Here is an open letter published yesterday, initiated by SENSE ABOUT SCIENCE and signed by many UK scientists and other experts. If you agree with it, you can still add your name to the signatories (see below):
Dear Mr Johnson
We urge you to start publishing the government’s evolving plans for coronavirus testing, and the evidence they are based on.
Testing is key to understanding the risks and to how people can get back to work and normal life. It is what major decisions will be based on, but there are also limits to what it can tell us.
People are frustrated and confused about the scientific and logistical challenges of testing and what the government is doing about it. The internet and media are awash with rumours and the public are valiantly trying to work their way through fragments of information. People in senior positions in healthcare, in government departments, in research and in the related industries are struggling to see whether their input is needed and how to give it.
Why is testing delayed? Is there a shortage of tests? Is there a shortage of chemicals? Do they only work 30% of the time? Will there be tests to see whether someone’s had the virus? Can people test themselves or does it have to be done by a clinic? These are just a handful of the many questions being asked. Scientists and government representatives are trying to answer them but it’s a losing battle with volume and reach.
The UK government’s response to this epidemic started by levelling with people in a clear way about the emerging evidence and transparency on the government’s evolving thinking about that evidence. Of course, continuing to tell people what is happening has become complex and challenging. But that won’t be brought under control by limiting communication to behavioural instructions or by your efforts to clamp down on misinformation. The government cannot clamp down on misinformation without substituting information in its place. Would the government please maintain its commitment to evidence transparency and put its evolving plans and evidence on testing on an open site where the public, experts and government agencies can follow them and to which those who are trying to address confusion can direct people.
Tracey Brown OBE, director, Sense about Science
Carl Heneghan, director, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine
Justine Roberts, CEO, Mumsnet
Emma Friedmann, campaign director, FACSaware
Professor Sarah Harper, The Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, University of Oxford
Mairead MacKenzie, Independent Cancer Patient Voices
Rose Woodward, Founder, Patient & Advocate, Kidney Cancer Support Network
Dr Bu’Hussain Hayee PhD FRCP AGAF, Clinical Lead for Gastroenterology
I.Chisholm-Bunting, School of Nursing and Allied Health
Rachael Jolley, editor in chief, Index on censorship
Caroline Fiennes, director, Giving Evidence
Dr Ritchie Head, director, Ceratium
Tommy Parker, KiActiv
Professor Annette Dolphin FRS, FMedSci, President of British Neuroscience Association
Dr James May, Vice Chair, Healthwatch and GP
Peter Johnson, Patient representative with respiratory conditions
A. P. Dawid, FRS Emeritus Professor of Statistics, University of Cambridge
Stafford Lightman FMedSci FRS, Professor of Medicine, University of Bristol
Dr Christie Peacock CBE PhD FRAgS FRSB Hon DSc, Founder and Chairman, Sidai Africa (Kenya) Ltd
Caroline Richmond, Medical journalist
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky FAcSS, Chair in Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol
Hugh Pennington CBE, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology, University of Aberdeen
Prof. Wendy Bickmore FRS, FRSE, FMedSci, Director: MRC Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh
Benjamin Schuster-Böckler, PhD, Research Group Leader, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
Dr Max Pemberton, Daily Mail columnist and NHS Doctor
Diana Kornbrot, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Psychology, University of Hertfordshire
Professor Patrick Eyers, Chair in Cell Signalling, University of Liverpool
Lelia Duley, Emeritus Professor, University of Nottingham
Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor University of Exeter
Ianis Matsoukas, Biomedical Sciences, University of Bolton
Dr Lorna Gibson, Radiology Registrar, New Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh
Sylvia Schröder, Senior Research Fellow, UCL
Dr Emma Dennett, St George’s University of London.
Ellie Wood, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
Sophie Faulkner, clinical doctoral research fellow / occupational therapist
Dr Maya Hanspal, research assistant, UK Discovery Lab
Dr John Baird, University of Aberdeen
Martin Stamp, managing director, Ionic Information
Saša Jankovic, Journalist
Kate Ravilious, Freelance Science Writer
Charise Johnson, policy advisor
Dr Sophie Millar, University of Nottingham
Bissera Ivanvoa, Research Assistant in Linguistics, The University of Leeds
Baroness Jolly, House of Lords
Dr. Simon Keeling MSc, PhD, RMet, FRMetS, The weather centre
Laurie van Someren, Aleph One Ltd
Prof Chris Kirk, former Hon. Sec. Royal Society of Biology.
Sergio Della Sala, Professor of Human Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Wilber Sabiiti,Senior Research fellow in Medicine, University of St Andrews
Prof. Bob Brecher, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Politics and Ethics, University of Brighton
Dr Sabina Michnowicz, UCL Hazard Centre
David Orme, Research Assistant, Cortex Lab
Rebecca Dewey PhD, Research Fellow in Neuroimaging
Dr Ricky Nathvani, Imperial College London.
Rita F. de Oliveira, Senior lecturer Sport and Exercise Science, London South Bank University
Prof Christopher C French, Head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths, University of London
Kirstie Tew, Lead Scientist, KiActiv®
Dr Ben Martynoga, Freelance writer
Nigel Johnson, Patient representative with respiratory conditions
Dr Mimi Tanimoto – Science Communications Consultant
Till Bruckner, TranspariMED
Lesley-Anne Pearson, The University of Dundee
Sue O’Connell, retired consultant microbiologist, Health Protection Agency
Hao Ni, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, UCL, The Turing Fellow, the Alan Turing Institute
Dr Simon Underdown, FSA, FRSB, Director – Centre for Environment and Society
Matthew A Jay, PhD Student in Legal Epidemiology, University College London
Michael Butcher, Chairman, dataLearning Ltd
Professor Tom Crick, Swansea University
Dr J K Aronson, Consultant Physician and Clinical Pharmacologist, Centre for Evidence Based Medicine
Dr Thomas O’Mahoney, Anglia Ruskin University
Professor Ianis G. Matsoukas PhD (Biomedical Sciences), University of Bolton
Emeritus Professor Nigel Brown, Blackah-Brown Consulting
Danae Dodge, Ask for Evidence Ambassador
Ieuan Hughes, Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital
Mandy Payne, Freelance Medical Editor
Lyssa Gold, University of St Andrews
Please email [email protected]
Many hundreds of plants worldwide have a place in folk medicine as treatments for microbial infections and antimicrobial activity of extracts in vitro may be readily assessed in microbiology laboratories. Many so tested are reported to show inhibitory effects against a range of organisms. For less than responsible entrepreneurs, this is often enough reason to promote them as therapeutic options.
But laboratory testing can at best be only a very crude, though relatively inexpensive and rapid screen, while in vivo testing is very costly and time consuming. On this background, we conducted a review in 2003 to examine the range of plants or herbs that have been tested for antiviral properties in laboratories, animals and humans. Here is its abstract:
Background and aims: Many antiviral compounds presently in clinical use have a narrow spectrum of activity, limited therapeutic usefulness and variable toxicity. There is also an emerging problem of resistant viral strains. This study was undertaken to examine the published literature on herbs and plants with antiviral activity, their laboratory evaluation in vitro and in vivo, and evidence of human clinical efficacy.
Methods: Independent literature searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CISCOM, AMED and Cochrane Library for information on plants and herbs with antiviral activity. There was no restriction on the language of publication. Data from clinical trials of single herb preparations used to treat uncomplicated viral infections were extracted in a standardized, predefined manner.
Results: Many hundreds of herbal preparations with antiviral activity were identified and the results of one search presented as an example. Yet extracts from only 11 species met the inclusion criteria of this review and have been tested in clinical trials. They have been used in a total of 33 randomised, and a further eight non-randomised, clinical trials. Fourteen of these trials described the use of Phyllanthus spp. for treatment of hepatitis B, seven reporting positive and seven reporting negative results. The other 10 herbal medicines had each been tested in between one and nine clinical trials. Only four of these 26 trials reported no benefit from the herbal product.
Conclusions: Though most of the clinical trials located reported some benefits from use of antiviral herbal medicines, negative trials may not be published at all. There remains a need for larger, stringently designed, randomised clinical trials to provide conclusive evidence of their efficacy.
One of the herbal remedies that seemed to show some promise specifically for upper respiratory infections was Andrographis paniculata. This evidence prompted us in 2004 to conduct a systematic review focused on this herb specifically. Here is its abstract:
Acute respiratory infections represent a significant cause of over-prescription of antibiotics and are one of the major reasons for absence from work. The leaves of Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Wall ex Nees (Acanthaceae) are used as a medicinal herb in the treatment of infectious diseases. Systematic literature searches were conducted in six computerised databases and the reference lists of all papers located were checked for further relevant publications. Information was also requested from manufacturers, the spontaneous reporting schemes of the World Health Organisation and national drug safety bodies. No language restrictions were imposed. Seven double-blind, controlled trials (n = 896) met the inclusion criteria for evaluation of efficacy. All trials scored at least three, out of a maximum of five, for methodological quality on the Jadad scale. Collectively, the data suggest that A. paniculata is superior to placebo in alleviating the subjective symptoms of uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection. There is also preliminary evidence of a preventative effect. Adverse events reported following administration of A. paniculata were generally mild and infrequent. There were few spontaneous reports of adverse events. A. paniculata may be a safe and efficacious treatment for the relief of symptoms of uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection; more research is warranted.
Before you now rush to buy a dietary supplement of A. paniculata, let me stress this in no uncertain terms: the collective evidence is at best suggestive, but it is not compelling. Importantly, there is, to the best of my knowledge, no sound evidence that any herbal remedy is effective in preventing or treating Covid-19 infections.
I truly wished to be able to report more encouraging news, but the truth is the truth, even (I would argue, particularly) in desperate times.
During my almost 30 years of research into so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), I have published many papers which must have been severe disappointments to those who advocate SCAM or earn their living through it. Many SCAM proponents thus reacted with open hostility. Others tried to find flaws in those articles which they found most upsetting with a view of discrediting my work. The 2012 article entitled ‘A Replication of the Study ‘Adverse Effects of Spinal Manipulation: A Systematic Review‘ by the Australian chiropractor, Peter Tuchin, seems to be an example of the latter phenomenon (used recently by Jens Behnke in an attempt to defame me).
Here is the abstract of the Tuchin paper:
Objective: To assess the significance of adverse events after spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) by replicating and critically reviewing a paper commonly cited when reviewing adverse events of SMT as reported by Ernst (J Roy Soc Med 100:330-338, 2007).
Method: Replication of a 2007 Ernst paper to compare the details recorded in this paper to the original source material. Specific items that were assessed included the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and the recording of other significant risk factors such as diabetes, hyperhomocysteinemia, use of oral contraceptive pill, any history of hypertension, atherosclerosis and migraine.
Results: The review of the 32 papers discussed by Ernst found numerous errors or inconsistencies from the original case reports and case series. These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event. Other errors included incorrectly assigning spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) as chiropractic treatment when it had been reported in the original paper as delivered by a non-chiropractic provider (e.g. Physician).The original case reports often omitted to record the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and other significant clinical or risk factors. The country of origin of the original paper was also overlooked, which is significant as chiropractic is not legislated in many countries. In 21 of the cases reported by Ernst to be chiropractic treatment, 11 were from countries where chiropractic is not legislated.
Conclusion: The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper, reduce the validity of the study and the reported conclusions. The omissions of potential risk factors and the timeline between the adverse event and SMT could be significant confounding factors. Greater care is also needed to distinguish between chiropractors and other health practitioners when reviewing the application of SMT and related adverse effects.
The author of this ‘replication study’ claims to have identified several errors in my 2007 review of adverse effects of spinal manipulation. Here is the abstract of my article:
Objective: To identify adverse effects of spinal manipulation.
Design: Systematic review of papers published since 2001.
Setting: Six electronic databases.
Main outcome measures: Reports of adverse effects published between January 2001 and June 2006. There were no restrictions according to language of publication or research design of the reports.
Results: The searches identified 32 case reports, four case series, two prospective series, three case-control studies and three surveys. In case reports or case series, more than 200 patients were suspected to have been seriously harmed. The most common serious adverse effects were due to vertebral artery dissections. The two prospective reports suggested that relatively mild adverse effects occur in 30% to 61% of all patients. The case-control studies suggested a causal relationship between spinal manipulation and the adverse effect. The survey data indicated that even serious adverse effects are rarely reported in the medical literature.
Conclusions: Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation.
In my view, there are several things that are strange here:
- Tuchin published his paper 5 years after mine.
- He did not publish it in the same journal as my original, but in an obscure chiro journal that hardly any non-chiropractor would ever read.
- Tuchin never contacted me and never alerted me to his publication.
- The journal that Tuchin chose was not Medline-listed in 2012; consequently, I never got to know about the Tuchin article in a timely fashion. (Therefore, I did never respond to it.)
- A ‘replication study’ is a study that repeats the methodology of a previous study.
- Tuchin’s paper is therefore NOT a replication study. Firstly, mine was a review and not a study. Secondly, and crucially, Tuchin never repeated my methodology but used an entirely different one.
But arguably, these points are trivial. They should not distract from the fact that I might have made mistakes. So, let’s look at the substance of Tuchin’s claim, namely that I made errors or omissions in my review.
As to ‘omissions’, one could argue that a review such as mine will always have to omit some details in order to generate a concise summary. The only way to not omit any details is to re-publish all the primary papers in one large volume. Yet, this can hardly be the purpose of a systematic review.
As to the ‘errors’, it seems that the ages and sex of three patients were wrong (I have not checked this against the primary publications but, for the moment, I believe Tuchin). This is, of course, lamentable and – even though I have no idea whether the errors happened at the data extraction phase, during the typing, the revising, or the publishing of the paper – it is entirely my responsibility. I also seem to have mistaken a non-chiropractor for a chiropractor. This too is regrettable but, as the review was about spinal manipulation and not about chiropractic, the error is perhaps not so grave.
Be that as it may, these errors are unquestionably not good, and I can only apologise for them. If Tuchin had dealt with them in the usual way – by publishing in a timely fashion a ‘letter to the editor’ of the JRSM – I could have easily corrected them for everyone to see.
But I think there is a more important point to be made here:
Tuchin concludes his paper stating that it is unwise to make conclusions regarding causality from any case study or multiple case studies. The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper significantly limit any reported conclusions. I believe that both sentences are unjustified. The safety of any intervention in routine use has to be examined on the basis of published case studies. This is particularly true for chiropractic where no post-marketing surveillance similar to that for drugs exists.
The conclusions based on such evidence can, of course, never be firm, but they provide valuable signals that can prompt more rigorous investigations in the interest of patient safety. In view of such considerations, my own conclusions in my 2007 paper were, I think, correct and are NOT invalidated by my relatively trivial mistakes: spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, has repeatedly been associated with serious adverse events. Currently the incidence of such events is unknown. Adherence to informed consent, which currently seems less than rigorous, should therefore be mandatory to all therapists using this treatment. Considering that spinal manipulation is used mostly for self-limiting conditions and that its effectiveness is not well established, we should adopt a cautious attitude towards using it in routine health care.
And my conclusions in the abstract have now, I believe, become established wisdom. They are thus even less in jeopardy through my calamitous lapsus or Tuchin’s ‘replication study’: Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation.
A team of chiropractic researchers conducted a review of the safety of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in children under 10 years. They aimed to:
1) describe adverse events;
2) report the incidence of adverse events;
3) determine whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events compared to other interventions.
They searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from January 1, 1990 to August 1, 2019. Eligible studies were case reports/series, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Studies of high and acceptable methodological quality were included.
Most adverse events are mild (e.g., increased crying, soreness). One case report describes a severe adverse event (rib fracture in a 21-day-old) and another an indirect harm in a 4-month-old. The incidence of mild adverse events ranges from 0.3% (95% CI: 0.06, 1.82) to 22.22% (95% CI: 6.32, 54.74). Whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children is unknown.
The authors concluded that the risk of moderate and severe adverse events is unknown in children treated with SMT. It is unclear whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children < 10 years.
Thanks to their ingenious methodology, the authors managed to miss 11 of the 13 studies included in the review by Vohra et al which reported 9 serious adverse events and 20 cases of delayed diagnosis associated with SMT. Another review reported 15 serious adverse events and 775 mild to moderate adverse events following manual therapy. As far as I can see, the authors of the new review make just one reasonable point:
We recommend the implementation of a population-based active surveillance program to measure the incidence of severe and serious adverse events following SMT treatment in this population.
In the absence of such a surveillance system, any incidence figures are not just guess-work but also a depiction of the tip of a much bigger iceberg. So, why do the authors of this review not make this point clearly and powerfully? Why does the review read mostly like an attempt to white-wash a thorny subject? Why do they not provide a breakdown of the adverse events according to profession? The answer to these questions can be found at the very end of the paper:
This study was supported by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to Ontario Tech University. The College of Chiropractors of British Columbia was not involved in the design, conduct or interpretation of the research that informed the research. This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program to Pierre Côté who holds the Canada Research Chair in Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation at Ontario Tech University, and from the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation to Carol Cancelliere who holds a Research Chair in Knowledge Translation in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ontario Tech University.
This study was supported by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to Ontario Tech University. The College of Chiropractors of British Columbia was not involved in the design, conduct or interpretation of the research that informed the research. This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program to Pierre Côté who holds the Canada Research Chair in Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation at Ontario Tech University, and funding from the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation to Carol Cancelliere who holds a Research Chair in Knowledge Translation in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ontario Tech University.
I have often felt that chiropractic is similar to a cult. An investigation by cult members into the dealings of a cult is not the most productive of concepts, I guess.
I missed this article by Canadian vascular surgeons when it came out in 2018. It is well-argued, and I think you should read it in full, if you can get access (it’s behind a pay wall). It contains interesting details about the anti-vax attitude of doctors of integrative medicine (something we discussed before), as well as the most dubious things that go on in the ‘Cleveland Clinic’. Here is at least the abstract of the article:
Evidence-based medicine, first described in 1992, offers a clear, systematic, and scientific approach to the practice of medicine. Recently, the non-evidence-based practice of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been increasing in the United States and around the world, particularly at medical institutions known for providing rigorous evidence-based care. The use of CAM may cause harm to patients through interactions with evidence-based medications or if patients choose to forego evidence-based care. CAM may also put financial strain on patients as most CAM expenditures are paid out-of-pocket. Despite these drawbacks, patients continue to use CAM due to media promotion of CAM therapies, dissatisfaction with conventional healthcare, and a desire for more holistic care. Given the increasing demand for CAM, many medical institutions now offer CAM services. Recently, there has been controversy surrounding the leaders of several CAM centres based at a highly respected academic medical institution, as they publicly expressed anti-vaccination views. These controversies demonstrate the non-evidence-based philosophies that run deep within CAM that are contrary to the evidence-based care that academic medical institutions should provide. Although there are financial incentives for institutions to provide CAM, it is important to recognize that this legitimizes CAM and may cause harm to patients. The poor regulation of CAM allows for the continued distribution of products and services that have not been rigorously tested for safety and efficacy. Governments in Australia and England have successfully improved regulation of CAM and can serve as a model to other countries.
Those who have been following this blog a little know how much I agree with these authors. In fact, in the peer-reviewed literature, I have been publishing similar arguments for almost 20 years, e.g:
- Integrative medicine: not a carte blanche for untested nonsense. Ernst E. Arch Intern Med 2002. PMID 12153386
- Disentangling integrative medicine Ernst E. Mayo Clin Proc 2004 – Review. PMID 15065622
- Integrated medicine. Ernst E. J Intern Med 2012. PMID 21682782 Free article.
- Integrative medicine: more than the promotion of unproven treatments? Ernst E. Med J Aust 2016. PMID 26985838
Consumer Advocate is an organisation that say this about themselves:
We want to make sure that you understand how we make money and who pays us. So we have taken proactive measures to ensure that any advertiser whom we have a paid relationship with is labeled as a “Partner” across our website. If you choose to click on the links on our site, we may receive compensation. If you don’t click or use the phone numbers listed on our site we will not be compensated.
Also, ranking and the order of products on our site are subject to change and partners may influence their position on our website, including the order in which they appear on a Top 10 list. Regardless of partner or compensation, we take into account many additional factors, which are the result of the 200+ hours of research our editorial team spends on average to provide insights and recommendations around each category displayed on our website.
The analyses and opinions on our site are our own and our editors and staff writers follow guidelines to ensure editorial integrity. Our brand, ConsumersAdvocate.org, stands for accuracy and helpful information. We know that we can only be successful if we take your trust in us seriously.
They recently conducted independent lab tests on the purity of 33 samples of essential ois from well-known names in the essential oil industry to see what was really inside each bottle. Their report raises lots of concerns, in my view. The team that wrote the report kindly sent me a summary and asked me to publish it here which I now do without any alteration, abbreviation or further comment:
Everybody’s talking about essential oils. More importantly, everybody’s using them. The global demand for these fragrant chemical compounds reached an extraordinary 226.9 kilotons in 2018 and further growth is projected by the marketing people who measure such things. The proliferation of essential oil users is tied to growth in the food and beverage, personal care and aromatherapy industries.
It’s not surprising that the scientific study of essential oils has also increased with demand for the products. The best essential oil brands invest in quality testing but don’t necessarily follow scientific protocol or make detailed testing results available to consumers. So the literature is still limited— and the jury is still out on whether these compounds are effective in treating medical conditions.
Essential oils are extracted from plants. In their pure form, they are highly concentrated—and sometimes toxic. To make them practical to use, essential oils are typically mixed with diluting carrier oils. Methods of extraction include cold-pressing, steam and water distillation, and the use of chemical solvents. Evaluating individual products made with essential oils is challenging because there are thousands of brands on the market. Neither the extraction methods used or the potency of the products—let alone, testing methods—are standardized. Manufacturers’ ambitious marketing claims, which often rely on ambiguous language, further obscure consumers’ ability to judge for themselves which oils are best suited to their purposes. The list of problems some products purport to solve can run the gamut from an itchy scalp to menopause symptoms.
What’s more, few essential oil manufacturers educate consumers on proper dosage or contraindications, which can lead to accidental misuse and illness. Children are particularly sensitive to many oils and yet most manufacturers fail to warn against applying oils to children’s skin. Pregnant women are usually advised not to use essential oils during their first trimesters, though some studies have suggested they can help alleviate pain during childbirth. Some essential oils should never be used during pregnancy. Essential oils can interact or interfere with prescription medicines and nutritional supplements. But unlike prescription drugs, they don’t come with warning labels about these potential interactions.
Genuinely scientific, peer-reviewed studies of essential oils have primarily focused on using aromatherapy as an adjunct to conventional medical treatment. Science has confirmed that when inhaled, essential oil molecules travel quickly to the brain—specifically the limbic region, which controls pulse, respiration, sexual arousal, and other autonomic functions. Emotional responses like fear and motivation originate in the limbic system. The most promising applications of aromatherapy appear to be in diminishing stress and offering pain relief. But actual clinical trials into such topics as reducing nausea in by chemotherapy patients, relieving anxiety during childbirth, alleviating headaches, and improving sleep have been inconclusive.
Other studies have focused on the subject of inflammation, which is known to contribute to a wide range of medical problems. Essential oils derived from the thyme, clove, rose, eucalyptus, fennel, and bergamot have been demonstrated through one study to activate chemicals in the body which suppress inflammation and suppress chemicals that activate it.
Researchers are also exploring the potential of essential oils as antibacterial agents. Parts of the juniper, cumin, coriander and lavender plants may be effective in battling E coli, while cinnamon may prove useful in treating strep throat and pneumonia.
As ancient and traditional as their use may be in certain cultures, the scientific reality is it’s too early to tell how effective essential oils are in treating the wide range of conditions they are theorized (and now, commonly advertised) to treat.
But that’s not to say you shouldn’t use them, according to recommendations from your doctor. When considering the efficacy of essential oils, bear in mind that the act of self-care can be therapeutic in and of itself. We all know that treating ourselves to a hot bath—or an ice cream cone for that matter—can give us a temporary sense of well-being. For the time being, short-term selfsoothing may be all we can count on from essential oils. But there’s something to be said for even temporary relief. An entire industry of over-the-counter medicines has been founded upon it.
About 85% of German children are treated with herbal remedies. Yet, little is known about the effects of such interventions. A new study might tell us more.
This analysis accessed 2063 datasets from the paediatric population in the PhytoVIS data base, screening for information on indication, gender, treatment, co-medication and tolerability. The results suggest that the majority of patients was treated with herbal medicine for the following conditions:
- common cold,
- digestive complaints,
- skin diseases,
- sleep disturbances
The perceived effect of the therapy was rated in 84% of the patients as very good or good without adverse events.
The authors concluded that the results confirm the good clinical effects and safety of herbal medicinal products in this patient population and show that they are widely used in Germany.
If you are a fan of herbal medicine, you will be jubilant. If, on the other hand, you are a critical thinker or a responsible healthcare professional, you might wonder what this database is, why it was set up and how exactly these findings were produced. Here are some details:
The data were collected by means of a retrospective, anonymous, one-off survey consisting of 20 questions on the user’s experience with herbal remedies. The questions included complaints/ disease, information on drug use, concomitant factors/diseases as well as basic patient data. Trained interviewers performed the interviews in pharmacies and doctor’s offices. Data were collected in the Western Part of Germany between April 2014 and December 2016. The only inclusion criterion was the intake of herbal drugs in the last 8 weeks before the individual interview. The primary endpoint was the effect and tolerability of the products according to the user.
And who participated in this survey? If I understand it correctly, the survey is based on a convenience sample of parents using herbal remedies. This means that those parents who had a positive experience tended to volunteer, while those with a negative experience were absent or tended to refuse. (Thus the survey is not far from the scenario I often use where people in a hamburger restaurant are questioned whether they like hamburgers.)
So, there are two very obvious factors other than the effectiveness of herbal remedies determining the results:
- selection bias,
- lack of objective outcome measure.
This means that conclusions about the clinical effects of herbal remedies in paediatric patients are quite simply not possible on the basis of this survey. So, why do the authors nevertheless draw such conclusions (without a critical discussion of the limitations of their survey)?
Could it have something to do with the sponsor of the research?
The PhytoVIS study was funded by the Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR Bonn, Germany.
Or could it have something to do with the affiliations of the paper’s authors:
1 Institute of Pharmacy, University of Leipzig, Brüderstr. 34, 04103, Leipzig, Germny. [email protected]
2 Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR, Plittersdorfer Str. 218, 573, Bonn, Germany. [email protected]
3 Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
4 ClinNovis GmbH, Genter Str. 7, 50672, Cologne, Germany.
5 Bayer Consumer Health, Research & Development, Phytomedicines Supply and Development Center, Steigerwald Arzneimittelwerk GmbH, Havelstr. 5, 64295, Darmstadt, Germany.
6 Kooperation Phytopharmaka GbR, Plittersdorfer Str. 218, 53173, Bonn, Germany.
7 Institute of Pharmaceutical Biology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Max-von-Laue-Str. 9, 60438, Frankfurt, Germany.
8 Chair of Naturopathy, University Medicine Rostock, Ernst-Heydemann Str. 6, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
‘HOMEOPATHY360’ are fiercely decided to defend homeopathy, no matter what. They state that we promise to stand by your side always to fight against the critical attacks on Homeopathy… Therefore, I was not really surprised when, a couple of days ago, I received an email by them urging me to support US homeopaths against the threat by the FDA. Here is part of this correspondence:
… If you want to know more about the FDA’s proposed new rules for homeopathic medicines, here’s a summary of the most important points:
- The new rules, if adopted, will allow the FDA to withdraw even properly manufactured and labeled homeopathic medicines from the marketplace. This is puzzling because these have never posed any sort of safety concern according to an initial review of public FDA records by Americans for Homeopathy Choice.
- It is clear that the FDA intends to use this authority and has even mentioned specific medicines such as Belladonna, Nux vomica and Lachesis muta in its public statements regarding enforcement.
- The authority for this kind of assault on homeopathy will result from the declaration by the FDA that all homeopathic medicines are “new drugs.” We all know this is nonsense. Homeopathic medicines have been around for 200 years.
- But this nonsense declaration means that under U.S. law all homeopathic remedies will become technically “illegal” and subject to withdrawal from the marketplace. If the FDA just thinks there is a problem with a homeopathic medicine, it can withdraw it forever without conducting any sort of investigation.
- Since the agency has already said that it thinks that Belladonna, Nux vomica, Lachesis muta and several other remedies are dangerous, we can anticipate that it will try to remove them from the marketplace as soon as its new rules are adopted.
- But, it won’t be possible for Americans to get remedies that are banned sent to them from abroad. The FDA will simply stop these remedies at the border.
I could tell you more, but what I’ve told you so far should convince you that we ought to help the American homeopathy community defeat these unreasonable and misinformed rules. The rules simply do not reflect the realities of homeopathic medicines, namely, that they are nontoxic, mild, effective and have few, if any, side-effects. And, homeopaths use them in ways that individualize treatment. That this is the best way to treat patients was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann 200 years ago.
The enemies of homeopathy are everywhere and they appear to be stepping up their attacks. That’s why the world homeopathy community must work together to stand up to them…
I have reported about the FDA initiatives on homeopathy before. In 2015, they started it with a public hearing. Since then, the FDA also issued several warnings to manufacturers who were putting consumers at risk (see, for instance, here, here, and here).
What the FDA seem to be trying to do is nothing else but meeting their ethical, moral and legal responsibility vis a vis consumer safety. Homeopathy has had a free ride for far too long. It is high time that this sector joins the 21st century.
The above quote, with its bonanza of bogus claims and falsehoods, shows the urgency of this task. The defenders of homeopathy seem to live on a different planet where rationality, facts and evidence can easily be over-ruled by creed, dogma and wishful thinking. If homeopaths want their trade to join the realm of real medicine they need, at the very minimum, to show with sound evidence:
- that their remedies generate more good than harm,
- that they adhere to acceptable quality standards.
Failing this – and so far, homeopaths not only failed at this task but continue bombarding us with an incessant flow of bogus and dangerous claims – homeopathics cannot be considered to be medicines, and homeopaths cannot be called responsible healthcare professionals. It is high time to stop turning a blind eye to the double standards that have been applied for 200 years.
The current Cochrane review of clinical trials testing the effectiveness of manipulation/mobilisation for neck pain concluded as follows:
Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.
Such a critical assessment must be tough for chiropractors who gain a substantial part of their income from treating such patients. What is the solution? Simple, convene a panel of chiros and issue recommendations that are more prone to stimulate their cash flow!
Exactly that seems to have just happened.
The purpose of the researchers was to develop best-practice recommendations for chiropractic management of adults with neck pain.
A steering committee of experts in chiropractic practice, education, and research drafted a set of recommendations based on the most current relevant clinical practice guidelines. Additional supportive literature was identified through targeted searches conducted by a health sciences librarian. A national panel of chiropractors representing expertise in practice, research, and teaching rated the recommendations using a modified Delphi process. The consensus process was conducted from August to November 2018. Fifty-six panelists rated the 50 statements and concepts and reached consensus on all statements within 3 rounds.
The statements and concepts covered aspects of the clinical encounter, ranging from informed consent through diagnosis, assessment, treatment planning and implementation, and concurrent management and referral for patients presenting with neck pain.
The authors concluded that these best-practice recommendations for chiropractic management of adults with neck pain are based on the best available scientific evidence. For uncomplicated neck pain, including neck pain with headache or radicular symptoms, chiropractic manipulation and multimodal care are recommended.
Let’s be clear what this amounts to: a panel of highly selected chiropractors (sponsored by a chiropractic organisation) has reached a consensus (and published it in a chiropractic) which allows them to continue to treat patients with neck pain.
Isn’t that just great?
Now let’s think ahead – what next?
I suggest the following:
- A panel of homeopaths recommending homeopathy.
- A panel of faith healers recommending faith healing.
- A panel of crystal healers recommending crystal healing.
- A panel of colon therapists recommending colonic irrigation.
- A panel of supplement manufacturers recommending to buy supplements.
I am sure you get the gist.
At the heart of this story is Joseph Mercola, a dietary supplement entrepreneur and osteopath.
His website states that:
EVERYONE can benefit from Dr Mercola’s unparalleled knowledge. For expertise in alternative healthcare and high quality supplemental medicine, it’s hard to beat visionary Dr Joseph Mercola. The Chicago-based health wizard has his own website, Mercola.com (‘Take Control of Your Health’), but you can find so many of his health support products right here at Evolution Organics. Our customers swear by them. They love the diversity of the range, and that the products are priced affordably, meaning that everyone can benefit from Dr Mercola’s vast experience and unmatched know-how. And it’s not just men, women and children who can feel better ‘the Dr Mercola way’ – his brand includes health support products for pets, too.
However, an article in the Washington Post tells a different story; allow me to quote a few excerpts:
The National Vaccine Information Center was founded in 1982 by Barbara Loe Fisher, who has said that her son was injured by a vaccine. The group claimed credit this year for helping to defeat legislation in a dozen states that would have made it harder for parents to opt out of vaccinating their children. At the beginning of last year’s flu season, Fisher and Mercola appeared in a YouTube video urging people to be skeptical about flu shots. Mercola claimed that vaccines have been associated with “deaths and permanent neurological complications,” and he said vitamin D supplements were among “far more effective, less expensive and less risky alternatives.” … Fisher said in an interview that Mercola has asked for nothing in exchange for his donations and that the National Vaccine Information Center does not sell or advertise Mercola’s products on its site. “I do not take funding for a quid pro quo,” she said. “When [Mercola] called me, he said, ‘I admire your work. I’d like to help you.’ ” The center’s homepage, which the group says was visited more than 1.2 million times last year, displays Mercola.com’s logo. An affiliated website run by Fisher’s group refers numerous times to Mercola.com as one of the most popular health and wellness websites…
In recent years, the center has been at the forefront of a movement that has led some parents to forgo or delay immunizing their children against vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles… The Northern Virginia-based National Vaccine Information Center lists Mercola.com as a partner on its homepage and links to the website, where readers can learn about and purchase Mercola’s merchandise…Asked if his companies benefit from his donations to the anti-vaccine group, Mercola said in an email that “being an adversary to powerful industries is not a positive for a business like mine.” …
On this blog, I have repeatedly warned that many so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) practitioners recommend against vaccinations. Specifically implicated are:
- Physicians practising integrative medicine
- Doctors of anthroposophical medicine
We knew about the ‘ideology’ and the misinformation pushing SCAM-related anti-vaccination sentiments. The article in the Washington Post is a stark reminder of the financial interests behind all this. As a result, SCAM-use is associated with low vaccination-uptake (as we have discussed ad nauseam – see for instance here, here, here and here). Anyone who needs more information will find it by searching this blog. Anyone claiming that this is all my exaggeration might look at papers which have nothing to do with me (there are plenty more for those who are willing to conduct a Medline search):
- Lehrke P, Nuebling M, Hofmann F, Stoessel U. Attitudes of homeopathic physicians towards vaccination. Vaccine. 2001;19:4859–4864. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00180-3. [PubMed]
- Halper J, Berger LR. Naturopaths and childhood immunizations: Heterodoxy among the unorthodox. Pediatrics. 1981;68:407–410. [PubMed]
- Colley F, Haas M. Attitudes on immunization: A survey of American chiropractors. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 1994;17:584–590. [PubMed]