scientific misconduct
This pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was conducted between September 2018 and February 2021 and compared the difference between primary homoeopathic and conventional paediatric care in treating acute illnesses in children in their first 24 months of life. It was conducted at the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) Collaborative Outpatient Department of the Jeeyar Integrated Medical Services (JIMS) Hospital in Telangana, India, a tertiary-care hospital that provides integrated patient-centric care, using homoeopathy and Ayurveda alongside conventional medicine.
One hundred eight Indian singleton newborns delivered at 37 to 42 weeks gestation were randomised at birth (1:1) to receive either homoeopathic or conventional primary care for any acute illness over the study period. In the homoeopathic group, conventional medical treatment was added when medically indicated. Clinicians and parents were unblinded.
The study’s primary outcome was a comparison of the number of sick days due to an acute illness experienced during the first 24 months of life by children receiving homoeopathic vs. conventional treatment. Sick days were defined as days with any acute illness (febrile or afebrile) reported by the parent and confirmed by the physician. Febrile illness was recorded when body temperature, measured via the ear canal, exceeded 37.5 °C.
The secondary outcomes compared were as follows:
- The number of sickness episodes, defined as illness events (febrile or afebrile), reported by the parent and confirmed by the physician.
- Number of respiratory illness episodes and days during the 24 months. Respiratory illnesses included infections in any part of the respiratory tract (nose, middle ear, pharynx, larynx, trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, and lungs) .
- Number of diarrhoeal episodes and days during the 24 months. Diarrhoea was defined as three or more episodes of watery stool/day, with or without vomiting, with indications of dehydration, weight loss, or defective weight gain.
- Anthropometric data included weight (measured by electronic scales to the nearest 5 g), height (measured in triplicate to the nearest 0.2 cm using a rigid-length board), head circumference (HC), and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) (measured with a standard measuring tape to the nearest 0.2 cm every 3 months until the 24th month).
- Developmental status was evaluated according to the Developmental Assessment Scales for Indian Infants (DASII) every 6 months from the age of 6 to 24 months.
- Direct cost of treatment for illnesses during the 24 months, including cost of medications, inpatient admissions, investigations, supplements, and treatment outside the hospital facility or study site (consultation and/or medicines).
- Use of antibiotics during the 24 months, defined as the number of antibiotic episodes during the study.
- Mortality: death due to any acute illness episode.
The results show that children in the homoeopathic group experienced significantly fewer sick days than those in the conventional group (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58; p < 0.001), with correspondingly fewer sickness episodes (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.87; p = .013), as well as fewer respiratory illnesses over the 24-month period. They were taller (F (1, 97) = 8.92, p = .004, partial eta squared = 0.84) but not heavier than their conventionally treated counterparts. They required fewer antibiotics, and their treatment cost was lower.
The authors concluded that homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, was more effective than conventional treatment in preventing sick days, sickness episodes, and respiratory illnesses in the first 24 months of life. It necessitated fewer antibiotics and its overall cost was lower. This study supports homoeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, as a safe and cost-effective primary care modality during the first 2 years of life.
Here we have another study designed in such a way that a positive result was inevitable. Both groups of children received the necessary conventional care and treatment. The verum group received homeopathy in addition. There were no placebo controls and everyone knew which child belonged to which group. Thus the verum group benefitted from a poweful placebo effect, while the control group experience disappointment over not receiving the extra attention and medication. One might argue that newborn babies cannot experience a placebo response nor disappointment. Yet, one would be wrong and in need of reading up about placebo effects by proxy.
A+B is always more than B alone
To boldy entitle the paper ‘Homoeopathy vs. conventional primary care in children during the first 24 months of life’ and state that the trial aimed to “compared the difference between primary homoeopathic and conventional paediatric care in treating acute illnesses in children in their first 24 months of life”, is as close to scientific misconduct as one can get, in my view!
Yet again, I might ask: what do we call a study that is designed in such a way that a positive result was inevitable?
- misleading?
- waste of resources?
- unethical?
- fraud?
And again, I let you decide.
PS
I feel disappointed that a decent journal published this paper without even a critical comment!
The objective of the present double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, feasibility trial was to identify the effects of individualized homeopathic medicinal products (IHMPs) against placebos in post-COVID-19 conditions. Sixty participants with post-COVID-19 conditions were randomised into either:
- group verum (n = 30; IHMPs plus concomitant care),
- group control (n = 30; placebos plus concomitant care).
Feasibility issues; primary—post-COVID-19 symptoms checklist; secondary—Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile version 2 (MYMOP-2); all of them were measured at baseline, and monthly intervals, up to 3 months. The intention-to-treat sample was analyzed; group differences were reported using descriptive statistics: means, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and between group effect sizes (Cohen’s d).
Feasibility concerns showed promise; recruitment, retention, and attrition rates were 34.2%, 95%, and 5%, respectively. Group differences in both primary and secondary outcomes favored IHMPs against placebos: symptoms checklist score mean difference after 3 months: −4.2, 95% CI −4.9 to −3.4, d = 2.854 and MYMOP-2 mean difference after 3 months: −2.2, 95% CI −2.8 to −1.7, d = 2.082, respectively. Natrum muriaticum (11.7%), Pulsatilla nigricans (10%), Rhus toxicodendron (8.3%), and Calcarea carbonica (8.3%) were the most frequently prescribed remedies.
The authors concluded that IHMPs produced better results than placebos in reducing symptoms checklist scores and MYMOP-2 scores in the treatment of post-COVID-19 conditions. Definitive trials are warranted to confirm the findings.
A feasibility study (the authors employ this term repeatedly) has – as I have often pointed out – the purpose of testing whether a trial disign, set-up, etc. is FEASIBLE. It is not meant to report other outcome data.
Why?
Mainly because such studies are far too underpowered for generating reliable results!
This means that the present findings can be ignored. They are most likely caused by chance.
Why are they published anyway, and why could the authors find a journal that goes along with such nonsense?
Are they too stupid or are they biased or both?
The nature of the journal might provide a hint for answering these questions (J Integr Complement Med), and so does the list of authors and their affiliations:
- 1Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 2Department of Pathology and Microbiology, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 3Department of Practice of Medicine, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 4Department of Homeopathy, East Bishnupur State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Chandi Daulatabad Block Primary Health Centre, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of West, Kolkata, India.
- 5Department of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- 6Department of Community Medicine, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
I rest my case.
An article entitled “The use of ayurvedic medicine in the management of hypertension” was recently published in the ‘Journal of Ayurveda and Naturopathy’ (no, I did not know either that this journal existed). Here I show you merely its conclusion, but encourage you to read the entire paper.
Hypertension, a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, necessitates effective and sustainable management strategies. Ayurveda, with its holistic approach, offers a comprehensive framework for managing hypertension by addressing the underlying dosha imbalances through dietary and lifestyle modifications, herbal formulations, and therapeutic procedures. This review has highlighted the
efficacy of various Ayurvedic interventions, including the use of specific herbs like Ashwagandha, Arjuna, Brahmi, Gokshura, and Sarpagandha, which have demonstrated significant benefits in reducing blood pressure and improving overall health. Panchakarma therapies such as Virechana, Basti, Nasya, and Shirodhara have also been shown to detoxify the body, restore balance, and promote
long-term well-being.
Integrating Ayurvedic practices with modern medical approaches can enhance treatment outcomes, offering a more personalized and holistic approach to hypertension management. This synergy can potentially reduce the reliance on pharmaceuticals, minimize side effects, and improve patient compliance and quality of life. Future research should focus on rigorous clinical trials and the standardization of Ayurvedic formulations to further validate their efficacy and facilitate their integration into mainstream healthcare.
By embracing the principles of Ayurveda, individuals can achieve better control over hypertension, reduce the risk of associated complications, and enhance their overall health and well-being. This comprehensive approach not only addresses the symptoms but also tackles the root causes, promoting a sustainable and balanced lifestyle.
END OF QUOTE
Not only does the author, Dr. Zafar Siddiqa (from the Faculty of Natural Medicine and Holistic Sciences, Rajshahi Holistic Health College, Rajshahi, Bangladesh) re-write the current knowledge of hypertonology, he also provides no evidence for any of the far-reaching statements he makes in this paper. In particular, he cites no rigorous studies that “highlighted the efficacy of various Ayurvedic interventions” (most likely because such studies do not exist).
The autor is correct in the 1st sentence of his conclusion: “Hypertension, a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, necessitates effective and sustainable management strategies”. But he is wrong in almost everything else! Because hypertension is such an important risk factor for stroke and ischaemic heart disease, we MUST treat it effectively.
Today, we fortunately have many conventional treatments that control hypertension well and with no or just minimal adverse effects. Advocating quackary or unproven therapies for managing hypertension is thus deeply unethical. It could contribute to the premature deaths of millions. I thus fear that the ‘Faculty of Natural Medicine and Holistic Sciences, Rajshahi Holistic Health College’ is in urgent need of taking a few courses in proper science and medical ethics.
While the evidence base on web-based cancer misinformation continues to develop, relatively little is known about the extent of such information on the world’s largest e-commerce website, Amazon. Multiple media reports indicate that Amazon may host on its platform questionable cancer-related products for sale, such as books on purported cancer cures. This context suggests an urgent need to evaluate Amazon.com for cancer misinformation.
This study sought to
- (1) examine to what extent are misleading cancer cure books for sale on Amazon.com’
- (2) determine how cancer cure books on Amazon.com provide misleading cancer information.
The investigators searched “cancer cure” on Amazon.com and retrieved the top 1000 English-language book search results. They reviewed the books’ descriptions and titles to determine whether the books provided misleading cancer cure or treatment information. They considered a book to be misleading if it suggested scientifically unsupported cancer treatment approaches to cure or meaningfully treat cancer. Among books coded as misleading, they conducted an inductive latent thematic analysis to determine the informational value the books sought to offer.
Nearly half (494/1000, 49.4%) of the sampled “cancer cure” books for sale on Amazon.com appeared to contain misleading cancer treatment and cure information. Overall, 17 (51.5%) out of 33 Amazon.com results pages had 50% or more of the books coded as misleading. The first search result page had the highest percentage of misleading books (23/33, 69.7%). Misleading books (n=494) contained eight themes:
- (1) claims of efficacious cancer cure strategies (n=451, 91.3%),
- (2) oversimplifying cancer and cancer treatment (n=194, 39.3%),
- (3) falsely justifying ineffective treatments as science based (n=189, 38.3%),
- (4) discrediting conventional cancer treatments (n=169, 34.2%),
- (5) finding the true cause of cancer (n=133, 26.9%),
- (6) homogenizing cancer (n=132, 26.7%),
- (7) discovery of new cancer treatments (n=119, 24.1%),
- (8) cancer cure suppression (n=82, 16.6%).
The authors concluded that the results demonstrate that misleading cancer cure books are for sale, visible, and prevalent on Amazon.com, with prominence in initial search hits. These misleading books for sale on Amazon can be conceived of as forming part of a wider, cross-platform, web-based information environment in which misleading cancer cures are often given prominence. Our results suggest that greater enforcement is needed from Amazon and that cancer-focused organizations should engage in preemptive misinformation debunking.
This is an excellent paper that is long overdue. The plethora of dangerous books on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) targeted at lay people is nothing short of a scandal. It was high time that we expose it, because it kills vulnerable patients. It is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the damage done by such books but I am sure it runs in the thousands.
I have been aware of this scandal for a long time, in fact, it was the main motivation for publishing my own book on the subject. Obviously, it is not much more than a drop in the ocean.
Tragically, this scandal is not confined to just cancer. It relates to all potentially serious conditions. What could be more despicable and unethical than earning money through making desperately ill patients suffer? As the authors point out, Amazon urgently needs to address this problem. Failing this, Amazon should be legally held responsible, in my view.
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the UK is subject to voluntary, publicly funded regulation. SCAM practitioners are known to make misleading health claims. This study used an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to measure the prevalence of such claims. Websites operated by practitioners of SCAM, registered with the UK ‘Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council’, were downloaded and assessed by the AI, which determined whether a website was relevant to the investigation and, if so, identified health-related claims that it judged as false or misleading, supplying a rationale.
Of 6096 registrants, 1326 met the selection criteria, of which 872 clinics had 725 relevant and operational websites. The AI assessed text from 11 771 web pages, identifying false or misleading claims in 704 (97%) of the websites. The AI’s performance was quality-assured by four human assessors, who manually reviewed 23 relevant web pages. Humans identified on average 39.5 claims likely to be judged false or misleading by advertising regulators, the AI identified 36. Humans misidentified an average of 4.8 claims, AI misidentified two.
The authors concluded that the overwhelming majority of practitioners registered with the CNHC who use pseudoscientific modalities are making false and/or misleading claims on their websites. This puts them in breach of their terms of registration. An AI tool can be used to monitor websites of practitioners promoting pseudoscientific modalities for breaches of compliance with regulators’ codes of conduct for advertising, and does so with a level of accuracy comparable with that of human assessors. It presents an opportunity for regulators to offer more effective consumer protection from their members’ online misinformation than at present.
The investigation was an unfunded project conducted entirely by volunteer scientists, motivated by the wish to protect consumers from health misinformation. The researchers acknowledge a grant of £550 from WePlanet to cover the cost of AI tokens used and thank University College London for paying the journal’s publication fee to enable the public to access their research.
The authors of this paper — emeritus professors David Colquhoun and Susan Bewley; retired clinical research consultant and HealthSense trustee Les Rose, and HealthSense newsletter editor Mandy Payne as well as IT scientist Simon Perry — feel that AI could be a game-changer in protecting the public by supporting regulators to quickly and cheaply clamp down on health misinformation so that the public can put their trust in the PSA Quality Mark logo displayed.
I congratulate the authors on their important study and hope they are correct – but I am not holding my breath.
Soon after taking power in 1933, the Nazis introduced a program of involuntary sterilisation of those German citizens who they considered unworthy of reproduction. These were predominantly, but not exclusively, people afflicted with heridetary diseases. The declared aim was to sanitize the German gene pool. Involuntary sterilisation was legalized through the ‘law for the prevention of genetically diseased offspring’ (Gesetz zur Verhuetung erbkranken Nachwuchs) as early as July 14, 1933. The law provided that handicapped individuals were to be identified, examined by a jury of experts who had to write an experts’ report, and subsequently sterilized.
In order to implement the law, a large number of new health authorities had to be established. By 1935, approximately 220 hereditary health courts and 30 higher hereditary health courts had thus been set up. Each court relied on the expertise of two physicians and one district judge. Throughout Germany, doctors were required to register with these courts every known case of hereditary illness. This included patients suffering from genetic blindness and deafness, manic depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy, congenital feeble-mindedness, Huntington’s chorea, and alcoholism. The doctors who carried out the sterilisations were paid 10 Reichsmark per case for their services.
The most common methods of sterilization were vasectomy for men and ligation of ovarian tubes for women. Around 6 000 patients, mostly women, died as a result of these operations. Because such methods sterilisations required a lengthy post-operative recovery time, the Nazis started looking for more economical methods of sterilisation. New options were thus tested on camp prisoners at Auschwitz and at Ravensbrück. For instance, experimental drugs were tried, carbon dioxide was injected and X-rays were administered. Another option that was considered was herbal medicine.
In October 1941, Adolf Pokorny, an Austrian dermatologist, wrote to Himmler. ‘Driven by the idea that the enemy must not only be defeated, but destroyed’, he suggested carrying out sterilisation experiments with the South American plant Caladium seguinum. Pokorny drew Himmler’s attention to a publication by Madaus, which suggested that the sap of the hogweed caused permanent sterility in animals:
‘If it were possible … to produce a drug that produces undetected sterilisation in humans in a relatively short time, we would have an effective weapon at our disposal. The very idea that the three million Bolsheviks currently in German captivity could be sterilised so that they would be available as workers, but excluded from reproduction, opens up far-reaching prospects.’
In order not to jeopardise the research in this regard, Pokorny recommended that plant cultivation be started soon and that Madaus be prohibited from publishing further papers on this subject so that the ‘enemy’ would not be made aware of these plans. Himmler who was easily impressed by quacks of all types instructed Oswald Pohl and Ernst-Robert Grawitz to follow up Pokorny’s tips and contact Madaus so that he could check ‘the possibility of experiments on criminals who would have to be sterilised in and of themselves’.
In the spring of 1942, the SS contacted the Madaus company. Gerhard Madaus, the company’s boss, had died shortly beforehand and his successor pledged to maintain secrecy about the effects of the plant. A chemist from IG Farben asserted that sterilisation might be possible. In October 1942, the SS placed an order for extracts to be used in human experiments. Ultimately, however, no such trials took place. There were several reasons for this:
- the plant did not thrive in the European climate,
- the Madaus company did not have enough glasshouses for growing the plant,
- attempts to synthesise the plant’s ingredients failed.
After the war, Himmler committed suicide, Oswald was sentenced to death and executed, Grawitz killed himself and his family, and Pokorny was put on trial in the famous ‘Nuremberg Doctors Tribunal‘. He defended himself by arguing that he had all along been aware of the ineffectiveness of Caladium seguinum and that he had wanted to dissuade Himmler from using tried and tested methods of sterilisation with his proposal. The court did not accept his argument, but nevertheless acquitted him:
‘We are not impressed by the defence which the accused has put forward, and it is difficult to believe that he was guided by the noble motives which he states when he wrote the letter. Rather, we are inclined to believe that Pokorny wrote the letter for entirely different and more personal reasons. […] In Pokorny’s case, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving his guilt. As outrageous and base as the suggestions in this letter are, there is not the slightest evidence that any steps were ever taken to apply them through human experimentation. We therefore declare that the accused must be acquitted, not because of, but in spite of the defence he has put forward.’
Porkorny was thus released from prison; his fate thereafter is not known.
Uterine fibroids are a common gynaecological condition often impacting quality of life. While conventional treatment options exist, there is growing interest in so-called alternative Medicine (SCAM) such as homeopathy. The objective of this review paper was to assess the effectiveness of homeopathic medicines in treating uterine fibroids through the analysis of recent clinical trials and observational studies, aiming to provide insights into the potential role of homeopathy as a SCAM for uterine fibroids.
A thorough search of databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and pertinent medical journals was undertaken to locate recent studies on the efficacy of homeopathic medicines for uterine fibroids. Only studies meeting predefined inclusion criteria, including randomized controlled trials, prospective observational studies, and systematic reviews, were included in the review process.
Recent studies investigating the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in treating uterine fibroids consistently demonstrated positive outcomes, including symptom alleviation, reduction in fibroid size, and improved quality of life. Various remedies showed effectiveness across various potencies. Symptom severity scales, including the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and Verbal Multidimensional Scoring System (VMSS), were utilized to assess pelvic pain, menstrual bleeding, and discomfort. Quality of life measures like the WHOQOL-BREF scale provided insights into overall well-being.
The authors concluded that the collective findings from these studies provide robust evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of homeopathic medicines in the management of uterine fibroids. By employing individualized treatment approaches tailored to patient-specific symptoms and characteristics, homeopathy offers a holistic and personalized approach to addressing fibroids and improving the quality of life for affected individuals. Overall, these studies provide robust evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of homeopathic medicines in treating uterine fibroids.
This is a very odd paper:
- The authors call it a “comprehensive review”, a term that is next to meaningless.
- It certainly is not a systematic review.
- The reason for merely including “recent studies” is unclear; it also makes a mockery of the attribute “comprehensive”.
- The reason for including observational studies, however, seems to be very clear: it is an age-old trick to generate a false-positive result.
- There was no assessment of the quality of the primary studies.
- In total, there were just 6 primary studies none of which was anywhere near to being rigorous.
- The authors never even investigated the safety of homeopathic remedies, yet they draw firm conclusions about it.
My conclusion is that this “comprehensive review” is comprehensive example of how to comprehensively mislead with comprehensively dishonest research. And why would anyone set out to do such a thing? Perhaps the authors’ affiliation provide some hints:
- Department of Homoeopathic Pharmacy,
- Homoeopathic Medical College & Research Centre.
It has been reported that the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked the certifications for two prominent US physicians. They are both (in)famous for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
- Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website.
- Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine.
Marik is the chief scientific officer and Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.
Kory and Marik stated, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.” The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Kory and Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.” Kory and Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Kory and Marik lost an appeal. In a 2023 statement, Kory and Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”
To this, Wikipedia adds that, Marik is the inventor of the “Marik protocol”, also known as the “HAT” protocol, which proposes intravenous administration of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine as a treatment for preventing sepsis for people in intensive care. Marik’s own initial research, published with four other authors in Chest in 2017, showed a dramatic evidence of benefit. The single-center, observational study compared outcomes of 47 consecutive sepsis patients who were treated with HAT during a 7-month period to 47 consecutive control patients during the preceding 7-month period. The study reported 19 deaths in the control group and 4 deaths in the treatment group. Marik’s findings received attention on social media and National Public Radio, but drew criticism from the wider medical community for being science by press conference. ER doctor Jeremy Faust was one of a number of skeptics of the results, noting the low reliability of the study design and potential for bias. The controversy prompted other groups to conduct studies of the HAT protocol. A systematic review of six randomized and five non-randomized controlled trials in 2021 eventually concluded that the claimed benefits of the protocol could not be confirmed.
In November 2022, Pierre Kory and the FLCCC began marketing a cocktail of supplements and drugs (e.g. ivermectin and nitazoxanide) for other viruses, influenza and Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Like the FLCCC-advocated COVID treatments, the recommendations lacked credible supporting scientific evidence. The cocktail could cost over $500.
Wikipedia also mentions that, in March 2024, Kory and Marik published an op-ed in The Hill claiming that long COVID was caused by COVID-19 vaccination instead of COVID-19 infection. The op-ed was republished by the German disinformation outlet Disclose.tv. The fact-checking website Health Feedback found that the op-ed relied on anecdotes that did not provide evidence to support the claim.
The London-based ‘International Federation of Aromatherapists‘ claims that:
medical research has now recognised that emotional support is vital in maintaining good mental health. Wellbeing needs to encourage pleasant emotions of contentment and calmness, enabling feelings of relaxation, inner peace and feelings of optimism.
The simple act of caring touch (massage) using essential oils is a highly effective way to target symptoms of stress and anxiety and the following are a list of some of the most effective:
• Clary sage (Salvia sclarea)
• Neroli (Citrus aurantium var amara flos)
• Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia)
• Roman Chamomile (Chamaemelum nobile)
• Rose (Rosa damascena)
• Ylang ylang (Cananga odorata)
• Sweet orange (Citrus sinensis)
• Mandarin (Citrus nobilis)
• Petitgrain (Citrus aurantium var amara fol)
• Geranium (Pelargonium graveolens)
• Frankincense (Boswellia sacra)
“Caring touch using essential oils is a highly effective way to target symptoms of stress and anxiety”? And what about the list of the “most effective oils”? I concucted a few ‘rough and ready’ Medline searches and fear that there are some corrections in order.
- Clary sage (Salvia sclarea): no sound evidence for the the above claims.
- Neroli (Citrus aurantium var amara flos): only very limited evidence for the above claims.
- Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia): limited evidence exists (e.g. here).
- Roman Chamomile (Chamaemelum nobile): limited evidence exists (e.g. here).
- Rose (Rosa damascena): limited evidence exists (e.g.here).
- Ylang ylang (Cananga odorata): limited evidence exists (e.g. here).
- Sweet orange (Citrus sinensis): very limited evidence exists (e.g. here).
- Mandarin (Citrus nobilis): the only study I found was negative.
- Petitgrain (Citrus aurantium var amara fol): no sound evidence for the the above claims.
- Geranium (Pelargonium graveolens): no sound evidence for the the above claims.
- Frankincense (Boswellia sacra): no sound evidence for the the above claims.
So, for once there actually is some (albeit not convincing) evidence which should be good news for fans of aromatherapy/essential oils.
Why then does the International Federation of Aromatherapists not just go with the existing evidence?
Why do they claim things that are not true?
Why do they bring aromatherapy in more than necessary disrepute?
But perhaps they can prove my review of the evidence to be incomplete and can add convincing trial data to it?
Watch this space.
As pointed out previously on this blog, unethical research practices are prevalent in China, but little research has focused on the causes of these practices.
Drawing on the criminology literature on organisational deviance, as well as the concept of cengceng jiama, which illustrates the increase of pressure in the process of policy implementation within a top-down bureaucratic hierarchy, this article develops an institutional analysis of research misconduct in Chinese universities. It examines both universities and the policy environment of Chinese universities as contexts for research misconduct. Specifically, this article focuses on China’s Double First-Class University Initiative and its impact on elite universities that respond to the policy by generating new incentive structures to promote research quality and productivity as well as granting faculties and departments greater flexibility in terms of setting high promotion criteria concerning research productivity. This generates enormous institutional tensions and strains, encouraging and sometimes even compelling individual researchers who wish to survive to decouple their daily research activities from ethical research norms. The article is written based on empirical data collected from three elite universities as well as a review of policy documents, universities’ internal documents, and news articles.
The interviewer, sociologist Zhang Xinqu, and his colleague Wang Peng, a criminologist, both at the University of Hong Kong, suggest that researchers felt compelled, and even encouraged, to engage in misconduct to protect their jobs. This pressure, they conclude, ultimately came from a Chinese programme to create globally recognized universities. The programme prompted some Chinese institutions to set ambitious publishing targets, they say. In 2015, the Chinese government introduced the Double First-Class Initiative to establish “world-class” universities and disciplines. Universities selected for inclusion in the programme receive extra funding, whereas those that perform poorly risk being delisted, says Wang.
Between May 2021 and April 2022, Zhang conducted anonymous virtual interviews with 30 faculty members and 5 students in the natural sciences at three of these elite universities. The interviewees included a president, deans and department heads. The researchers also analysed internal university documents.
The university decision-makers who were interviewed at all three institutes said they understood it to be their responsibility to interpret the goals of the Double First-Class scheme. They determined that, to remain on the programme, their universities needed to increase their standing in international rankings — and that, for that to happen, their researchers needed to publish more articles in international journals indexed in databases such as the Science Citation Index. As the directive moved down the institutional hierarchy, pressure to perform at those institutes increased. University departments set specific and hard-to-reach publishing criteria for academics to gain promotion and tenure. Some researchers admitted to engaging in unethical research practices for fear of losing their jobs. In one interview, a faculty head said: “If anyone cannot meet the criteria [concerning publications], I suggest that they leave as soon as possible.”
Zhang and Wang describe researchers using services to write their papers for them, falsifying data, plagiarizing, exploiting students without offering authorship and bribing journal editors. One interviewee admitted to paying for access to a data set. “I bought access to an official archive and altered the data to support my hypotheses.” An associate dean emphasized the primacy of the publishing goal. “We should not be overly stringent in identifying and punishing research misconduct, as it hinders our scholars’ research efficiency.”
The larger problem, says Xiaotian Chen, a library and information scientist at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, is a lack of transparency and of systems to detect and deter misconduct in China. Most people do the right thing, despite the pressure to publish, says Chen, who has studied research misconduct in China. The pressure described in the paper could just be “an excuse to cheat”.
_________________________
It is hard not to be reminded of what I reported in a recent post where it has been announced that a Chinese acupuncture review was retracted:
The research “Acupuncture for low back and/or pelvic pain during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials,” published in the open access journal BMJ Open in 2022, has been retracted.
This research was press released in November 2022 under the title of “Acupuncture can relieve lower back/pelvic pain often experienced during pregnancy.”
Following publication of the research, various issues concerning its design and reporting methods came to light, none of which was amenable to correction, prompting the decision to retract.
The full wording of the retraction notice, which will be published at 23.30 hours UK (BST) time Tuesday 11 June 2024, is set out below:
“After publication, multiple issues were raised with the journal concerning the design and reporting of the study. The editors and integrity team investigated the issues with the authors. There were fundamental flaws with the research, including the control group selection and data extraction, not amenable to correction.” doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056878ret
Please ensure that you no longer cite this research in any future reporting.
____________________________
After studying Chinese TCM papers for more than 30 years, I feel increasingly concerned about the tsumani of either very poor quality or fabricated research coming out of China. For more details, please read the following posts:
- Beware of Chinese acupuncture trials!
- More compelling reasons for distrusting Chinese research papers
- ‘WORST PAPER OF 2022 COMPETITION’ Entry No 5: “Chinese Herbal Medicine … Improves the Survival Rate of Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease”
- Reviews of Chinese Herbal Medicine: It’s a process akin to money laundering
- The ‘WORST PAPER OF 2022’ COMPETITION. Entry No 2: the safety differences between Chinese medicine and Western medicine
- “Traditional Chinese Medicine Enhances Survival in Patients with Gastric Cancer” – oh really?
- Paying the price for questioning Traditional Chinese Medicine – Beware!
- The scandal of Chinese acupuncture research and its publication in seemingly reputable journals
- This RCT of a Chinese herbal mixture makes a mockery of science and medical ethics
- Chinese herbs for Alzheimer’s disease? An excellent example of how fatally flawed research misleads us all
- And this is why we might as well forget about Chinese acupuncture trials
- Do Chinese reviews summarising Chinese clinical trials of TCM send us up the garden path?
- Increasing concerns about SCAM research originating from China
