supplements
I came across a new systematic review of the herbal remedy, FEVERFEW, as a preventative treatment for migraine. Here is the abstract:
Review just published in ‘The American Journal of Natural Medicines, Facts’
Migraine, a neurological condition, affects approximately 1.1 billion people worldwide, making it the third leading cause of disability. It significantly impacts quality of life and incurs an annual economic burden exceeding $78 billion in the United States. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of Feverfew Dietary Supplement in migraine prophylaxis, with migraine frequency considered as the primary outcome. Three trials (n=237) were included in the meta-analysis (MA) of migraine frequency, and an additional three trials were synthesized narratively in the systematic review. In the MA, feverfew showed a non-significant reduction in migraine frequency compared to placebo (Overall effect size, Cohen’s d: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.52 to 0.14; I² = 34%, p = 0.26). These findings suggest that Feverfew might offer some benefit in individual patients, but given the small, non-significant effect size, it should not be recommended as a primary prophylactic agent over established treatments. Feverfew may not be effective as a standalone prophylactic supplement for migraines; however, its potential in combination therapies seems promising and requires further evaluation. Larger trials with standardized parthenolide content and extended durations are necessary to clarify feverfew’s definitive role in migraine prophylaxis.
The subject is no doubt interesting: migraine is a common contition that severely reduces quality of life and is difficult to treat or prevent. Thus an effective herbal remedy would be more than welcome. Based on such considerations, my co-workers and I had conducted a Cochrane review which was last updated in 2015. Here is its abstract:
Background: This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on ‘Feverfew for preventing migraine’ (2004, Issue 1). Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium L.) extract is a herbal remedy, which has been used for preventing attacks of migraine.
Objectives: To systematically review the evidence from double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of feverfew monopreparations versus placebo for preventing migraine.
Search methods: For this updated version of the review we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and AMED to January 2015. We contacted manufacturers of feverfew and checked the bibliographies of identified articles for further trials.
Selection criteria: We included randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials assessing the efficacy of feverfew monopreparations for preventing migraine in patients of any age. We included trials using clinical outcome measures, while we excluded trials focusing exclusively on physiological parameters. There were no restrictions regarding the language of publication.
Data collection and analysis: We systematically extracted data on patients, interventions, methods, outcome measures, results and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool and evaluated methodological quality using the Oxford Quality Scale developed by Jadad and colleagues. Two review authors (BW and MHP for this update, MHP and EE for the original version) independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We resolved disagreements concerning evaluation of individual trials through discussion.
Main results: We identified one new study for this update, resulting in six trials (561 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. Five of the six trials reported on the main outcome, migraine frequency. Although five of the trials were generally of good methodological quality, all studies were either of unclear or high risk of bias with regards to sample size. Pooled analysis of the results was not possible due to the lack of common outcome measures and heterogeneity between studies in terms of participants, interventions and designs.The most recent trial added to this version of the review is rigorous and larger (n = 218), using a stable feverfew extract at a dose determined by a previous dose-finding trial. It reports that feverfew reduced migraine frequency by 1.9 attacks from 4.8 to 2.9 and placebo by 1.3 from to 4.8 to 3.5 per month, resulting in a difference in effect between feverfew and placebo of 0.6 attacks per month. For the secondary outcome measures intensity and duration of migraine attacks, incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting, and global assessment no statistically significant differences were reported. Results of previous trials are not convincing: three trials reporting positive effects of feverfew are all of small sample size (17 to 60 participants), while two rigorous trials (n = 50, 147) did not find significant differences between feverfew and placebo. Only mild and transient adverse events, most commonly gastrointestinal complaints and mouth ulcers, were reported in the included trials.
Authors’ conclusions: Since the last version of this review, one larger rigorous study has been included, reporting a difference in effect between feverfew and placebo of 0.6 attacks per month. This adds some positive evidence to the mixed and inconclusive findings of the previous review. However, this constitutes low quality evidence, which needs to be confirmed in larger rigorous trials with stable feverfew extracts and clearly defined migraine populations before firm conclusions can be drawn. It appears from the data reviewed that feverfew is not associated with any major safety concerns.
The question that I ask myself is this: what exactly does the new review add to the existing knowledge?
I fear, the answer is VERY LITTLE! Arguably, the new review is even less rigorous, transparent, thorough and informative than our paper.
If that is so, why conduct and publish it?
The process of doing this is an unethical waste of resources, and the habit of publishing redundant papers is irritating and arguably also unethical.
All this would be rather trivial, of course, if not for the fact that this form of science abuse is happening all the time in the realm of so-called alternative medicine. Responsible journal editors and reviewers should remember that they have the duty to prevent it.
We are about half way through 2025 which is an opportune occasion to again check how research-active the various branches of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) currently are. To get a rough impression, I yesterday went on Medline and did a few very simple searches. They all used this search term:
“2025, [name of therapy in question], clinical trial”.
The findings are, I think, impressive. Here are some SCAM modalities ranked by the number of hits I received:
- dietary supplements 790
- herbal medicine 455
- acupuncture 407
- mindfulness 338
- massage 129
- yoga 98
- tai chi 60
- essential oil 31
- chiropractic 19
- osteopathic manipulative therapy 13
- homeopathy 11
- naturopathy 6
I should stress that not all of these hits are truly clinical trials (Medline is not precise in that), neither does Medline capture all SCAM journals. So, the figures are by no means accurate but they do give a rough picture of what is going on.
And what is going on?
Unsurprisingly, commercial products are heading the list. Acupuncture in the 3rd place might surprize some; here I must add that the 407 articles come to ~90% (my guess) from China. I have often warned on this blog to not take these papers seriously, as they are predominantly promotion rather than science. Mindfulness on the 4th place is, I think, a reflection of the current hype around this therapy.
The rest is as one might expect – except for the dismal ranking of chiropractic, osteopathy, homeopathy and naturopathy. The suggestion here is, I fear, that these practitioners seem to have very little interest in doing research. Why? Perhaps they know that their treatments cannot withstand the rigor of a decent clinical trial?
In fact, with a bit of fantasy, one could even see an interesting correlation between the evidence-base and the research-activity of SCAM: the treatments that are best supported by evidence seem to have the highest level of research-activity. Conversely, the ones that have the weakest evidence-base seem to have the least research going on.
PS
My analysis does, of course, say nothing about the quality of the science which is, as we often discuss here on this blog, frequenlty dismal.
- Homeopaths would, of course, recommend homeopathic preparations of Arnica.
- Fans of homotoxicology might advise to use Traumheel, especially designed for healing traumata fast.
- Herbalists swear by Hamamelis.
- A massage therapist would recommend lymph drainage.
- An aromatherapy might advise Juniper berry for healing.
- A healer would insist on a range of energy healing methods.
- An Ayurvedic professional mighr recomment urine therapy.
- A naturopath could advocate aloe vera.
- A Bach flower specialist would insist on Rescue remedies.
- …
- …
- …
Come to think of it, the only SCAM that SCAM therapist would probably not recommend in Elon’s case is vaginal steaming (which Gwyneth Paltrow is so fond of)!
So, Elon’s choice is enorm; but what about efficacy?
Like most ailments that SCAM is claimed to help with, there is a (not so slight) drawback: the evidence that they actually do any good is absent or very week. For Elon, this might not be a problem (he can afford to waste a few $$). As we have seen, for instance, from his claims about DOGE, he does not believe in evidence any more than in empathy.
PS
Of course, now Elon has other problems. In case you read this, Elon, for dealing with the separation from your former master and guru, Trump, let me recommend to you: Berlin Wall D12 [my bill is in the post].
“What does Trump think about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)?”
Does anyone know?
Does he even know himself?
Time to ask GROK!
Here is the answer I got when asking exactly that question (the bold print was added by me in an attempt to highlight what I felt was important):
There is no definitive, up-to-date public statement from Donald Trump explicitly outlining his views on alternative medicine as a broad category. However, based on available information from his actions, statements, and policy moves, we can piece together some insights into his stance, particularly during his presidency and recent activities up to May 2025.
Key Points on Trump’s Views and Actions Related to Alternative Medicine:
1 Skepticism of Mainstream Medical Institutions:
- Trump has often expressed distrust toward mainstream medical and scientific establishments, which aligns with sentiments in some alternative medicine communities. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, he promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, despite limited scientific evidence supporting their efficacy for COVID-19. His endorsements led to significant increases in prescriptions and public interest, highlighting his influence and willingness to back therapies outside mainstream medical consensus.
- This skepticism is further evidenced by his support for figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a history of promoting alternative health perspectives and questioning mainstream medical practices, such as vaccines. Trump appointed RFK Jr. to lead the “Make America Healthy Again” Commission, which focuses on chronic diseases and could potentially explore non-conventional approaches.
2 Support for Experimental and Compassionate Use Treatments:
- Trump has advocated for policies like the “Right-to-Try” legislation, which allows terminally ill patients to access experimental drugs not yet fully approved by the FDA. This reflects a willingness to bypass traditional medical regulatory pathways to provide access to treatments that might be considered alternative or unproven. In his 2018 State of the Union address, he emphasized giving patients a chance to try such treatments, framing it as a matter of patient empowerment.
- During his own COVID-19 treatment in October 2020, Trump received an experimental antibody cocktail from Regeneron under compassionate use rules, which was not widely available to the public. This move raised ethical questions but also showed his openness to non-standard treatments when personally relevant.
3 Limited Direct Engagement with Alternative Medicine:
- There is little evidence that Trump has explicitly endorsed practices like acupuncture, homeopathy, or naturopathy, which are commonly associated with alternative medicine. For example, the Trump Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis (2017) did not reference nonpharmacologic or integrative approaches like acupuncture in its interim report, despite growing mainstream support for such methods in pain management.
- However, a 2025 budget proposal from Trump reportedly included eliminating funding for the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), suggesting a lack of priority or potential skepticism toward federally funded research into complementary therapies.
4 Overlap with Alternative Medicine Communities:
- Trump’s rhetoric and appeal have resonated with some alternative medicine communities due to shared distrust of mainstream institutions. A 2020 Washington Post article noted parallels between Trump’s base and alternative medicine advocates, both of whom often reject “mainstream” narratives (e.g., media or medical establishment) in favor of empowerment through “doing your own research.” This ideological overlap doesn’t necessarily mean Trump endorses alternative medicine outright but indicates a cultural alignment with some of its proponents.
- His association with figures like RFK Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who have at times supported controversial or alternative health ideas, further ties him to this space, though his personal stance remains less explicit.
5 Focus on Patient Empowerment and Deregulation:
- Trump’s broader healthcare agenda emphasizes deregulation, patient choice, and reducing reliance on federal oversight, which could indirectly support alternative medicine by lowering barriers to unorthodox treatments. His executive orders on healthcare, such as those promoting price transparency and flexibility in health plans, align with a philosophy of giving individuals more control over their healthcare decisions, a principle often championed by alternative medicine advocates.
Analysis and Gaps:
- Lack of Explicit Policy on Alternative Medicine: Trump has not articulated a clear, comprehensive stance on alternative medicine as a field (e.g., acupuncture, herbal remedies, or chiropractic care)v His focus has been more on specific unproven treatments (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) or policies that indirectly affect the broader healthcare landscape.
- Context of COVID-19: His promotion of unproven COVID-19 treatments was controversial and led to real-world consequences, such as increased prescriptions and a reported death linked to chloroquine misuse. This suggests a willingness to endorse therapies with limited evidence when they align with his narrative or political goals, but it’s not a blanket endorsement of all alternative medicine.
- Potential Contradictions: The proposed cut to NCCIH funding contrasts with his support for figures like RFK Jr., who might advocate for exploring alternative approaches. This could indicate a pragmatic or inconsistent approach rather than a unified stance.
Conclusion:
Donald Trump’s views on alternative medicine appear to be less about endorsing specific practices and more about a broader distrust of mainstream medical institutions, a focus on patient empowerment, and a willingness to support unproven or experimental treatments in certain contexts. His actions, such as promoting hydroxychloroquine, supporting Right-to-Try, and aligning with figures skeptical of conventional medicine, suggest an openness to non-traditional approaches, particularly when they resonate with his base or personal circumstances. However, his budget proposal to defund the NCCIH indicates he may not prioritize federal support for researching complementary therapies. Without a direct statement from Trump, his stance remains inferred from these actions and associations. For the most current perspective, checking recent statements or posts on platforms like Truth Social could provide further clarity, but as of May 2025, no such explicit statement is widely documented.
____________________
The next question is: WHO CARES?
Why should it matter what the spiritus rector of the KKK bar of human decency thinks?
Sadly, the answer is BECAUSE HE HAS INFLUENCE.
My prediction is that Trump will remain uninterested in SCAM until the moment he sees an oportunity to make millions of it. Let’s hope this never happens!
Donald Trump has recently made a range of appointments in the health sector of the US. They will strongly influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US as well as worldwide. It therefore seems worth to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and critically evaluate their fit for leadership roles in healthcare. In part 1 of this series, we looked at Robert F.Kennedy Jr. and David Weldon. Now I will focus on Trumps nominations for Surgeon General
Janette Nesheiwat – Surgeon General
We featured Janette once before. She trained as a family and emergency medicine physician, became the medical director at CityMD and also a Fox News contributor. She has no significant public health leadership experience. As the Surgeon General, she would require shaping national health policy and communicating science to the public, areas where she has no training or experience. She also lacks expertise in public health and epidemiology. Her Fox News role and online vitamin sales raise doubts about her prioritization of evidence-based public health over media-driven health promotion. The Surgeon General is the nation’s leading spokesperson on public health, overseeing the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and issuing science-based health advisories. Nesheiwat would be a disaster for such a position.
Nesheiwat’s nomination was eventually withdrawn by Trump. This suggests internal concerns about her fitness for the job.
Casey Means – Surgeon General
RFK Jr wrote on X: “The Surgeon General is a symbol of moral authority who stands against the financial and institutional gravities that tend to corporatize medicine. Casey Means was born to hold this job. She will provide our country with ethical guidance, wisdom, and gold-standard medical advice.” Yet her suitability for Surgeon General is a contentious issue.
Means holds a 2014 MD from Stanford University and a bachelor’s degree in human biology. She is an advocate for addressing chronic diseases through nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle changes. Her book “Good Energy”, co-authored with her brother Calley, argues that metabolic dysfunction is a root cause of most chronic illnesses. As a “wellness influencer”, Means has demonstrated an ability to communicate health concepts to a broad audience.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is coming out with so much stupidity, ignorance and quackery that it is getting difficult to keep up. A recent article reported that he touted two particular medications that have not been shown to work as first-line treatments for measles:
- the steroid budesonide,
- the antibiotic clarithromycin.
Kennedy claimed on X that the medications had been instrumental in treating around 300 children in Texas, and told Fox News that doctors prescribing them had seen “very, very good results.”
Consequently, families in Texas have turned to questionable remedies — in some cases, also prompted by the recommendation of two Texas doctors, Dr. Ben Edwards and Dr. Richard Bartlett. Kennedy called Edwards and Bartlett “extraordinary healers” who have “treated and healed” hundreds of children with budesonide and clarithromycin, sharing a photo of himself and the doctors with three Mennonite families whose children had become ill. Two of the families had each recently lost a daughter to measles: 6-year-old Kayley Fehr died in February and 8-year-old Daisy Hildebrand died last week. Neither child was vaccinated.
Edwards, a conventionally trained doctor who has shifted to promoting natural remedies and prayer, has been operating a makeshift clinic in Seminole, offering children these unproven treatments — including, according to a video posted by an anti-vaccine group, while he said he was sick with measles. Edwards has allied himself with the anti-vaccine movement in recent months, hosting influencers and activists on his podcast, including Andrew Wakefield.
“There is no evidence to support the use of either aerosolized budesonide or clarithromycin for treatment of children with measles,” said Dr. Adam Ratner, a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Prescribing treatments that have not been vetted in clinical trials amounts to experimenting on patients, added Dr. Susan McLellan, a professor in the infectious diseases division at the University of Texas Medical Branch.
During the measles outbreak, both Edwards and Bartlett have each warned of risks associated with the MMR vaccine: Edwards claimed, falsely, that it causes “potentially” hundreds of deaths a year and Bartlett has said that the complications caused by measles, including brain swelling and pneumonia, can also be caused by the vaccine. In reality, the MMR vaccine, which is only given to children with healthy immune systems, has been overwhelmingly safe since its approval more than five decades ago, and has saved an estimated 94 million lives worldwide.
Public health experts said touting these medications as first-line treatments sends the wrong message. “By mentioning such treatments without that context, RFK Jr. continues to distract away from the prevention measure that incontrovertibly works — the vaccine,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
A national public health organization is calling for RFK Jr. to resign citing “implicit and explicit bias and complete disregard for science.” Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said in a statement that concerns raised during Kennedy’s confirmation hearing last month have been realized, followed by massive reductions in staff at key health agencies.
What’s next? I aslk myself.
Perhaps homeopathy as a savior of the US healthcare system?
Watch this space.
The aim of this recent review was to investigate the efficacy of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for adults with low back pain compared with placebo. It included all randomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical and non-interventional treatments compared with placebo or sham in adults (≥18 years) suffering from non-specific low back pain.
Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals on outcome pain intensity (0 to 100 scale) at first assessment post-treatment for each treatment type and by duration of low back pain—(sub)acute (<12 weeks) and chronic (≥12 weeks). Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) approach.
A total of 301 trials (377 comparisons) provided data on 56 different treatments or treatment combinations. One treatment for acute low back pain: (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), and five treatments for chronic low back pain:
- exercise,
- spinal manipulative therapy,
- taping,
- antidepressants,
- transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) agonists)
were found to be efficacious. However, effect sizes were small and of moderate certainty. Three treatments for acute low back pain (exercise, glucocorticoid injections, paracetamol), and two treatments for chronic low back pain (antibiotics, anaesthetics) were not efficacious and are unlikely to be suitable treatment options; moderate certainty evidence. Evidence is inconclusive for remaining treatments due to small samples, imprecision, or low and very low certainty evidence.
The authors concluded that the current evidence shows that one in 10 non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain are efficacious, providing only small analgesic effects beyond placebo. The efficacy for the majority of treatments is uncertain due to the limited number of randomised participants and poor study quality. Further high-quality, placebo-controlled trials are warranted to address the remaining uncertainty in treatment efficacy along with greater consideration for placebo-control design of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments.
This is an important analysis, not least because of the fact that the research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The methodology is sound and the results thus seem reliable.
The findings are in keeping with what we have been discussing at nauseam here: no treatment works really well for back pain. For acute symptoms no so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) at all is efficacious. For chronic pain, spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) have small effects. As SMT is neither cheap nor free of risks, excercise is much preferable.
Considering that most SCAMs are heavily promoted for low back pain (e.g. acupuncture, Alexander technique, cupping, Gua Sha, herbal medicine, homeopathy, massage, mind-body therapies, reflexology, Reiki, yoga), this verdict is sobering indeed!
The US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy (JFKJr) famously claimed that vitamin A could work “as a prophylaxis” of measles infection. That claim is not just wrong, it also is dangerous. Overuse of vitamin A can have serious health consequences. As a result of JFKJr yet again promoting dangerous nonsense, doctors treating patients during the measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico are now facing the problem of vitamin A toxicity.
At Covenant Children’s Hospital in Lubbock, near the outbreak’s epicenter, several patients have been found to have abnormal liver function on routine lab tests, a probable sign that they’ve taken too much of the vitamin, according to Dr. Lara Johnson, pediatric hospitalist and chief medical officer for Covenant Health-Lubbock Service Area.
Vitamin A is fat-soluble. It therefore accumulate in organs like the liver when over-doesed. Excess vitamin A can cause dry skin and eyes, blurry vision, bone thinning, skin irritation, liver damage and other serious issues. In pregnant women, it can even lead to birth defects. Recovery for patients with acute toxicity is normally rapid, if the vitamin is discontinued. But the more serious problems with vitamin A toxicity are not always reversible.
The Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade association for dietary supplement and functional food manufacturers, issued a statement warning parents against using high doses of vitamin A to try to keep their children from getting measles. “While vitamin A plays an important role in supporting overall immune function, research hasn’t established its effectiveness in preventing measles infection. CRN is concerned about reports of high-dose vitamin A being used inappropriately, especially in children,” the statement says.
JFKJr made his remarks in an interview with Fox News medical correspondent Dr. Marc Siegel. Snippets of the interview were featured in four Fox News or Fox Business segments airing on March 4. “They have treated most of the patients, actually, over 108 patients in the last 48 hours. And they’re getting very, very good results, they report from budesonide, which is a steroid, it’s a 30-year-old steroid,” Kennedy said in the longest of the segments. “And clarithromycin [an antibiotic] and also cod liver oil, which has high concentrations of vitamin A and vitamin D. We need to look at those therapies and other therapies,” he said in another segment. “We need to really do a good job of talking to the front-line doctors and see what is working on the ground, because those therapeutics have really been ignored by the agency for a long, long time.”
Local doctors are increasingly concerned about the growing popularity of unproven remedies for preventing and treating measles. They fear that they are causing people to delay critical medical treatment and to reject vaccination, the only proven way to prevent a measles infection.
The measles outbreak has now affected at least 379 people across Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Kansas has reported 23 measles cases, and officials said that they may also be linked to the outbreak. The best measure to get to grips with the outbreak, I think, would be to make JFKJr shut up and let those who understans the issues get on with it.
I don’t know whether you noticed but everyone seems to be going on about the new wonder SCAM (so-called alternative medicine) ‘BLACK SEED OIL’ (BSO). If you go on the Internet, you’ll find all sorts of health claims for it, e.g.:
- -Reduces Inflammation
- -High in Antioxidants
- -Can Lower Cholesterol
- -Helps to Fight Cancer
- -Can Kill Off Bacteria
- -Balances Blood Sugar
- -Helps to Lower Blood Pressure
Interesting?
I am – as always – doutful. Nonetheless, I had a look at BSO to find out more.
BSO (also known as black caraway, black cumin or kalonji oil) is derived from the tiny black seeds of Nigella sativa (N. sativa) that grows in hot areas like Eastern Europe, Northern African, and Southwestern Asia, etc. The Wikipedia entry states that “despite considerable use of N. sativa in traditional medicine practices in Africa and Asia, there is insufficient high-quality clinical evidence to indicate that consuming the seeds or oil can be used to treat human diseases”.
But Wiki is often not up-to-date, and I therefore looked into Medline. To my surprise, I found research to be extraordinarily active.
Nigella sativa contains several phytochemical compounds, such as thymoquinone, p-cymene, α-thujene, longifolene, β-pinene, α-pinene, and carvacrol. They confer an antioxidant effect to the seeds, leading to a potent anti-inflammatory effect. Particularly, thymoquinone increases the levels of antioxidant enzymes that counter oxidative stress in the liver. Additionally, the essential oil in N. sativa seeds effectively inhibits intestinal parasites and shows moderate activity against some bacteria, including Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus. Thymoquinone exhibits minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 8-16 μg/mL against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and exhibits MIC 0.25 µg/mL against drug-resistant mycobacteria. Similarly, quercetin shows a MIC of 2 mg/mL against oral pathogens, such as Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Furthermore, endophytic fungi isolated from N. sativa have demonstrated antibacterial activity. Further mechanisms involve inducing apoptosis, and inhibiting migration and invasion. N Sativa supplementation significantly decreases serum C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and malondialdehyde levels. It also improves total antioxidant capacity and superoxide dismutase levels.
But these effects do not neccessarily mean that BSO is clinically effective for any condition, particularly in view of its low bioavailability. So, what does the clinical evidence tell us? Here are just 9 of the most recent studies and reviews:
- This study aimed to investigate the possible beneficial cardioprotective effect of Nigella sativa in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Sixty children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes were randomized into two groups: group I (n = 30) who received Nigella sativa seed oil 450 mg twice daily after meals for 3 months in addition to insulin, and group II (n = 30) who received insulin alone. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and after the treatment. The lipid profile, malondialdehyde, nitric oxide, tumor necrosis factor-α, transforming growth factor-β, and troponin I were also measured before and after Nigella sativa treatment. After 3 months of Nigella sativa administration, group I had significantly lower cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, malondialdehyde, nitric oxide, tumor necrosis factor-α, transforming growth factor-β, and troponin I levels compared with their pretreatment levels and compared with group II. In addition, group I had a significantly higher left ventricular E’/A’ ratio and two-dimensional left ventricular global longitudinal strain (2D-LV GLS) compared with baseline values and compared with group II after treatment. Conclusions: Nigella sativa can improve subclinical left ventricular dysfunction in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
- This study evaluated the effects of Nigella sativa L. extract on glycemia among adolescents with PCOS. This secondary analysis used data from a randomized controlled trial conducted between March 2022 and March 2023. One hundred sixteen adolescent girls aged 12-18 years with PCOS were randomized into two groups. The intervention group received 1000 mg/day of Nigella sativa extract for 16 weeks, while the control group received 10 mg/day of medroxyprogesterone for 10 days per menstrual cycle over the same period. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and one- and two-hour post-prandial glucose levels were measured at baseline and after the intervention. 103 completed the study (50 in the Nigella sativa group and 53 in the control group). At baseline, there were no significant differences in FPG (p = 0.294), though the control group had higher one-hour (p = 0.002) and two-hour (p = 0.006) post-prandial glucose levels. Post-intervention, significant interaction effects were observed for FPG (p = 0.004) and two-hour post-prandial glucose (p = 0.023), indicating more significant reductions in the Nigella sativa group compared to the control group. Conclusions: Considering the observed effect of Nigella sativa supplementation on FPG and two-hour post-prandial glucose, it may offer a complementary approach to managing glycemia in adolescent PCOS. However, further research is warranted.
- This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) sought to evaluate the effects of Nigella sativa (N. sativa) consumption on glycemic index in adults. A systematic literature search up to December 2023 was completed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify eligible RCTs. Random effects models were assessed based on the heterogeneity tests, and pooled data were determined as weighted mean differences with a 95 % confidence interval. Finally, a total of 30 studies were found to be eligible for this meta-analysis. The pooled results using random effects model indicated that N. sativa supplementation significantly reduced FBS (SMD: -1.71; 95 % CI: -2.11, -1.31, p <0.001; I2= 92.7 %, p-heterogeneity <0.001) and HA1c levels (SMD: -2.16; 95 % CI: -3.04, -1.29, p <0.001; I2= 95.7 %, p-heterogeneity <0.001) but not effect on insulin (SMD = 0.48; 95 % CI: -0.53, 1.48, P = 0.353; I2= 96.1 %, p-heterogeneity <0.001), and HOMA-IR (SMD: -0.56; 95 % CI: -1.47, 0.35, p=0.229; I2= 95.0 %, p-heterogeneity <0.001). Conclusion: the evidence supports the consumption of N. sativa to reduce FBS and HA1c levels. Additional research, featuring extended durations and robust study designs, is necessary to determine the ideal dosage and duration of N. sativa supplementation for achieving a positive impact on glycemic markers.
- In this systematic review, the objective is to assess the effects of Nigella Sativa on parameters that reflect metabolic syndromes, such as lipid profile, blood pressure, blood glucose, and anthropometry indices. Six out of 8 randomised controlled trials (n:776) demonstrated a significant improvement in lipid profile (p <0.05), 5 out of 7 trials (n:701) showed a significant reduction in glycaemic indices (p <0.05), 1 out of 5 trials (n:551) demonstrated significant improvements in blood pressure (p <0.05), and 2 out of 7 trials (n:705) showed a significant reduction in anthropometric measurements (p <0.05). Conclusion: Nigella Sativa has proved to have a significant positive effect on lipid profile and glycaemic index. The results showed in the parameters of blood pressure and anthropometric indices are less convincing, as results were inconsistent across studies. Nigella Sativa can therefore be recommended as an adjunct therapy for metabolic syndrome.
- This study was designed to investigate the effect of Nigella sativa supplementation on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) symptoms and their severity in adolescents. The current randomized clinical trial was conducted on 114 adolescents with PCOS who were referred to gynecologist offices and clinics in Gonabad, Iran from March 2022 to March 2023. Participants were randomly allocated to the intervention (Nigella sativa 1000 mg/day) and control (10 mg/day medroxyprogesterone from the 14th day of the cycle for 10 nights) groups. The study duration was 16 weeks. Ovarian volume (measured by ultrasound), anthropometric and blood pressure; serum testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S), luteinizing hormone (LH), hirsutism severity (Ferriman-Gallwey score) levels were evaluated before and after the study. Data from 103 participants (control group = 53, intervention group = 50) were analyzed. The mean age of participants was 17.0 (Interquartile range [IQR]:2.0). The mean difference in hirsutism score changes (p < 0.001), right (p = 0.002), and left (p = 0.010) ovarian volume, serum LH (p < 0.001) and testosterone (p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control group. The frequency of oligomenorrhea, menometrorrhagia, and amenorrhea, were significantly reduced after the study in the intervention group compared to the control group (ps < 0.001). Conclusions: Short-term Nigella sativa supplementation may be effective in reducing ovarian volume and improving hormonal balance, and menstrual irregularities in adolescents with PCOS. Further research and long-term studies are warranted to validate the potential therapeutic effects of Nigella sativa in adolescents with PCOS.
- This study evaluates the efficacy of a novel mucoadhesive patch containing Nigella sativa 10% extract compared to triamcinolone 0.1% in alleviating symptoms and reducing lesion severity in patients with erosive-atrophic oral lichen planus. A pilot study comprising two groups, each with 10 patients, was conducted. The intervention group received mucoadhesive patches containing N. sativa 10% extract, while the control group received triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% patches. Pain and burning intensity, measured through visual analog scale, and lesion severity based on the Thongprasom scale were assessed weekly for 4 weeks. Descriptive records were kept for side effects and patient satisfaction. Pain and burning intensity decreased in both groups throughout the sessions, with the N. sativa group showing a greater reduction than the triamcinolone group. The reduction in burning intensity within each group was significant (p < .001), and there was a significant difference between groups only in the second session (p = .045). The overall difference between groups was not significant (p > .05). Lesion severity also decreased significantly in both groups (p < .001), with a significant difference between groups observed in the third session (p = .043) and overall throughout the study (p = .006). Conclusion: The use of N. sativa extract in mucoadhesive patches was as effective as corticosteroids in reducing pain, burning, and lesion severity in patients with oral lichen planus, with N. sativa showing superior results in some sessions. Notably, no significant complications were observed with N. sativa use, making it a promising treatment option for lichen planus.
- This study aimed to explore the impact of N. sativa supplementation on the lipid profile of adult participants. We searched Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases until December 2022. Random effects models were used, and pooled data were determined as standardized mean differences with a 95% confidence interval. The findings of 34 studies with 2278 participants revealed that N. sativa supplementation significantly reduced total cholesterol (TC) (SMD: -1.78; 95% CI: -2.20, -1.37, p < 0.001), triglycerides (TG) (SMD: -1.2725; 95% CI: -1.67, -0.83, p < 0.001), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (SMD: -2.45; 95% CI: -3.06, -1.85; p < 0.001) compared to control groups. However, a significant increase was found in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (SMD: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.38, 1.20, p < 0.001). Conclusion: N. sativa has improved effects on TG, LDL-C, TC, and HDL-C levels. Overall, N. sativa may be suggested as an adjuvant anti-hyperlipidemic agent.
- In this double-blind clinical trial, 70 nulliparous pregnant women referred to Hajar Hospital and Imam Ali clinics of Shahrekord and had missed abortion before the 12-week gestational age were selected and randomly divided into two interventions and control groups. The intervention group received 5 g of Nigella sativa oil alone daily for up to 3 days and the control group received a placebo. In case of nonresponse, 3 days after the last dose of medication or placebo, 800 μg of misoprostol (vaginal) were used. Data were analyzed by SPSS software. The chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, independent t-test and paired t-test were used for analytical statistics. According to the results, 18 cases (51.4%) in the intervention group and seven cases (20%) in the control group showed complete evacuation of uterine contents which had a significant difference (p < 0.05). The frequency of vagina physical examination and type of hemorrhage did not show any significant difference between the two groups before and after the intervention. After the intervention, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was significantly decreased in the intervention group but did not change in the control group (p < 0.05). The frequency of adverse events in the intervention group was three (8.6%) and in the control group was one (2.9%) which had no significant difference. Conclusion: Nigella sativa improves the outcome of missed abortion by reducing HCG and facilitating cervix dilatation and delivery of uterine contents.
- This systemaatic review evaluated the role of Nigella spp in managing allergic rhinitis (AR), a comprehensive review through systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted. To carry out a meta-analysis of clinical trials that used Nigella spp in treating AR based on current data. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Various databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Science Direct, Springer Link and the Cochrane Library, were searched until October 2023 to obtain RCTs assessing impact of Nigella spp in the control of AR. The current meta-analysis was carried out with a random-effects model. There were 8 studies enrolled, and our meta-analysis findings revealed that, relative to the control group, observation group exhibited the markedly increased total effective rate for allergic rhinitis treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 4.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] (2.57, 7.27), and p < 0.00001); three studies showed that the effect of Nigella spp for nasal symptoms treatment among patients with allergic rhinitis was superior in observation group to control group [mean difference = -2.60, 95% CI (-2.82, -2.38), p < 0.00001]; adverse effects occurred in five studies, all of which were transient, did not require medical intervention, and were not statistically significant between the two groups [OR = 1.01, 95% CI (0.59, 1.73), p = 0.98]. Conclusion: The observation group demonstrated relative safety and had an enhanced effect on allergic rhinitis treatment and total nasal symptom improvement than the control group. The inclusion of fewer studies and the lower quality of trial design might affect the stability of the results. However, the evidence-based findings that Nigella spp for allergic rhinitis treatment is more accurate should be validated in future large-scale, multicenter, and well-designed RCTs.
Yes, I know: the evidence is not perfect for any of the indications. In addition, there is a problem with low bioavailability. And I am suspicious of any SCAM that seems to be effective for an incredibly long list of conditions.
At the same time, I have to admit that, collectively, the research on BSO is impressive. As BSO has been used for centuries (as a spice etc.), serious adverse effects seem unlikely. The evidence regarding its effectiveness might not be fully convincing but, in my book, it is encouraging.
This study was aimed at investigating how Spanish media reinforce a positive image of dietary supplements in the treatment of children, potentially leading to harmful health attitudes and behaviors.
The researchers conducted a quantitative content analysis of 912 news articles published between 2015 and 2021 in Spanish media outlets discussing dietary supplements for children. They used a frequency analysis and a proportion comparison to analyze variables such as the reach of news, tone of news, mentions of health professional consultation, association with natural products, media specialization, intertextuality, and headline mentions.
The study found a 60% increase in publications discussing dietary supplements for children during the study period. The content analysis indicates that these articles predominantly present dietary supplements in a positive light, often without robust scientific evidence. Furthermore, many do not emphasize the need for medical consultation, which may contribute to unsupervised consumption of supplements, particularly among minors. This highlights the critical importance of professional guidance when considering dietary supplements for children. Additionally, the frequent emphasis on the “natural” attributes of these products raises concerns regarding consumer perceptions and potential safety risks.
The authors concluded that their study reveals a problem regarding the portrayal of dietary supplements for children in Spanish media. The overly optimistic image, lack of scientific basis, and failure to recommend medical supervision may contribute to unsupervised consumption among minors, risking their health due to misinformed decisions influenced by media portrayal.
I would add that this problem exists not just for children and not just in Spain. It has long been noted to put consumers of all ages and from all countries at risk. The authors kindly cite our own study from 2006 that concluded: “UK national newspapers frequently publish articles on CATs for cancer. Much of this information seems to be uncritical with a potential for misleading patients.”
Even several years before that, my late friend Thomas Weimayr and I published this study in the BMJ:
The media strongly influences the public’s view of medical matters.1 Thus, we sought to determine the frequency and tone of reporting on medical topics in daily newspapers in the United Kingdom and Germany. The following eight newspapers were scanned for medical articles on eight randomly chosen working days in the summer of 1999: the Times, the Independent, the Daily Telegraph, and the Guardian in the United Kingdom, and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Rundschau, and Die Welt in Germany. All articles relating to medical topics were extracted and categorised according to subject, length, and tone of article (critical, positive, or neutral).
A total of 256 newspaper articles were evaluated. The results of our analysis are summarised in the table. We identified 80 articles in the German newspapers and 176 in the British; thus, British newspapers seem to report on medical topics more than twice as often as German broadsheets. Articles in German papers are on average considerably longer and take a positive attitude more often than British ones. Drug treatment was the medical topic most frequently discussed in both countries (51 articles (64%) in German newspapers and 97 (55%) in British). Surgery was the second most commonly discussed medical topic in the UK newspapers (32 articles; 18%). In Germany professional politics was the second most commonly discussed topic (11 articles; 14%); this category included articles about the standing of the medical profession, health care, and social and economic systems—that is, issues not strictly about treating patients.
Because our particular interest is in complementary medicine, we also calculated the number of articles on this subject. We identified four articles in the German newspapers and 26 in the UK newspapers. In the United Kingdom the tone of these articles was unanimously positive (100%) whereas most (3; 75%) of the German articles on complementary medicine were critical.
This analysis is, of course, limited by its small sample size, the short observation period, and the subjectivity of some of the end points. Yet it does suggest that, compared with German newspapers, British newspapers report more frequently on medical matters and generally have a more critical attitude (table). German newspapers frequently discuss medical professional politics, a subject that is almost totally absent from newspapers in the United Kingdom.
The proportion of articles about complementary medicine seems to be considerably larger in the United Kingdom (15% v 5%), and, in contrast to articles on medical matters in general, reporting on complementary medicine in the United Kingdom is overwhelmingly positive. In view of the fact that both healthcare professionals and the general public gain their knowledge of complementary medicine predominantly from the media, these findings may be important.2,3
25 years later, the call on journalists to behave more responsibly when reporting about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is as loud and clear as it is neglected and ignored.
