MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

satire

1 2 3 25

In Germany, homeopathy had a free ride for a very long time. In recent years, however, several doctors, pharmacists, scientists, etc. have started opposing the fact that the public has to pay for ineffective treatments such as homeopathics. As a consequence, homeopaths have begun to fight back. The weapons they chose are often not the most subtle. Now they seem to have reached a new low; the Board of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians (DZVhÄ) has sent an open letter to the Board of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM) and to the participating colleagues of the 127th Congress of the DGIM from April 17 – 20, 2021 in an attempt to stop an invited lecture of a critic of homeopathy.

Here is my translation of the letter:

Dear colleagues on the board of the DGIM,

We were very surprised to read that an ENT colleague will speak on homeopathy at the 127th Congress of Internal Medicine. Dr. Lübbers is known up and down the country as a media-active campaigner against homeopathy. His “awakening experience” he had, according to his own account, when he had to fish homeopathic pills out of the ear of a child with otitis, since then he is engaged – no: not for better education, in the mentioned case of the parents or other users – against the method homeopathy (which was certainly not “guilty” of the improper application!).

It has surely not escaped you that in all media again and again only a small handful of self-proclaimed “experts” – all from the clique of the skeptic movement! – are heard on the subject of homeopathy. A single (!) fighter against homeopathy is a physician who completed her training in homeopathy and practices for a time as a homeopath. All the others come from non-medical and other occupational groups. In contrast, there are several thousand medical colleagues throughout Germany who stand on the ground of evidence-based medicine, have learned conventional medicine, implement it in their practices, and have completed a recognized continuing education program in homeopathy.

In the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians – the oldest medical professional association in Germany – 146 qualified internists are currently registered as members, in addition to numerous other medical specialists, all of whom are actively practicing medicine.

Question: Why does the German Society for Internal Medicine invite an ENT specialist, of all people, who lectures on homeopathy without any expertise of his own? Why not at least a specialist colleague in internal medicine? Or even a colleague who could report on the subject from her own scientific or practical experience? For example, on the topic of “hyperaldosteronism,” would you also invite a urologist or orthodontist? And if so, why?

Dear Board of Directors of the DGIM: As an honorary board member of the German Central Association of Homeopathic Physicians e.V.. (DZVhÄ) – and a specialist in internal medicine – I am quite sure that we could immediately name several colleagues with sufficient expertise as homeopathically trained and experienced internists, if you are really interested in a solid and correct discourse on the subject of homeopathy. Under the above-mentioned circumstances, there is, of course, rather the suspicion that it should not be about, but rather exclusively against homeopathy.

If it is planned for a later congress, e.g. in 2022, to deal again with the topic of homeopathy in a truly professionally well-founded and possibly even more balanced form: please contact us at any time! As medical colleagues, we are very interested in a fair and unprejudiced professional discourse.

Yours sincerely

Dr. med. Ulf Riker, Internist – Homeopathy – Naturopathy

2nd chairman DZVhÄ / 1st chairman LV Bayern

________________

What are Riker and the DZVhÄ trying to say with this ill-advised, convoluted, and poorly written letter?

Let me try to put his points a little clearer:

  • They are upset that the congress of internists invited a non-homeopath to give a lecture about homeopathy.
  • The person in question, Dr. Lübbers, is an ENT specialist and, like all other German critics of homeopathy (apart from one, Dr. Grams), does not understand homeopathy.
  • There are thousands of physicians who do understand it and are fully trained in homeopathy.
  • They would therefore do a much better job in providing a lecture.
  • So, would the German internists please invite homeopaths for their future meetings?

And what is Riker trying to achieve?

  • It seems quite clear that he aims to prevent criticism of homeopathy.
  • He wishes to replace it with pro-homeopathy propaganda.
  • Essentially he wants to stifle free speech, it seems to me.

To reach these aims, he does not hesitate to embarrass himself by sending and making publicly available a very stupid letter. He also behaves in a most unprofessional fashion and does not mind putting a few untruths on paper.

Having said that, I will admit that they are in good company. Hahnemann was by all accounts a most intolerant and cantankerous chap himself. And during the last 200 years, his followers have given ample evidence that critical thinking has remained an alien concept for them. Consequently, such behavior seems not that unusual for German defenders of homeopathy. In recent times they have:

Quite a track record, wouldn’t you agree?

But, I think, attempting to suppress free speech beats it all and must be a new low in the history of homeopathy.

 

Previous studies have shown inconclusive results of homeopathy in the treatment of warts. A team of Indian homeopaths aimed to assess the feasibility of a future definitive trial, with a preliminary assessment of differences between effects of individualized homeopathic (IH) medicines and placebos in the treatment of cutaneous warts.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (n = 60) was conducted at the dermatology outpatient department of D.N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal. Patients were randomized to receive either IH (n = 30) or identical-looking placebo (n = 30). Primary outcome measures were numbers and sizes of warts; the secondary outcome was the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) questionnaire measured at baseline, and every month up to 3 months. Group differences and effect sizes were calculated on the intention-to-treat sample.

Attrition rate was 11.6% (IH, 3; placebo, 4). Intra-group changes were significantly greater (all < 0.05, Friedman tests) in IH than placebo. Inter-group differences were statistically non-significant (all > 0.05, Mann-Whitney U tests) with small effect sizes-both in the primary outcomes (number of warts after 3 months: IH median [inter-quartile range; IQR] 1 [1, 3] vs. placebo 1 [1, 2]; p = 0.741; size of warts after 3 months: IH 5.6 mm [2.6, 40.2] vs. placebo 6.3 [0.8, 16.7]; p = 0.515) and in the secondary outcomes (DLQI total after 3 months: IH 4.5 [2, 6.2] vs. placebo 4.5 [2.5, 8]; p = 0.935). Thuja occidentalis (28.3%), Natrum muriaticum (10%) and Sulphur (8.3%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, homeopathic aggravations, or serious adverse events were reported.

The Indian homeopaths draw the following conclusion: As regards efficacy, the preliminary study was inconclusive, with a statistically non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy. The trial succeeded in showing that an adequately powered definitive trial is both feasible and warranted.

INCONCLUSIVE?

No, the findings are not inconclusive at all! Read the results again: they confirm that homeopathy is a placebo therapy.

So, why is this trial worth writing about?

Surely, we did not expect anything else than a negative outcome from such a study?!

No, we didn’t.

But there is still something quite remarkable about this study: I have previously noted that virtually all studies of homeopathy by Indian researchers report positive results. AND THIS ONE DOESN’T!!!

Alright, it tries to hide the fact that the findings were negative, but this already seems to be a step in the right direction. So, well done, my Indian friends!!!

Perhaps one day, you will be able to admit that homeopathy is a placebo therapy?

 

 

The General Chiropractic Council’s (GCC) Registrant Survey 2020 was conducted in September and October 2020. Its aim was to gain valuable insights into the chiropractic profession to improve the GCC’s understanding of chiropractic professionals’ work and settings, qualifications, job satisfaction, responsibilities, clinical practice, future plans, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on practice, and optimism and pessimism about the future of the profession.

The survey involved a census of chiropractors registered with the GCC. It was administered online, with an invitation email was sent to every GCC registrant, followed by three reminders for those that had not responded to the survey. An open-access online survey was also available for registrants to complete if they did not respond to the mailings. This was promoted using the GCC website and social media channels. In total, 3,384 GCC registrants were eligible to take part in the survey. A fairly miserable response rate of 28.6% was achieved.

Here are 6 results that I found noteworthy:

  • Registrants who worked in clinical practice were asked if performance was monitored at any of the clinical practices they worked at. Just over half (55%) said that it was and a third (33%) said it was not. A further 6% said they did not know and 6% preferred not to say. Of those who had their performance monitored, only 37% said that audits of clinical care were conducted.
  • Registrants working in clinical practice were asked if any of their workplaces used a patient safety incident reporting system. Just under six in ten (58%) said at least one of them did, whilst 23% said none of their workplaces did. A further 12% did not know and 7% preferred not to say.
  • Of the 13% who said they had a membership of a Specialist Faculty, a third (33%) said it was in paediatric chiropractic, 25% in sports chiropractic, and 16% in animal chiropractic. A further 13% said it was in pain and the same proportion (13%) in orthopaedics.
  • Registrants who did not work in chiropractic research were asked if they intended to work in that setting in the next three years. Seven in ten (70%) said they did not intend to work in chiropractic research in the next three years, whilst 25% did not know or were undecided. Only 5% said they did intend to work in chiropractic research.
  • Registrants were also asked how easy it is to keep up to date with recommendations and advances in clinical practice. Overall, two-thirds (67%) felt it was easy and 30% felt it was not.
  • Registrants were asked in the survey whether they felt optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the profession over the next three years. Overall, half (50%) said they were optimistic and 23% were pessimistic. A further 27% said they were neither optimistic nor pessimistic.

Perhaps even more noteworthy are those survey questions and subject areas that might have provided interesting information but were not included in the survey. Here are some questions that spring into my mind:

  • Do you believe in the concept of subluxation?
  • Do you treat conditions other than spinal problems?
  • How frequently do you use spinal manipulations?
  • How often do you see adverse effects of spinal manipulation?
  • Do you obtain informed consent from all patients?
  • How often do you refer patients to medical doctors?
  • Do you advise in favour of vaccinations?
  • Do you follow the rules of evidence-based medicine?
  • Do you offer advice about prescribed medications?
  • Which supplements do you recommend?
  • Do you recommend maintenance treatment?

I wonder why they were not included.

 

Just when I thought I had received all the insults that one can possibly invent – including that I falsified my qualifications (!) – there comes a new one that nobody has ever thought of.

Like all my books, the new one (this one is in German) is dividing opinions sharply. That has to be expected in the realm of so-called alternative medicine, I suppose. Even though I had hoped to avoid such divisions by discussing the 20 best and the 20 most concerning modalities, there seems to be very little middle ground.

We already discussed the review of our regular Heinrich Huemmer. It was withdrawn by Amazon presumably because it was too offensive and later replaced by his second attempt. Now we have a new review which arguably is even more insulting:

Edzard Ernst ist ein verbitterter, älterer Ex-Wissenschaftler, der in seiner nachuniversitären Ruhestandszeit die Privatfehde mit seinem Erzfeind Prince Charles, wie im Film “Und täglich grüsst das Murmeltier” wieder und wieder aufarbeiten muss. Das letzte traurige Ergebnis gibt’s jetzt hier.

Here is the translation:

Edzard Ernst is an embittered, elderly ex-scientist who, in his post-university retirement, has to rehash the private feud with his nemesis Prince Charles over and over again, as in the movie “And Every Day the Groundhog Greets.” The latest sad result is now available here.

The review was posted on 21/3/2021 by an anonymous person who had not bought or read the book. As it might also be withdrawn by Amazon for being offensive, I thought I better keep it here for posterity. I find it quite nice because it shows the lack of reason that shines through so often when my critics try to form a coherent argument.

So, please allow me to do a quick analysis:

  • I cannot very well judge whether I am embittered. Those around me would deny it, however.
  • Yes, I suppose I am elderly; the same age as Charles, actually. If ‘elderly’ is used in a derogatory sense, it gets rather unpleasant, if you ask me.
  • I am not an ex-scientist. I still do quite a bit of science which, by any standards, makes me a scientist.
  • I don’t think I have a ‘private feud’ with Charles. A feud is an argument that has existed for a long time between two people or groups, causing a lot of anger or violence. If anything I am a critic of Charles’ actions related to SCAM. He has never argued back which means that this does not amount to a feud. If it were a feud, it would also not be private. I have always made my criticism public.
  • Is Charles my nemesis? Someone’s nemesis is a person or thing that is very difficult for them to defeat. Charles would indeed be very difficult to defeat because he never discusses with people who are not of his opinion. So, perhaps this point is correct? Yes, except, I never expected to ‘defeat’ Charles; I would be entirely happy to make him realise that some of his notions are ill-conceived.
  • Do I really have to rehash whatever it is over and over again? I fear that here the book reviewer is mistaken. Charles is one of the world’s most influential proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). I am one of the leading experts in this field. Therefore it is only to be expected that I regularly come across his activities.
  • “The latest sad result is now available here.” This implies that my new book is full of mentions of Charles. The truth is that Charles or his activities are not mentioned even once (at least I did not find anything when checking just mow).

Boring trivialities?

Not really!

I do find the book review quite revealing. It shows that there must be some (I fear many) people out there who are not willing to even consider an argument deemed to be contrary to their conviction. They close their eyes and ears in motivated ignorance. The funny thing is that this happens even in relation to a book in which I really did try to show some positive sides of SCAM.

In other words, even when I evidently write about the positive aspects of SCAM, the opposition remains stubbornly, closed-minded, and accuses me of closed-mindedness.

Not without irony, that!

The use of homeopathy in oncological supportive care seems to be progressing. The first French prevalence study, performed in 2005 in Strasbourg, showed that only 17% of the subjects were using it. This descriptive study, using a questionnaire identical to that used in 2005, investigated whether the situation has changed since then.

A total of 633 patients undergoing treatment in three anti-cancer centers in Strasbourg were included. The results of the “homeopathy” sub-group were extracted and studied.

Of the 535 patients included, 164 (30.7%) used homeopathy. The main purpose of its use was to reduce the side effects of cancer treatments (75%). Among the users,

  • 82.6% were “somewhat” or “very” satisfied,
  • 15.5% were “quite” satisfied,
  • 1.9% were “not at all” satisfied.

The homeopathic treatment was prescribed by a doctor in 75.6% of the cases; the general practitioner was kept informed in 87% of the cases and the oncologist in 82%. Fatigue, pain, nausea, anxiety, sadness, and diarrhea were improved in 80% of the cases. Hair-loss, weight disorders, and loss of libido were the least improved symptoms. The use of homeopathy was significantly associated with the female sex.

The authors concluded that with a prevalence of 30.7%, homeopathy is the most used complementary medicine in integrative oncology in Strasbourg. Over 12 years, we have witnessed an increase of 83% in its use in the same city. Almost all respondents declare themselves satisfied and tell their doctors more readily than in 2005.

There is one (possibly only one) absolutely brilliant statement in this abstract:

The use of homeopathy was significantly associated with the female sex.

Why do I find this adorable?

Because to claim that any of the observed outcomes of this study are causally related to homeopathy seems like claiming that homeopathy turns male patients into women.

PS

In case you do not understand my clumsy attempt at humor and satire, rest assured: I do not truly believe that homeopathy turns men into women, and neither do I believe that it improves fatigue, pain, nausea, anxiety, sadness, and diarrhea. Remember: correlation is not causation.

I was reminded of an event that I had forgotten which, however, is so remarkable that we should remember it. It relates to nothing less than a homeopath’s attempt to save the world!

The homeopath’s name is Grace DaSilva-Hill. She has been a professional homeopath since 1997, with a clinic in Charing (Kent) and international on Zoom, Skype or WhatsApp video. She practises Sensation Homeopathy as refined by Drs Joshis (Mumbai), and Homeopathic Detox Therapy as developed by Dr Ton Jensen. She is also a practitioner of EFT-Tapping. In 2014, Grace very nearly saved the world with homeopathy – well, at least she gave it her very best try. Here is her original plan:

 

Ocean Remedy

Yes, I agree, that’s hilarious! And it’s hilarious in more than one way:

  1. It is funnier than any comedian’s attempt to ridicule homeopathy.
  2. It is a highly effective approach by homeopaths to discrediting themselves.

But, at the same time, it is also worrying. Homeopaths are taken seriously by many influential people. Think of Prince Charles, for instance, or consider the way German homeopaths have convinced the government of Bavaria to invest in research into the question of how homeopathy can be used to reduce antibiotic resistance.

At the time, the formidable Andy Lewis on his QUACKOMETER commented as follows:

We might dismiss this as the fantasies of a small group of homeopaths. However, such thinking is widespread in homeopathic circles and has consequences. Grace is a well known homeopath in the UK, and in the past, has been a trustee and treasurer for the Ghana Homeopathy Project – an organisation that has been exporting this European form of quackery to West Africa. Grace believes that serious illnesses can be treated by a homeopath. For an article in the journal of the Alliance of Registered Homeoapths, Grace discusses treating such conditions as menigitis, malaria and stroke.

Homeopaths in West Africa have hit the news this week as a group tried to enter Liberia in order to use their spells on people with Ebola. The WHO fortunately tried not let them near any actual sick people and they have been kicking and screaming since. The Daily Mail’s rather dreadful article reported that they

“had used homeopathic treatments on patients, despite the instructions from health officials in the capital Monrovia not to do so. She said she had not felt the need to quarantine herself after returning to India but was monitoring her own condition for any signs of the disease.”

The homeopaths appear to have absolutely no understanding how dangerous and irresponsible their actions have been….

Homeopathy is stupid. Magical thinking. A nonsense. Anything goes. And whilst those doctors in the NHS who insist on spending public money on it without taking a responsible stand against the common and dangerous excesses, they can expect to remain under constant fire from those who think they are doing a great deal of harm.

Meanwhile, the public funding of homeopathy in England has stopped; France followed suit. Surely Grace’s invaluable help in these achievements needs to be acknowledged! If we regularly remind decision-makers and the general public of Grace’s attempt to save the world and similarly barmy things homeopaths are up to, perhaps the rest of the world will speed up the process of realizing the truth about homeopathy!?

I am pleased to report that our ‘resident homeopathic doctor’ from Germany, Dr. Heinrich Huemmer, posted a review of my new book on Amazon. As his comments are in German, I translated them which was not easy because they are confusing and confused. Now that it’s done, I cannot resist the temptation to show them to you (the references were inserted by me, and refer to my comments below):

First of all, the author, who as a scientist [1] once had a thoroughly positive attitude towards homeopathy [and in a meta-analysis even attested to it significantly positive results in a certain clinical picture [2]], explains the principles and procedures in homeopathy in a clear and objective manner.
In explaining the principle of potentization, however, Ernst’s one-dimensional and completely unscientific matter-bound, quasi-medieval understanding of science shines through for the first time. With the assertion, “both the dilution and the similarity rule contradict the laws of nature” he clearly reveals his unscientific thinking, whereby he could have easily relativized this by an inserted differentiation “presently, known laws of nature”. [3] And not even the following sentence “…we understand very well that it can function only if the known laws of nature would be invalid” is agreed by critically thinking natural scientists. [3] Also the assertion: “The totality of this evidence does not show that homeopathic remedies would be no more than placebo”, is countered by a well-known – belonging to the skeptic movement – expert of the homeopathic study situation with the remark: “Furthermore, you should read my statements and those of the INH more carefully again: Our statement is that there is no robust/reliable/convincing evidence for efficacy beyond placebo. ALSO NOT “NONE” but “none conclusive”, which yes makes a difference in absolute numbers. Just like “no beer” is different than “not a good beer”. ” [4] Since patients usually turn to homeopathy only when so-called scientific medicine negates their illnesses and accordingly has nothing to offer them [5], Ernst’s reference to the fact that patients could “endanger their health” is to be seen as a cheap attempt at discrediting. [6] The reference that this assessment comes from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council is not without a particularly piquant note, since this NHMRC may have to be held responsible for a particularly infamous attempt at scientific fraud to the disadvantage of homeopathy. [7] Also, the alleged “fact” that “[positive] experiences […] are the result of a long, empathetic, sympathetic encounter with a homoeopath…” can be disproved by immediate – also diagnostically verified – cures, which occurred immediately without a long admission or which failed to appear even after several intensive anamneses under most sympathetic admission against all expectations…..[8] Finally Ernst’s argument “the benefit-cost-argument of homeopathy is not positive” is an absolute air number, because the saving of 1 €/patient and year (in case of abolition of the homeopathy-reimbursement) would not even allow a free new glasses-nose-pad…. [9]

________________________

  1. I am not sure where Homeopathy Heinrich Huemmer (HHH) got the claim from that I, as a scientist, once had a thoroughly positive attitude towards homeopathy. This is not even remotely true! As a very young clinician (40 years ago), I once was quite impressed by homeopathy, never as a scientist (for full details, see my memoir). What HHH seems to display here is his very own misunderstanding about science and scientists: if they are for real (i.e. not pseudoscientists like many of those who research homeopathy), scientists try not to let their personal attitudes get in the way of good science.
  2. I presume that HHH refers here to this meta-analysis: Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. I fear that HHH has yet to learn how to read a scientific paper. Our conclusions were: There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. However, several caveats preclude a definitive judgment. These results should form the basis of a randomized controlled trial to resolve the issue. 
  3. This made me laugh! Does HHH think that only the handful of homeopathic loons who claim that homeopathy has a scientific basis in the unknown laws of nature are truly scientific? And all the rest are unscientific?
  4. I doubt that anyone can understand this passage, perhaps not even HHH. My conclusion that “the totality of this evidence does not show that homeopathic remedies are more than placebo”  merely expresses what even most homeopaths would admit and is unquestionably correct.
  5. This statement is untrue in more than one way. Firstly, responsible clinicians never tell a patient that they have nothing more to offer, simply because this is never the case – there is always something a good clinician can do for his/her patient, even if it is just in terms of palliation or moral support. Secondly, we know that German patients opt to use homeopathy for all sorts of reasons, including as first-line therapy and not as a last resort.
  6. In the book, I refer (and reference the source) to the phenomenon that many homeopaths discourage their patients from vaccination. Unfortunately, this is no ‘cheap attempt’, it is the sad reality. HHH does not even try to dispute it.
  7. HHH does not like the NHMRC report. Fair enough! But he omits to mention that, in the book, I list a total of 4 further official verdicts. Does HHH assume they are all fraudulent? Is there perhaps a worldwide conspiracy against homeopathy?
  8. We all know that HHH is enormously proud of his only publication to which he refers here (on this blog, he must have mentioned it a dozen times). However, in the book, I refer to an RCT for making my point. Which is more convincing, a case report or an RCT?
  9. Here HHH simply demonstrates that he has not understood the concept of cost-effectiveness.

So, what we have here is a near-perfect depiction of a homeopath’s way of thinking. But there is worse in HHH’s comment< I fear.

My book (of 224 pages) scrutinizes – as even its title states – not one but 40 types of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM); 20 of the most effective and 20 of the most dangerous SCAMs. In addition, it covers (in ~ 50 pages) many general topics (like ‘WHAT IS EVIDENCE? or WHY IS SCAM SO POPULAR?). It includes over 200 references to published papers. Yet, HHH reviews and judges the book by commenting exclusively on the meager 5 pages dedicated to homeopathy!

If that does not exemplify the limitations of the homeopathic mind, please tell me what does.

THANK YOU, HHH, FOR MAKING THIS SO CLEAR TO US!

My father invented a therapy for which there was no disease, my mother caught it and died.”

This type of scurrility makes me laugh. And it reminds me of the missing link in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). We have heard about alternative therapies, alternative diagnostic methods, but what about alternative diseases and conditions? Here are some that SCAM practitioners seem to be oddly fond of:

  • – adrenal fatigue
  • – chi deficiency
  • – yeast overgrowth
  • – leaky gut syndrome
  • – leaky brain syndrome
  • – chronic Lyme disease
  • – various food ‘sensitivities’
  • – methylation dysfunction
  • – spinal subluxation
  • – vaccine-induced ‘toxicity’
  • – toxin-overload

But surely, these cannot be enough! For the field of SCAM to make progress, we definitely need many more. So, I had a brainstorm and came up with the following suggestions:

  • Ataxia: the condition (of many SCAM practitioners, but also others) where patients fail to declare their income to the taxman; usually cured by a short stay in the nick.
  • Cardioversion: an insurmountable dislike of conventional clinicians like cardiologists; a self-limiting condition that usually improves after receiving proper medical attention during a serious illness.
  • Collagen: a genetic disorder that shows itself through a strong dislike of experts who have been to college; incurable.
  • Deepak Chopra Syndrome: a serious neurosis where the patient cannot stop uttering BS; incurable.
  • Digitoxin: the unfortunate condition where a spiritual healer sends toxic spirits into the patient via his/her fingers; needs urgent detox.
  • Donovan bodies: a psychiatric affliction where patients are compelled to look and sing like Donavan; requires a sound-proof cell.
  • Duodenal ulcer: an unfortunate condition where the patient has two denal ulcers at the same time; emergency Reiki is advised.
  • Dyspepsia: the pathological preference of Coke over Pepsi; incurable.
  • Familial diseases: an umbrella term for all the few conditions that SCAM practitioners actually know about; can improve with reading a few textbooks.
  • Free radicals: terrorists on the run; call the police!
  • Fungal infection: a rare form of food poisoning where the magic mushrooms were off; needs detox.
  • Iridocyclitis: an obsession that afflicts iridologists who cannot stop riding bicycles; incurable.
  • Keratosis: the dangerous situation where a patient develops an aversion to his/her carer; change of carer is often needed.
  • Murial dyslexia: the inability to be able to read the writing on the wall; incurable.
  • Myositis: is always worse than your ositis.
  • Osteoblast: an event where, after chiropractic manipulation, a bone breaks with an audible noise; see an orthopedic surgeon.
  • Semi-colon: the embarrassing situation where a colonic irrigationist managed to clean out only half of the colon; manageable by changing your therapist.

If you, the reader, can think of more ways to expand the repertoire of SCAM terminology, please feel free to let us all know by posting your ideas below.

My ‘ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME’ is filling up nicely. But I noticed that so far we have nobody from Spain. That can be rectified ever so easily. I think I found the ideal candidate to join this group of illustrious experts who never bring themselves to publish a negative conclusion: JORGE VAS.

Jorge Vas works at the ‘Pain Treatment Unit, Doña Mercedes Primary Health Care Center, Dos Hermanas’ in Spain. I have long noticed his research which is focused on ACUPUNCTURE. From memory, I had the impression that his findings are always positive.

But is this true? To find out, I did a Medline search and found 11 clinical trials of acupuncture in his name, published between 2006 and 2019. Here are the conclusions:

  1. After 2 weeks of treatment, ear acupuncture applied by midwives and associated with standard obstetric care significantly reduces lumbar and pelvic pain in pregnant women, improves quality of life and reduces functional disability.
  2. Individualised acupuncture treatment in primary care in patients with fibromyalgia proved efficacious in terms of pain relief, compared with placebo treatment. The effect persisted at 1 year, and its side effects were mild and infrequent. Therefore, the use of individualised acupuncture in patients with fibromyalgia is recommended.
  3. The use of acupuncture to treat impingement syndrome seems to be a safe and reliable technique to achieve clinically significant results and could be implemented in the therapy options offered by the health services.
  4. …all 3 modalities of acupuncture were better than conventional treatment alone…
  5. Moxibustion treatment applied at acupuncture point BL67 can avoid the need for caesarean section and achieve cost savings for the healthcare system in comparison with conventional treatment.
  6. The application of auriculopressure in patients with non-specific spinal pain in primary healthcare is effective and safe, and therefore should be considered for inclusion in the portfolio of primary healthcare services.
  7. The degree of pain relief experienced by patients from acupuncture justifies a more rigorous study.
  8. Moxibustion at acupuncture point BL67 is effective and safe to correct non-vertex presentation when used between 33 and 35 weeks of gestation. We believe that moxibustion represents a treatment option that should be considered to achieve version of the non-vertex fetus.
  9. Single-point acupuncture in association with physiotherapy improves shoulder function and alleviates pain, compared with physiotherapy as the sole treatment. This improvement is accompanied by a reduction in the consumption of analgesic medicaments.
  10. Acupuncture plus diclofenac is more effective than placebo acupuncture plus diclofenac for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.
  11. In the treatment of the intensity of chronic neck pain, acupuncture is more effective than the placebo treatment and presents a safety profile making it suitable for routine use in clinical practice.

Eleven of 11 trials with a positive conclusion!

That surely is a rare feast.

Actually, I cheated a tiny bit. The unabridged sentence from the conclusion of paper N4 was: In the analysis adjusted for the total sample (true acupuncture relative risk 5.04, 95% confidence interval 2.24-11.32; sham acupuncture relative risk 5.02, 95% confidence interval 2.26-11.16; placebo acupuncture relative risk 2.57 95% confidence interval 1.21-5.46), as well as for the subsample of occupationally active patients, all 3 modalities of acupuncture were better than conventional treatment alone, but there was no difference among the 3 acupuncture modalities, which implies that true acupuncture is not better than sham or placebo acupuncture. Thus this (multicentre) study was negative with just a touch of positivity.

But still, look at the range of conditions that respond positively to acupuncture in Vas’ hands. Is there anyone who doubts that Jorge Vas does not deserve to join all these other geniuses in THE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME?

I am sure that Vas has more than merited to join them.

WELCOME JORGE VAS!

This week, it was reported that a UK bookkeeper has pleaded guilty to abusing his position at In-Light Ltd. by making unauthorized bank transfers to Stroud Accounting Solutions Ltd. The fraud amounted to the sizable sum of  £67,000.

In-Light Limited is the holding company for the School of Homeopathy, The School of Health, and Yondercott Press. It offers alternative medicine courses, seminars, books, and webinars focusing on nutrition, homeopathy, herbal medicine, yoga, Indian and Chinese Medicine.

On Twitter, the news of these events prompted several comments, e.g.:

Bookkeeper stole stolen funds, then?

That is typical of a skeptic! Nothing but vicious negativity!!!

Instead of displaying such sarcasm and Schadenfreude, we should empathize, I feel. If not with In-Light Ltd., then with the poor bookkeeper. As another, more compassionate Tweet pointed out, the man is surely innocent:

It started out as 7 pence, but he dropped it in his water bottle and shook it and now look what happened…

This, I think, should have been the line of the bookkeeper’s defense counsel. “My client did nothing wrong at all; he accidentally dropped a penny of In-Light Ltd. that was lying around the office into a water bottle. The bottle then got inadvertently shaken and the water/money mixture thus got potentised. Before my client could do anything to avert the disaster, the money had become the sizable sum of £ 67 000 which my client dutifully put on his bank account for safe-keeping. We, therefore, plead not guilty, your honour

What, you think the owners of In-Light Ltd. would not have believed this story?

But if they believe in homeopathy, they have no choice. If you believe in homeopathy, you believe anything.

And the judge? Well, the judge has to accept that homeopathy is a fact. And a fact for more than 200 years! Thus, potentisation is real. If all else failed, the defense counsel could call expert witnesses …

Prince Charles, for instance.

1 2 3 25
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories