes of interest: for example, development of respiratory symptoms or being admitted into hospital leading to postponement of vaccination. Such confounding may explain estimated lower hazard ratios soon after vaccination.
- Third, ascertainment of some outcomes may have been influenced by public announcements from regulatory agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee announcement or the CDC announcement on myocarditis. This was addressed in sensitivity analyses for myocarditis and pericarditis, censoring follow-up at the time of public announcements of these adverse effects of vaccination, although the shorter follow-up times and corresponding smaller numbers of events in the restricted analyses meant that aHRs were estimated with reduced precision.
- Fourth, outcomes may be underreported, particularly from people in nursing homes or among those with severe health conditions, due to diagnostic challenges; also, routine electronic health records, not intended for research, may under-ascertain less severe, non-hospitalised events. Both forms of potential underreporting, however, are expected to be uncommon for hospitalised thrombotic events.
- Fifth, we restricted follow-up to 26 weeks after vaccination to prevent an influence of subsequent vaccinations on estimated associations and limit the impact of delayed vaccination on our findings. Horne et al. demonstrated selection bias in estimated HRs for non-COVID-19 death arising from deferred next-dose vaccination in people with a recent confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis or in poor health.
- Sixth, we did not address long-term safety of vaccination, or the impact of subsequent booster doses.
Nonetheless, this study offers reassurance regarding the cardiovascular safety of COVID-19 vaccines, with lower incidence of common cardiovascular events outweighing the higher incidence of their known rare cardiovascular complications. No novel cardiovascular complications or new associations with subsequent doses were found. These findings support the wide uptake of future COVID-19 vaccination programs. The authors express their hope that this evidence addresses public concerns, supporting continued trust and participation in vaccination programs and adherence to public health guidelines.
Will the evidence convince the notorious anti-vaxers that regularly comment on my blog?
I very much doubt it – not because of the limitations of the study but because of the fact that anti-vaxers seem to be immune to any evidence that is out of line with their beliefs and conspiracy theories.
Dry needling (DN) is a treatment used by various healthcare practitioners, including physical therapists, physicians, and chiropractors. It involves the use of either solid filiform needles or hollow-core hypodermic needles for therapy of muscle pain, including pain related to myofascial pain syndrome. DN is mainly used to treat myofascial trigger points, but it is also used to target connective tissue, neural ailments, and muscular ailments. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of DN for any condition.
Orofacial pain (OFP) typically has a musculoskeletal, dental, neural, or sinogenic origin. Our systematic review was aimed at evaluating the evidence base for the effectiveness of DN for OFP.
We searched Medline, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science (from their respective inceptions to February 2024) for RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of DN in patients with OFP. Studies with patients suffering from cervicogenic or tension type headaches as well as observational studies were excluded. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and severity; secondary outcomes were disability, quality of life, and adverse effects (AEs). The review adhered to the methods described by in the Cochrane Handbook.
Twenty-four RCTs with a total of 1,318 patients suffering from OFP could be included. Most had an unclear or high risk of bias, and the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low for all comparisons and outcomes. A meta-analysis suggested that, compared with usual care alone, DN + usual care had no effect on pain intensity (visual analogue scale) (standardized mean difference = −1.89, 95% confidence intervals −5.81 to 2.02, very low certainty evidence) at follow-ups of up to 6 weeks. Only 6 RCTs (25%) mentioned AEs, and none of them reported that AEs had occurred. The remaining 18 (75%) studies failed to report AEs.
We concluded that DN cannot be considered as an effective treatment option for OFP. This is due to the uncertainties of the available evidence. We believe that larger, rigorous, and better reported trials with more homogeneous comparators might potentially reduce the current uncertainties. Such trials should strictly adhere to the classifications provided by the International Headache Society and published in the International Classification of Orofacial Pain.
Yet again, I need to stress that the vast majority od RCTs failed to mention AEs. When will the last (pseudo-) researcher have learnt that the non-reporting of AEs is a violation of research ethics?
Guest post by Catherine de Jong
Academic circles have reacted with surprise to the announcement on 12 November of the appointment of chiropractor Sidney Rubinstein as endowed professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The website of the Dutch Chiropractors Association (NCA) states:
“On 1 August 2024, Mr. Sidney Rubinstein was appointed professor by special appointment at the chair “Optimizing Management of Musculoskeletal Health” at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. In addition to his work as a chiropractor in his own practice, Rubinstein has been working at the Vrije Universiteit for a long time. In addition to treating patients, he has always focused on research and development within chiropractic and musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders.”
Chiropractic is an alternative method of treatment. There is no scientific evidence for clinically relevant positive treatment outcomes. For that reason, chiropractic is not mentioned as a treatment option in the guidelines of general practitioners and medical specialists in the Netherlands. Both the profession and the education are not recognized in the Netherlands. On the website of the NVAO (Dutch-Flemish Academic Organization, www.nvao.net), chiropractic does not appear as an accredited program. There is now plenty of research, especially case reports, on the damage that treatment by a chiropractor can cause, such as cerebral infarctions due to arterial dissection of carotid arteries due to cracking of the neck by chiropractors.
On June 20, 2008, the website of Medisch Contact (magazine of KNMG, Dutch Society of Medical Doctors) stated: “First Dutch chiropractor gets his PhD: Sidney Rubinstein will be the first chiropractor in the Netherlands to obtain a PhD today. Rubinstein states that most of the side effects of chiropractic are harmless and temporary.”
This dissertation, for which Sidney Rubinstein obtained his doctorate at VU Amsterdam, was substandard and was criticized in a letter sent to the same journal. The subsequent correspondence with, among others, the supervisor can be read here. In short, a dissertation that VU Amsterdam cannot be proud of.
The Cochrane database contains two reviews published by Rubinstein on chiropractic, or Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) for acute and chronic back pain, respectively. The conclusion was the same in both cases: In summary, SMT appears to be no better or worse than other existing therapies for patients with acute/chronic low‐back pain. In a 2013 update (Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the Cochrane review. Spine 2013; 38(3): E158-77), Rubinstein comes to the same conclusion: SMT is no more effective for acute low back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. SMT also seems to be no better than other recommended therapies. Rubinstein himself has concluded years ago that chiropractic or SMT has no greater effect than other treatments (like standard physiotherapy), but still it needs to be researched again and again?
At the end of the news item on the NCA’s website, the truth is revealed: the NCA subsidizes half of the chair! The members of this organization (there are now more than 500 chiropractors in the Netherlands) have diligently raised the money for this chair. Since its foundation in 1896 by the grocer/magnetizer D.D. Palmer, chiropractic has had every chance to prove its usefulness, but it has not succeeded. That Rubinstein can change that situation is, of course, extremely unlikely.
This appointment is therefore in fact a political publicity stunt for a still pointless alternative treatment. It will do both the practice of Sidney Rubinstein and that of other chiropractors a lot of good that there is now a professor of chiropractic in the Netherlands.
The other half of the chair is paid for by the university. This means that public money that could have been better spent is now going to be wasted on research into an alternative treatment that we already know is useless, by a researcher who has already shown that there is no added value of treatment by a chiropractor.
A substandard dissertation and a purchased chair, but Sidney Rubinstein can call himself a professor. With the appointment of chiropractor Sidney Rubinstein as endowed professor at VU Amsterdam, the university is jeopardizing its good name and contributing to the unjustified elevation of Sidney Rubenstein’s status and his pointless method of treatment, chiropractic.
Can this appointment really be reconciled with the scientific norms and values that VU Amsterdam wants to uphold?
During the past years, I have had multiple COVID vaccinations (5, if I remember correctly). Not once did I experience an adverse reation, and evidently, I did not die either!
This, however, if you remember, was vociferously predicted by many anti-vaxers many of them staunch advocates of so-called alternative medicine and several keen contributors to the comments section of my blog. Some anti-vaxers claimed that all vaccinated people would die within months; others said that not all but many or most of us would die. Therefore, they insisted, excess mortality would sky-rocket.
None of this happened!
Not only did excess mortality of the vaccinated population not increase, in the UK and US, it even fell slightly – as the graph below clearly shows.
So, the anti-vaxers were wrong!
Do they admit it?
No!
Do they apologise for scaring many and deterring thousands from getting vaccinated?
No!
Is it time they did?
Yes!
The aim of this article was to review the use of homeopathy in rheumatic diseases (RDs). PubMed and Embase databases were examined for literature on homeopathy and RDs between 1966 and April 2023. 15 articles were included.
The diseases treated were
- osteoarthritis (n=3),
- rheumatoid arthritis (n=3),
- ankylosing spondylitis (n=1),
- hyperuricemia (n=1),
- tendinopathy (n=1).
The age of the patients varied from 31 to 87 years, and male gender ranged from 56.7% to 100%. The homeopathic treatments varied from a fixed medicine to an individualized homeopathy.
Most studies (9/15) demonstrated improvements after homeopathy. Side effects were not seen or minimal and were comparable to those of the placebo groups.
The authors concluded that this review shows homeopathy is a promising and safe therapy for RD treatment. However, the data needs to be reproduced in future more extensive studies, including other rheumatic conditions.
This paper amounts to an insult of its readership!
Not only is it badly written but also [and more importantly] it is missing almost everything that makes a systematic review. Despite this the authors claim that it “adhered to PRISMA standards”. This is certainly not true.
Amongst the missing items, the most important ones are probably the evaluation of the methodological quality of the inclued primary studies as well as a critical assessment of the evidence. The authors concede that their paper has limitations: “the number of participants was low. Second, a few RDs were evaluated: osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, hyperuricemia, ankylosing spondylitis, and
tendinopathy.”
When reading this, I asked myself: are they clueless or dishonest?
In my view, the authors (from Brasil and Israel) and peer-reviewers of this paper should be ashamed of such shoddy work and the editors of the journal publishing this nonsense should withdraw the paper asap.
It has been reported that King Charles is on a secret trip to Bengaluru, his first visit to India since being coronated as king of the United Kingdom on May 6, 2023, at Westminster Abbey, London. Charles arrived in Bengaluru on October 27 and will be at the Soukya International Holistic Health Centre (SIHHC) in Whitefield for wellness treatment till Wednesday (30/10) night, when he is expected to fly to London.
Sources privy to his secret visit said that King Charles arrived in Bengaluru directly from Samoa, where he attended the 2024 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting from October 21-26. His visit to Bengaluru was strictly kept under wraps, and he was directly taken to SIHHC, where he was also joined by his wife, Queen Camilla.
According to sources, the couple’s day begins with a morning yoga session, followed by breakfast and rejuvenation treatment before lunch. After a brief rest, a second round of therapies follows, ending with a meditation session before dinner and lights out by 9 pm. They have been enjoying long walks around the campus, visiting the organic farm and cattle shed. Considering the high-profile secret visit, a high-security ring was thrown around SIHHC.
The health centre, founded by Dr. Issac Mathai, is located in Samethanahalli, Whitefield, on Bengaluru’s outskirts. This integrative medical facility combines traditional systems of medicine, including Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Yoga, and Naturopathy, along with over 30 complementary therapies like reflexology, acupuncture, and dietetics.
Although this is his first visit as a monarch, Charles has visited the centre on nine earlier occasions and celebrated Deepavali on three occasions there. The royal couple has earlier taken wellness treatments, including anti-ageing, detoxification and rejuvenation. On November 14, 2019, the couple celebrated the then Prince Charles’ 71st birthday at SIHHC, an event that attracted a lot of publicity, unlike this visit.
_______________________
The website of the SIHHC modestly claims to be “THE WORLD’S FIRST INTEGRATIVE HEALTH DESTINATION’
As I reported in 2022, at a press conference in Goa it was claimed, that Prince Charles had been cured of COVID-19 after seeking treatment from a Bengaluru-based alternative treatment resort, SOUKYA International Holistic Health Centre’ run by a doctor Isaac Mathai. The Palace later denied that this was true.
And what about Dr. Issac Mathai? This is what he writes about himself:
A journey that began from the hills of Wayanad (northern Kerala) in 1985, started to bloom in 1998, and today is an international destination for Holistic health and wellbeing. When Dr. Issac Mathai embarked on this journey influenced by his mother, a Homeopathy practitioner who “helped people get better”, little did he know that one day he would lead a team to redefine the essence of health and wellbeing.
As a confident youngster aspiring to be an ‘exceptional Homeopathic Doctor’, Dr. Mathai encountered two key turning points in life – one, an internationally well-received research paper on integrating Yoga with Homeopathy to cure respiratory disorders, and two, learning at the Hahnemann Postgraduate Institute of Homeopathy, London.
Later he was made a Consultant Physician at the Hale Clinic in London, where he treated a number of high-profile people. This helped him establish a reputation in the holistic healing community in quick time. SOUKYA, is today, a residential holistic centre comparable to any facility in the world.
In a world that is comfortable with the conventional practice of ‘popping pills’, the world at large practices a combination of self-medication based on preconceived notions about what is wrong with individuals. In such a scenario, Dr. Issac Mathai and his team of experienced practitioners from different streams have achieved an important goal – create awareness about the possibility of prevention of adverse health conditions, rather than just addressing the symptom.
Education:
M.D. (Homeopathy),
Hahnemann Post-Graduate Institute of Homeopathy, London M.R.C.H, London
Chinese Pulse Diagnosis and Acupuncture, WHO Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
Trained (Mind-Body Medicine Programme) at Harvard Medical School, USA
Of the 3 institutions mentioned above, I could only find the last one: Harvard CME | Mind Body Medicine.
And under MD (Homeopathy), I found this: MD in Homoeopathy is a 3-year long postgraduate course in medicine including a year of house job, and remaining 2 years of research and study.
So, should we be concerned about the health of our King?
What do you think?
