scientific misconduct
Research by a reputable independent research company done for Securivita a German insurance company shows that those receiving homeopathic care were much better off. Over 15,700 patients were involved in the study which also used a comparison group.
The study showed that in a wide range of patients with various pathological problems that if they had homeopathic care they faired dramatically better than those just getting conventional medicine.
Children having homeopathy treatment from birth, were particularly healthier and with less problems. Over the three year study period, the number of children needing antibiotics decreased by 16.7 per cent in the homeopathy group, whereby it increased by 73.9 per cent in the conventional medical comparison group!
The number of hospitalizations in the comparison group increased by 32.6 per cent whereby in the homeopathy treatment group it decreased by 9.8 per cent!
Adults and children treated homoeopathically had dramatic improvements in allergies, dermatitis, asthma, just to name a few.
These are just a few examples of the remarkable benefits of homeopathic treatment outlined in the study by by the Leipzig Health Forum , an independent analytical institute specializing in health services conducted for Securvita Krankenkasse Insurer.
“We don’t need fewer, but more homeopathic doctors who will continue on this successful path,” says Götz Hachtmann , director of the health insurance company Securvita.
The study is in German and can be found here.
____________________________
Blessed are those who don’t read German (at least in this instance)!
As I am not amongst the blessed, I ought to tell you a bit about the ‘massive’ study. The OHR, the ‘OFFICIAL HOMEOPATHIC RESOURCE’ (btw what makes the OHR ‘official’?) claims that the study can be found here. The OHR is evidently not well enough resourced for translating the German text into English; if they were, they would know that the link goes not to a ‘study’ but to some kind of a glossy marketing brochure about the ‘study’ (there is no actual published scientific paper on the ‘study’). It provides hardly any relevant information; all we learn is that 15 700 individuals who regularly consulted homeopathic physicians were compared over a three year period to an equally sized control group who did not consult homeopathic doctors… And that’s essentially it! No further relevant details are offered.
By contrast, quite a bit of information is offered about the findings, for instance:
- In the homeopathy group, the hospitalisation rate of depressive patients dropped by 10%, while it increased in controls by 33%.
- The days off work dropped by 17% vs an increase in controls of 17%.
- The use of antibiotics decreased by 17% vs an increase of 74%.
And how do they explain these differences?
Yes, you guessed it:
they are due to homeopathy!
One does not need to have a perfumer’s nose to smell a few badly decomposing rats here, for example:
- We do not learn how many variables were tested in this ‘study’. Therefore, it is likely that the ‘results’ provided are the positive ones, while the not so positive potential effects of homeopathy remained unmentioned. Perhaps the death rate was higher in the homeopathy group? Perhaps they suffered more heart attacks? Perhaps they had a lower quality of life? Perhaps they caused more costs? Perhaps they committed more suicides? etc. etc.
- Even more obvious is the stench of selection bias. The individuals in the homeopathy group were clearly different from the controls to start with. They might have been more health conscious. They clearly were more cautious about antibiotics. They might have been of better general health. They might have been younger. They could have contained more women. They might have been more afraid of going into a hospital. They might have been keener to attend work. In fact, the only variable in which the two groups were comparable is sample size.
Even if we eventually we see this ‘study’ published in a peer-reviewed journal with full methodological details etc., it will not allow even the smartest spin-doctor to establish cause and effect. Its findings would not be more conclusive than those of previously discussed attempts to produce positive evidence for homeopathy. The ‘positive’ findings could have been the result of hundreds of causes, none of which are related to homeopathy.
In a nutshell: this new German ‘study’ is a textbook example for arguing in favour of conducting proper research rather that rampant pseudo-research.
But I must not always be so negative!!!
So, let me try to point out the positive sides of this ‘study’:
The ‘massive independent study’ is a true masterpiece of advertising and marketing for both Securivita and homeopathy.
Well done guys!
I am proud of you!
- That’s exactly the stuff needed for successfully misleading the public.
- That’s precisely the info required to increase your cash flow.
- That’s helpful ‘research’ for convincing politicians.
- That’s definitely the type of baloney to impresses the Ullmanns of this world.
- That’s even the sort of ‘science’ which the ‘OFFICIAL HOMEOPATHIC RESOURCE’ cannot recognise for what it truly is:
invalid junk.
This Cochrane review assessed the efficacy and safety of aromatherapy for people with dementia. The researchers included randomised controlled trials which compared fragrance from plants in an intervention defined as aromatherapy for people with dementia with placebo aromatherapy or with treatment as usual. All doses, frequencies and fragrances of aromatherapy were considered. Participants in the included studies had a diagnosis of dementia of any subtype and severity.
The investigators included 13 studies with 708 participants. All participants had dementia and in the 12 trials which described the setting, all were resident in institutional care facilities. Nine trials recruited participants because they had significant agitation or other behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD) at baseline. The fragrances used were:
- lavender (eight studies);
- lemon balm (four studies);
- lavender and lemon balm,
- lavender and orange,
- cedar extracts (one study each).
For six trials, assessment of risk of bias and extraction of results was hampered by poor reporting. Four of the other seven trials were at low risk of bias in all domains, but all were small (range 18 to 186 participants; median 66). The primary outcomes were:
- agitation,
- overall behavioural,
- psychological symptoms,
- adverse effects.
Ten trials assessed agitation using various scales. Among the 5 trials for which the confidence in the results was moderate or low, 4 trials reported no significant effect on agitation and one trial reported a significant benefit of aromatherapy. The other 5 trials either reported no useable data or the confidence in the results was very low. Eight trials assessed overall BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and there was moderate or low confidence in the results of 5 of them. Of these, 4 reported significant benefit from aromatherapy and one reported no significant effect.
Adverse events were poorly reported or not reported at all in most trials. No more than two trials assessed each of our secondary outcomes of quality of life, mood, sleep, activities of daily living, caregiver burden. There was no evidence of benefit on these outcomes. Three trials assessed cognition: one did not report any data and the other two trials reported no significant effect of aromatherapy on cognition. The confidence in the results of these studies was low.
The authors reached the following conclusions: We have not found any convincing evidence that aromatherapy (or exposure to fragrant plant oils) is beneficial for people with dementia although there are many limitations to the data. Conduct or reporting problems in half of the included studies meant that they could not contribute to the conclusions. Results from the other studies were inconsistent. Harms were very poorly reported in the included studies. In order for clear conclusions to be drawn, better design and reporting and consistency of outcome measurement in future trials would be needed.
This is a thorough review. It makes many of the points that I so often make regarding SCAM research:
- too many of the primary studies are badly designed;
- too many of the primary studies are too small;
- too many of the primary studies are poorly reported;
- too many of the primary studies fail to mention adverse effects thus violating research ethics;
- too many of the primary studies are done by pseudo-scientists who use research for promotion rather than testing hypotheses.
It is time that SCAM researchers, ethic review boards, funders, editors and journal reviewers take these points into serious consideration – if only to avoid clinical research getting a bad reputation and losing the support of patients without which it cannot exist.
Together with a co-worker, Prof Walach conducted a systematic review of mistletoe extracts (Rudolf Steiner’s anti-cancer drug) as a treatment for improving the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients. They included all prospective controlled trials that compared mistletoe extracts with a control in cancer patients and reported QoL or related dimensions.
Walach included 26 publications with 30 data sets. The studies were heterogeneous. The pooled standardized mean difference (random effects model) for global QoL after treatment with mistletoe extracts vs. control was d = 0.61 (95% CI 0.41-0.81, p < 0,00001). The effect was stronger for younger patients, with longer treatment, in studies with lower risk of bias, in randomized and blinded studies. Sensitivity analyses supported the validity of the finding. 50% of the QoL subdomains (e.g. pain, nausea) showed a significant improvement after mistletoe treatment. Most studies had a high risk of bias or at least raise some concern.
The authors concluded that mistletoe extracts produce a significant, medium-sized effect on QoL in cancer. Risk of bias in the analyzed studies is likely due to the specific type of treatment, which is difficult to blind; yet this risk is unlikely to affect the outcome.
This is a surprising conclusion, not least because – as reported on this blog – only a year ago another German team of researchers conducted a similar review and came to a very different conclusion. Here is their abstract again:
Purpose: One important goal of any cancer therapy is to improve or maintain quality of life. In this context, mistletoe treatment is discussed to be highly controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to give an extensive overview about the current state of evidence concerning mistletoe therapy of oncologic patients regarding quality of life and side effects of cancer treatments.
Methods: In September and October 2017, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL and “Science Citation Index Expanded” (Web of Science) were systematically searched.
Results: The search strategy identified 3647 articles and 28 publications with 2639 patients were finally included in this review. Mistletoe was used in bladder cancer, breast cancer, other gynecological cancers (cervical cancer, corpus uteri cancer, and ovarian cancer), colorectal cancer, other gastrointestinal cancer (gastric cancer and pancreatic cancer), glioma, head and neck cancer, lung cancer, melanoma and osteosarcoma. In nearly all studies, mistletoe was added to a conventional therapy. Regarding quality of life, 17 publications reported results. Studies with better methodological quality show less or no effects on quality of life.
Conclusions: With respect to quality of life or reduction of treatment-associated side effects, a thorough review of the literature does not provide any indication to prescribe mistletoe to patients with cancer.
How can this discrepancy be explained? Which of the reviews is drawing the correct conclusion? Here are some relevant details that could help finding an answer to these questions:
- Walach is a psychologist by training, while the senior author of the 2019 review, Jutta Huebner, is an oncologist.
- Huebner included only randomised clinical trials (RCTs), whereas Walach included any interventional and non-interventional prospective controlled study.
- Huebner included 17 RCTs that reported QoL data, while Walach included 26 publications with 30 data sets including 5 non-randomised studies.
- Several of the primary studies had been published multiple times at different stages of completion. Walach included these as independent data sets, while Huebner included each study only once.
- Huebner looked at QoL, whereas Walach also considered measurements of self-regulation as outcome measures.
- Both reviews point out that the methodological quality of the primary studies was often poor; Walach drew a positive conclusion regardless, while Huebner did not and pointed out that studies with better methodology show less or no effects on quality of life or side effects of cancer therapy.
- Walach’s review was funded by funded by the Förderverein komplementärmedizinische Forschung, Arlesheim, Switzerland, a lobby group for mistletoe therapy, while Huebner’s work was funded by the German Guideline “S3 Leitlinie Komplementärmedizin in der Behandlung von onkologischen PatientInnen (Registernummer 032-055OL)” funded by the German Cancer Aid (Fördernummer 11583) within the German Guideline Program in Oncology and by the working group Prevention and Integrative Oncology of the German Cancer Society.
I am sure there are other important differences, but the ones listed above suffice, I think, to decide which of the two papers is trustworthy and which is not.
Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is frequently used to manage cervicogenic headache (CGHA). No meta-analysis has investigated the effectiveness of SMT exclusively for CGHA.
The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of SMT for cervicogenic headache (CGHA). Seven RCTs were eligible. At short-term follow-up, there was a significant, small effect favouring SMT for pain intensity and small effects for pain frequency. There was no effect for pain duration. There was a significant, small effect favouring SMT for disability. At intermediate follow-up, there was no significant effects for pain intensity and a significant, small effect favouring SMT for pain frequency. At long-term follow-up, there was no significant effects for pain intensity and for pain frequency.
The authors concluded that for CGHA, SMT provides small, superior short-term benefits for pain intensity, frequency and disability but not pain duration, however, high-quality evidence in this field is lacking. The long-term impact is not significant.
This meta-analysis can be criticised for a long list of reasons, the most serious of which, in my view, is that it is bar of even the tiniest critical input. The authors state that there has been no previous meta-analysis on this topic. This might be true, but there has been a systematic review of it (published in the leading journal on the subject) which the authors fail to mention/cite (I wonder why!). It is from 2011 and happens to be one of mine. Here is its abstract:
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of spinal manipulations as a treatment option for cervicogenic headaches. Seven databases were searched from their inception to February 2011. All randomized trials which investigated spinal manipulations performed by any type of healthcare professional for treating cervicogenic headaches in human subjects were considered. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validation were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. Their methodological quality was mostly poor. Six RCTs suggested that spinal manipulation is more effective than physical therapy, gentle massage, drug therapy, or no intervention. Three RCTs showed no differences in pain, duration, and frequency of headaches compared to placebo, manipulation, physical therapy, massage, or wait list controls. Adequate control for placebo effect was achieved in 1 RCT only, and this trial showed no benefit of spinal manipulations beyond a placebo effect. The majority of RCTs failed to provide details of adverse effects. There are few rigorous RCTs testing the effectiveness of spinal manipulations for treating cervicogenic headaches. The results are mixed and the only trial accounting for placebo effects fails to be positive. Therefore, the therapeutic value of this approach remains uncertain.
The key points here are:
- methodological quality of the primary studies was mostly poor;
- adequate control for placebo effect was achieved in 1 RCT only;
- this trial showed no benefit of SMT beyond a placebo effect;
- the majority of RCTs failed to provide details of adverse effects;
- this means they violate research ethics and should be discarded as not trustworthy;
- the therapeutic value of SMT remains uncertain.
The new paper was published by chiropractors. Its positive result is not clinically relevant, almost certainly due to residual bias and confounding in the primary studies, and thus most likely false-positive. The conclusions seem to disclose more the bias of the review authors than the truth. Considering the risks of SMT of the upper spine (a subject not even mentioned by the authors), I cannot see that the risk/benefit balance of this treatment is positive. It follows, I think, that other, less risky and more effective treatments are to be preferred for CGHA.
By guest blogger Loretta Marron
If scientists were fearful of a clinical trial’s producing negative results, would they even pursue it? A draft Chinese regulation issued in late May aims to criminalise individual scientists and organisations whom China claims damage the reputation of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).
Beijing has a reputation for reprimanding those who decry TCM. Such criticism is blocked on Chinese Internet. Silencing doctors is becoming the norm.
In January 2018, former anaesthetist, Tan Qindong, was arrested and spent more than three months in detention after criticising a widely advertised, best-selling ‘medicinal’ TCM liquor. Claiming that it was a ‘poison’, he believed that he was protecting the elderly and vulnerable patients with high blood pressure. Police claimed that a post on social media damaged the reputation of the TCM ‘liquor’ and of the company making it. Shortly after release, he suffered post-traumatic stress and was hospitalised.
On 30 December 2019, Chinese ophthalmologist, the late Dr Li Wenliang, was one of the first to recognise the outbreak of COVD-19. He posted a private warning to a group of fellow doctors about a possible outbreak of an illness resembling severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). He encouraged them to protect themselves from infection. Days later, after his post when viral, he was summoned to the Public Security Bureau in Wuhan and forced to “admit to lying about the existence of a worrying new virus”. Li was accused of violating the provisions of the “People’s Republic of China Public Order Management and Punishment Law” for spreading “unlawful spreading of untruthful topics on the internet” and of disturbing the social order. He was made to sign a statement that he would “halt this unlawful behaviour”.
In April 2020, Chinese physician Yu Xiangdong, a senior medico who worked on the front line battling COVID-19, posted on Weibo, a Twitter-like site, a criticism of the use of antibiotics and TCM to treat COVID-19. He was demoted from his positions as assistant dean at the Central Hospital in the central city of Huangshi and director of quality management for the city’s Edong Healthcare Group. Well known for promoting modern medicine amongst the Chinese, Yu had almost a million followers on social media. All his postings vanished.
Beijing insists that TCM has been playing a crucial role in COVID-19 prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Claims continue to be made for “effective TCM recipes”. However, no randomised clinical trial has been published in any reputable journal.
TCM needs proper scrutiny, but criticising it could land you years in prison. If the benefits of suggested herbal remedies are to be realised, good clinical studies must be encouraged. For TCM, this might never be permitted.
Don’t think for a moment that you are safe in Australia.
Article 8.25 of the Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China reads:
Traditional Chinese Medicine Services (“TCM”)
- Within the relevant committees to be established in accordance with this Agreement, and subject to available resources, Australia and China shall cooperate on matters relating to trade in TCM services.
- Cooperation identified in paragraph 2 shall:
(a) include exchanging information, where appropriate, and discussing policies, regulations and actions related to TCM services; and
(b) encourage future collaboration between regulators, registration authorities and relevant professional bodies of the Parties to facilitate trade in TCM and complementary medicines, in a manner consistent with all relevant regulatory frameworks. Such collaboration, involving the competent authorities of both Parties – for Australia, notably the Department of Health, and for China the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine – will foster concrete cooperation and exchanges relating to TCM.
This was essentially the question raised in a correspondence with a sceptic friend. His suspicion was that statistical methods might produce false-positive overall findings, if the research is done by enthusiasts of the so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in question (or other areas of inquiry which I will omit because they are outside my area of expertise). Consciously or inadvertently, such researchers might introduce a pro-SCAM bias into their work. As the research is done mostly by such enthusiasts; the totality of the evidence would turn out to be heavily skewed in favour of the SCAM under investigation. The end-result would then be a false-positive overall impression about the SCAM which is less based on reality than on the wishful thinking of the investigators.
How can one deal with this problem?
How to minimise the risk of being overwhelmed by false-positive research?
Today, we have several mechanisms and initiatives that are at least partly aimed at achieving just this. For instance, there are guidelines on how to conduct the primary research so that bias is minimised. The CONSORT statements are an example. As many studies pre-date CONSORT, we need a different approach for reviews of clinical trials. The PRISMA guideline or the COCHRANE handbook are attempts to make sure systematic reviews are transparent and rigorous. These methods can work quite well in finding the truth, but one needs to be aware, of course, that some researchers do their very best to obscure it. I have also tried to go one step further and shown that the direction of the conclusion correlates with the rigour of the study (btw: this was the paper that prompted Prof Hahn’s criticism and slander of my work and person).
So, problem sorted?
Not quite!
The trouble is that over-enthusiastic researchers may not always adhere to these guidelines, they may pretend to adhere but cut corners, or they may be dishonest and cheat. And what makes this even more tricky is the possibility that they do all this inadvertently; their enthusiasm could get the better of them, and they are doing research not to TEST WHETHER a treatment works but to PROVE THAT it works.
In the realm of SCAM we have a lot of this – trust me, I have seen it often with my own eyes, regrettably sometimes even within my own team of co-workers. The reason for this is that SCAM is loaded with emotion and quasi-religious beliefs; and these provide a much stronger conflict of interest than money could ever do, in my experience.
And how might we tackle this thorny issue?
After thinking long and hard about it, I came up in 2012 with my TRUSTWORTHYNESS INDEX:
If we calculated the percentage of a researcher’s papers arriving at positive conclusions and divided this by the percentage of his papers drawing negative conclusions, we might have a useful measure. A realistic example might be the case of a clinical researcher who has published a total of 100 original articles. If 50% had positive and 50% negative conclusions about the efficacy of the therapy tested, his TI would be 1.
Depending on what area of clinical medicine this person is working in, 1 might be a figure that is just about acceptable in terms of the trustworthiness of the author. If the TI goes beyond 1, we might get concerned; if it reaches 4 or more, we should get worried.
An example would be a researcher who has published 100 papers of which 80 are positive and 20 arrive at negative conclusions. His TI would consequently amount to 4. Most of us equipped with a healthy scepticism would consider this figure highly suspect.
Of course, this is all a bit simplistic, and, like all other citation metrics, my TI provides us not with any level of proof; it merely is a vague indicator that something might be amiss. And, as stressed already, the cut-off point for any scientist’s TI very much depends on the area of clinical research we are dealing with. The lower the plausibility and the higher the uncertainty associated with the efficacy of the experimental treatments, the lower the point where the TI might suggest something to be fishy.
Based on this concept, I later created the ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME. This is a list of researchers who manage to go through life researching their particular SCAM without ever publishing a negative conclusion about it. In terms of TI, these people have astronomically high values. The current list is not yet long, but it is growing:
John Weeks (editor of JCAM)
Deepak Chopra (US entrepreneur)
Cheryl Hawk (US chiropractor)
David Peters (osteopathy, homeopathy, UK)
Nicola Robinson (TCM, UK)
Peter Fisher (homeopathy, UK)
Simon Mills (herbal medicine, UK)
Gustav Dobos (various, Germany)
Claudia Witt (homeopathy, Germany and Switzerland)
George Lewith (acupuncture, UK)
John Licciardone (osteopathy, US)
The logical consequence of a high TI would be that researchers of that nature are banned from obtaining research funds and publishing papers, because their contribution is merely to confuse us and make science less reliable.
I am sure there are other ways of addressing the problem of being mislead by false-positive research. If you can think of one, I’d be pleased to hear about it.
Cochrane reviews have the reputation to be the most reliable evidence available anywhere. They are supposed to be independent, rigorous, transparent and up-to-date. Usually, this reputation is justified, in my view. But do the 54 Cochrane reviews of acupuncture quoted in my previous post live up to it?
If one had to put the entire body of evidence in a nutshell, it would probably look something like this:
TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS = 54
POSITIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON MORE THAN ONE HIGH QUALITY STUDY = 2
FAILURE TO REACH CONVINCINGLY POSITIVE CONCLUSIONS = 52
The two positive reviews are on:
1) prevention of migraine
2) prevention of tension-type headache
Both of the positive reviews are by Linde et al.
Allow me to raise just a few further critical points:
- If I counted correctly, 19 of the 54 reviews are authored entirely by Chinese authors. Why could this be a problem? One reason could be that many Chinese authors seem to be biased in favour of acupuncture. Another reason could be that data fabrication is rife in China.
- Many if not most of the primary studies are published in Chinese. This means that it is impossible for most non-Chinese co-authors of the review as well as for the referees of the paper to check the accuracy of the data extraction.
- I counted a total of 15 reviews which were by authors who one could categorise as outspoken enthusiasts of acupuncture. In these cases, one might be concerned about the trustworthiness of the review’s conclusion.
- Many (some would say most) of the reviews cover subject areas which are frankly bizarre. Who would, for instance, consider acupuncture a plausible treatment for Glaucoma, Mumps or chronic hepatitis B?
- Despite almost all of the reviews demonstrating that there is no good reason to recommend acupuncture for the condition in question, hardly any of them draw a transparent, helpful and clear conclusion. One example might suffice: the review of acupuncture for hordeolum concluded that “Low‐certainty evidence suggests that acupuncture with or without conventional treatments may provide short‐term benefits for treating acute hordeolum…” Its Chinese authors reached this conclusion on the basis of 6 primary studies (all from China) which were all of lousy quality. In such a case, the only justified conclusion would be, in my view, something like this: THERE IS NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE …
Despite these serious limitations and avoidable confusions, the totality of the evidence from these 54 Cochrane reviews does send an important message: there is hardly a single condition for which acupuncture is clearly, convincingly and indisputably effective. What I find most regrettable, however, is that the Cochrane Collaboration allowed the often biased review authors to obscure this crucial message so thoroughly. One needs a healthy portion of critical thinking to get through to the truth here – and how many fans of acupuncture possess such a thing?
I should never claim that I know all the cancer quackery that is out there! Because I don’t. There are just too many of them; and a new one seems to crop up every week.
For instance, I did not know about POWERLIGHT, a SCAM that is being promoted against many serious diseases, including cancer. Here is what the website states:
The very word “cancer” for patients is such a heavy burden, that psychological support actualy is necessary when a patient gets such a diagnosis. In this section we are pleased and proud to set an end to this terrifying illness.
A lot of different tumors in current language are called cancer. A cancer is based on epithelian tissue. This tissue occures in different organs. Because of that we find this tumore: as an
– Anal carcinoma
– Bronchial carcinoma
– Testicle carcinoma
– Laryngeal cancer
– Colon cancer
– Oesophageal cancer
– Gastric cancer
– Breast cancer
– Kidney carcinoma
– Ovary carcinoma
– Pancreas carcinoma
– Pharynx (throat) carcinoma
– Prostate carcinoma
Cancer is one of the most dreaded diseases we know.
We found the possibility to heal every kind of cancer, anyway what staging the tumor has. Also patients in the final stadium feel better after the third ampoule* and will be healed completly. The first ampoule brings a patient a better psychic situation.
For other tumors we have special medicines in our product list. Before taking Powerlight medicine it is necessary to have an exact diagnosis from a hospital. For example it was necessary to develope against carcinomas in the childhood other cluster stuctures – this is now our drug KIC. Tumores spreading from other tissues are to be treated with Powerlight NR, Powerlight H+NH and Powerlight LE.
If a patient started his treatment with conventional chemotherapy, the side effects will be bettered, when the patient gets Powerlight EG. The intake of Powerlight CA and Powerlight EG in the same period is not possible. In serious cases it has to be proved, whether the dangerous situation is caused primarily by the tumor or by the chemotherapy. According to this the heaviest burden has to be treated first.
All tumores that are not cancers, will not be healed by Powerlight CA. In these cases find an other correct medicine under “Product list” in this homepage.
And how does POWERLIGHT work? The website provides the amazing answer:
The scientific background of our products is the physics of antimatter. With the help of positron radiation we can represent order patterns of living matter. Antimatter is able to copy patterns of organisms, when we put them into the electromagnetic field of antimatter. Such patterns show irregularities in the living matter. Normally living matter is structured by strict order patterns. The irregularities are causes of illness. Powerlight reconditions order patterns of living systems, because these order patterns also by heavy illnesses are not destroyed but only overlapped. The original order patterns are guide rails of the electron transfer by Clusters.
It has been reported that POWERLIGHT and some of the quacks offering it are now being sued in Austria after several cancer patients died who were naïve enough to believe this BS. According to the website, the firm originates in the Netherlands, however, MedWatch found out that it is not registered there either. This probably means that, officially, the firm does not even exist.
*the content has been analysed and seems to be a pure isotonic NaCl solution.
During the last few months, I have done little else on this blog than trying to expose misinformation about COVID-19 in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). However, the usefulness and accuracy of most viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 have so far not been investigated. Canadian researchers have just published a very nice paper that fills this gap.
They performed a YouTube search on 21 March 2020 using keywords ‘coronavirus’ and ‘COVID-19’, and the top 75 viewed videos from each search were analysed. Videos that were duplicates, non-English, non-audio and non-visual, exceeding 1 hour in duration, live and unrelated to COVID-19 were excluded. Two reviewers coded the source, content and characteristics of included videos. The primary outcome was usability and reliability of videos, analysed using the novel COVID-19 Specific Score (CSS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) and modified JAMA (mJAMA) scores.
Of 150 videos screened, 69 (46%) were included, totalling 257 804 146 views. Nineteen (27.5%) videos contained non-factual information, totalling 62 042 609 views. Government and professional videos contained only factual information and had higher CSS than consumer videos (mean difference (MD) 2.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.32, p=0.037); mDISCERN scores than consumer videos (MD 2.46, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.42, p=0.008), internet news videos (MD 2.20, 95% CI 0.19 to 4.21, p=0.027) and entertainment news videos (MD 2.57, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.49, p=0.004); and mJAMA scores than entertainment news videos (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.36, p=0.033) and consumer videos (MD 1.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.44, p=0.028). However, they only accounted for 11% of videos and 10% of views.
The authors concluded that over one-quarter of the most viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 contained misleading information, reaching millions of viewers worldwide. As the current COVID-19 pandemic worsens, public health agencies must better use YouTube to deliver timely and accurate information and to minimise the spread of misinformation. This may play a significant role in successfully managing the COVID-19 pandemic.
I think this is an important contribution to our knowledge about the misinformation that currently bombards the public. It explains not only the proliferation of conspiracy theories related to the pandemic, but also the plethora of useless SCAM options that are being touted endangering the public.
The authors point out that the videos included statements consisting of conspiracy theories, non-factual information, inappropriate recommendations inconsistent with current official government and health agency guidelines and discriminating statements. This is particularly alarming, when considering the immense viewership of these videos. Evidently, while the power of social media lies in the sheer volume and diversity of information being generated and spread, it has significant potential for harm. The proliferation and spread of misinformation can exacerbate racism and fear and result in unconstructive and dangerous behaviour, such as toilet paper hoarding and mask stealing behaviours seen so far in the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, this misinformation impedes the delivery of accurate pandemic-related information, thus hindering efforts by public health officials and healthcare professionals to fight the pandemic.
Good work!
I suggest to critically evaluate the statements of some UK and US politicians next.
Just when I thought I had seem all of the corona-idiocy, I found this paper by Dr Kajal Jain MD Homoeopathy (Materia Medica ) Medical Officer under Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. It promotes specific nosodes and other homeopathics against the current pandemic. In my view, it discloses a new dimension of the delusion which seems to have engulfed so many homeopaths. Allow me to copy a short passage from it:
TUBERCULINUM
A glycerine extract of a pure cultivation of tubercle bacilli (human).
As per Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica by Dr Kent (page 1000) the Tuberculin nosode can prevent TB infection in those having predisposition to miasma. “If Tuberculinum bovinum be given in 10m, 50m, and CM potencies, two doses of each at long intervals, all children and young people who have inherited tuberculosis may be immuned from their inheritance and their resiliency will be restored
Burnett treated 54 cases of different types of TB Tuberculinum(Tub)/Bacillinum(Bac) 3
As stated in an article published in economic times ,countries without universal policies of BCG vaccination, such as Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States, have been more severely affected compared to countries with universal and long-standing BCG policies,” noted the researchers led by Gonzalo Otazu, assistant professor of biomedical sciences at NYIT.
The study noted that Australian researchers have recently announced plans to fast track large-scale testing to see if the BCG vaccination can protect health workers from the coronavirus.
The team compared various nations’ BCG vaccination policies with their COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and found a “significant positive correlation” between the year when universal BCG vaccination policies were adopted and the country’s mortality rate.
Iran, for instance, which has a current universal BCG vaccination policy that only started in 1984, has an elevated mortality rate with 19.7 deaths per million inhabitants, they said.
In contrast, Japan, which started its universal BCG policy in 1947, has approximately 100 times fewer deaths per million people, with 0.28 deaths, according to the study.
Brazil, which started universal vaccination in 1920 has an even lower mortality rate of 0.0573 deaths per million inhabitants, the scientists noted.
The researchers noted that among the 180 countries with BCG data available today, 157 countries currently recommend universal BCG vaccination.
The remaining 23 countries have either stopped BCG vaccination due to a reduction in TB incidence or have traditionally favoured selective vaccination of “at-risk” groups, they said.4
Thus we can see that Tuberculinium is reputed since a long timeas homoeoprophylactic in place of BCG. So Tuberculinum in high potency can act as an effective and dependable prophylactic in corona Virus .
PNEUMOCOCCINUM-
Pneumococcinum is reputed to prevent pneumonia. 5
In end stages OF CORONA VIRUS when we encounter symptoms like high fever ,pneumonia,pleurisy , -Pneumococcinum can be considered due to it being most similar to exisiting disease condition. Historically Pneumococcinum along with Influenzinum has been seen in eliciting drastic immunological responses in disease conditions following flu since it creates picture of pneumonia..
INFLUENZINUM and Oscillococcinum
Influenzinum is reputed to prevent flu and flu line symptoms 5
Oscilllococcinum –prepared from liver of wild duck has been observed to reduce course of illness due to influenza this it can be included as one of the probable medicnes in treatment of corona virus in earlier stages 6
A study conducted by Colombo GL1, Di Matteo S2 et al suggests that the treatment with Oscillococcinum could be helpful in preventing RTIs and improving the health status of patients who suffer from respiratory diseases7
Comparison of Allopathic vaccines and Nosodes
Allopathic vaccines are isopathic in nature, cude in nature unlike nosodes which are dynamic in nature with deeper penetrative abilities ..Nosodes when administered mimic the sickness and by natures law of cure prevent and treat illness.Nosodes being the same as original disease are more similar to the disease condition and are deeper in action since they are potentised
Thus realising effectiveness of nosodes in prevention and treatment of epidemics Nosodes are suggested as one of the probable approaches for COVID 19
This paper is so full of utter nonsense that I am unable to point it all out in a short blog-post. I trust you can easily identify it yourself. Let me therefore just focus on one specific point.
I did highlight reference 6 in the text for a special reason. Here is the reference provided by Dr Jain:
6. Vickers AJ, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;(2):CD001957
It does not take much research to find out what is wrong with it. It refers to a Cochrane review which, of course, seems most laudable. To be precise, it refers to the 2000 version of this review which concluded that Oscillococcinum probably reduces the duration of illness in patients presenting with influenza symptoms. Though promising, the data are not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndrome. Further research is warranted but required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of homeopathy in influenza and influenza-like syndromes.
This review is today obsolete, as it has meanwhile up-dated no less than 4 (!) times.
The latest version of this review is from 2015 (authored by well-known proponents of homeopathy) and concluded as follows: There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®.
It is virtually impossible to not realise all this when accessing the reviews via Medline. And that leads me to fear that the author of the above paper, Dr Kajal Jain MD Homoeopathy (Materia Medica ) Medical Officer under Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, is not just deluded, but fraudulent.
