1 2 3 18

In 2007, we published a systematic review summarizing the efficacy of homeopathic remedies used as a sole or additional therapy in cancer care. We have searched the literature using the databases: Amed (from 1985); CINHAL (from 1982); EMBASE (from 1974); Medline (from 1951); and CAMbase (from 1998). Randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical trials including patients with cancer or past experience of cancer receiving single or combined homeopathic interventions were included. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed by Jadad score. Six studies met our inclusion criteria (five were randomized clinical trials and one was a non-randomized study); but the methodological quality was variable including some high-standard studies. Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy thus found insufficient evidence to support the clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.

Meanwhile, more trials have emerged, not least a dubious study by Frass et al which is currently under investigation. This means that a new evaluation of the totality of the available evidence might be called for. I am pleased to report that such an assessment has just been published.

In this systematic review, the researchers included clinical studies from 1800 until 2020 to evaluate evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy on physical and mental conditions in patients during oncological treatment.

In February 2021 a systematic search was conducted searching five electronic databases (Embase, Cochrane, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Medline) to find studies concerning the use, effectiveness, and potential harm of homeopathy in cancer patients.

From all 1352 search results, 18 studies with 2016 patients were included in this SR. The patients treated with homeopathy were mainly diagnosed with breast cancer. The therapy concepts include single and combination homeopathic remedies (used systemically or as mouth rinses) of various dilutions. Outcomes assessed were the influence on toxicity of cancer treatment (mostly hot flashes and menopausal symptoms), time to drain-removal in breast cancer patients after mastectomy, survival, quality of life, global health and subjective well-being, anxiety, and depression as well as safety and tolerance.

The included studies reported heterogeneous results: some studies described significant differences in quality of life or toxicity of cancer treatment favoring homeopathy, whereas others did not find an effect or reported significant differences to the disadvantage of homeopathy or side effects caused by homeopathy. The majority of the studies have low methodological quality.

The authors concluded that, for homeopathy, there is neither a scientifically based hypothesis of its mode of action nor conclusive evidence from clinical studies in cancer care.

I predict that, if we wait another 15 years, we will have even more studies. I also predict that some of them will be less than reliable or even fake. Finally, I predict that the overall result will still be mixed and unconvincing.

Why can I be so sure?

  1. Because homeopathy lacks biological plausibility as a treatment of cancer (or any other condition).
  2. Because highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos.
  3. Because homeopathy has developed into a cult where one is no longer surprised to see studies emerging that are too good to be true.

This systematic review evaluated individualized homeopathy as a treatment for children with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) when compared to placebo or usual care alone.

Thirty-seven online sources were searched up to March 2021. Studies investigating the effects of individualized homeopathy against any control in ADHD were eligible. Data were extracted to a predefined excel sheet independently by two reviewers.

Six studies were analyzed:

  • 5 were RCTs
  • 2 were controlled against standard treatments;
  • 4 were placebo-controlled and double-blinded.

The meta-analysis revealed a significant effect size across studies of Hedges’ g = 0.542 (95% CI 0.311-0.772; z = 4,61; p < 0.001) against any control and of g = 0.605 (95% CI 0.05-1.16; z = 2.16, p = 0.03) against placebo. The effect estimations are based on studies with an average sample size of 52 participants.

The authors concluded that individualized homeopathy showed a clinically relevant and statistically robust effect in the treatment of ADHD.

This is a counter-intuitive result (to put it mildly), and it is, therefore, wise to have a look at the 6 included studies:

1.Frei, H. et al. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur. J. Pediatr. 164, 758–767 (2005).

This was a trial with just 62 patients who had previously responded to homeopathy. The study was conducted by known proponents of homeopathy and had a highly unusual design. The results suggested that homeopathy was better than placebo.

2. Oberai, P. et al. Homoeopathic management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised placebo-controlled pilot trial. Indian J. Res. Homoeopathy 7, 158–167 (2013).

This one was published in an obscure journal that I could not access.

3. Jacobs, J., Williams, A. L., Girard, C., Njike, V. Y. & Katz, D. Homeopathy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a pilot randomized-controlled trial. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 11, 799–806 (2005)

This study showed that there were no statistically significant differences between homeopathic remedy and placebo groups on the primary or secondary outcome variables.

4. Jones, M. The efficacy of homoeopathic simillimum in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD) in schoolgoing children aged 6-11 years (2009).

This was a small unpublished (and not peer-reviewed) thesis. Its results showed no statistically significant effect of treatment.

5. Lamont, J. Homoeopathic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Br. Homeopathic J. 86, 196–200 (1997)

This was a small (n=46) trial with an unusual design. Its results suggested that homeopathy was better than placebo.

6. von Ammon, K. et al. Homeopathic RCT embedded in a long-term observational study of children with ADHD—a successful model of whole systems CAM research. Eur. J. Integr. Med. 1, 27 (2008).

Even though the journal is Medline-listed, I was unable to find this paper. I did, however, find a paper by the same authors with the same title. It turned out to be a duplication of the paper by Frei et al listed above.


All in all, this brief analysis of the available abstracts (most full papers are behind paywalls) leaves many questions as to the trustworthiness of this systematic review unanswered. The fact that H. Walach (and other apologists of homeopathy) is its senior author does not inspire me with overwhelming confidence. In any case, I very much doubt that the authors’ conclusion is correct. I therefore would encourage someone with access to all full papers to initiate a more thorough analysis; the abstracts obviously leave many questions unanswered. For instance, it would be crucial to know how many of the trials followed an A+B versus B design (I suspect most studies did, and this would completely invalidate the review’s conclusion). I am more than happy to co-operate with such an evaluation.

This article almost left me speechless:

The back-to-back waves of the COVID-19 pandemic have made a devastating impact globally. The conventional healthcare system is going through serious pressure as cases of the disease continue to spread and the numbers of hospitalizations are increasing every moment. It is becoming hard and challenging because the hospital resources are limited in number as compared with the rate of daily hospitalizations. There are significant shortages of patient care facilities and medical care providers, and on top of that, conventional healthcare systems do not have any proven treatments for COVID-19 patients. Experimental drugs like hydroxychloroquine, followed by remdesivir, ritonavir/lopinavir, and favipiravir are being administered under emergency use authorization (EUA). There is evidence that these experimental medications are causing adverse drug reactions, thus claiming the lives of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients. And those patients who survive the EUA medications and hospitalizations are left with iatrogenic immunosuppressive states leading to increased susceptibility towards secondary life-threatening infections like fungal diseases. In this scenario, complementary and alternative medical systems (CAMS) are providing commendable results with negligible adverse effects or iatrogenic issues in patients with COVID-19. There are several clinical cases recorded and published by various independent homoeopathic doctors and researchers worldwide. But unfortunately, because of a biased medical model and greed for monopolies, these effective treatment methods are not given equal opportunity as their conventional counterparts.

I think the best way to react to this nonsense might be to remind us what the only RCT of homeopathy for COVID showed.

This randomized, double-blind, two-armed, parallel, single-center, placebo-controlled study investigated the effectiveness and safety of the homeopathic medicine, Natrum muriaticum LM2, for mild cases of COVID-19.

Participants aged > 18 years, with influenza-like symptoms and a positive COVID test were recruited and randomized (1:1) into two groups that received different treatments during a period of at-home isolation. One group received the homeopathic medicine Natrum muriaticum, prepared with the second degree of the fifty-millesimal dynamization (LM2; Natrum muriaticum LM2), while the other group received a placebo.

The primary endpoint was time until recovery from COVID-19 influenza-like symptoms. Secondary measures included a survival analysis of the number and severity of COVID-19 symptoms (influenza-like symptoms plus anosmia and ageusia) from a symptom grading scale that was informed by the participant, hospital admissions, and adverse events. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate time-to-event (survival) measures.

Data from 86 participants were analyzed (homeopathy, n = 42; placebo, n = 44). There was no difference in time to recovery between the two groups (homeopathy, n = 41; placebo, n = 41; P = 0.56), nor in a sub-group that had at least 5 moderate to severe influenza-like symptoms at the beginning of monitoring (homeopathy, n = 15; placebo, n = 17; P = 0.06). Secondary outcomes indicated that a 50% reduction in symptom score was achieved significantly earlier in the homeopathy group (homeopathy, n = 24; placebo, n = 25; P = 0.04), among the participants with a basal symptom score ≥ 5. Moreover, values of restricted mean survival time indicated that patients receiving homeopathy might have improved 0.9 days faster during the first five days of follow-up (P = 0.022). Hospitalization rates were 2.4% in the homeopathy group and 6.8% in the placebo group (P = 0.62). Participants reported 3 adverse events in the homeopathy group and 6 in the placebo group.

The authors concluded that the results showed that Natrum muriaticum LM2 was safe to use for COVID-19, but there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoints of Natrum muriaticum LM2 and placebo for mild COVID-19 cases. 

Another relevant study compared the antibody response of homeopathic and conventional vaccines and placebo in young adults. A placebo-controlled, double-blind RCT was conducted where 150 university students who had received childhood vaccinations were assigned to diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, mumps, measles homeopathic vaccine, placebo, or conventional diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (Tdap) and mumps, measles, rubella (MMR) vaccines. The primary outcome was a ≥ two-fold increase in antibodies from baseline following vaccination as measured by ELISA. Participants, investigators, study coordinators, data blood drawers, laboratory technicians, and data analysts were all blinded.

None of the participants in either the homeopathic vaccine or the placebo group showed a ≥ two-fold response to any of the antigens. In contrast, of those vaccinated with Tdap, 68% (33/48) had a ≥ two-fold response to diphtheria, 83% (40/48) to pertussis toxoid, 88% (42/48) to tetanus, and 35% (17/48) of those vaccinated with MMR had a response to measles or mumps antigens (p < 0.001 for each comparison of conventional vaccine to homeopathic vaccine or to placebo). There was a significant increase in geometric mean titres of antibody from baseline for conventional vaccine antigens (p < 0.001 for each), but none for the response to homeopathic antigens or placebo.

The authors concluded that homeopathic vaccines do not evoke antibody responses and produce a response that is similar to placebo. In contrast, conventional vaccines provide a robust antibody response in the majority of those vaccinated.

To give ‘equal opportunity’ to implausible therapies would, in my view, not merely be wrong, it would be scandalously unethical. The role of homeopathy in the prophylaxis and symptomatic management of COVID-19 or other infections is very easily described; it is:







Many systematic reviews have summarized the evidence on spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for low back pain (LBP) in adults. Much less is known about the older population regarding the effects of SMT. This paper assessed the effects of SMT on pain and function in older adults with chronic LBP in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.

Electronic databases were searched from 2000 until June 2020; reference lists of eligible trials and related reviews were also searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered if they examined the effects of SMT in adults with chronic LBP compared to interventions recommended in international LBP guidelines. The authors of trials eligible for the IPD meta-analysis were contacted and invited to share data. Two review authors conducted a risk of bias assessment. Primary results were examined in a one-stage mixed model, and a two-stage analysis was conducted in order to confirm the findings. The main outcomes and measures were pain and functional status examined at 4, 13, 26, and 52 weeks.

A total of 10 studies were retrieved, including 786 individuals; 261 were between 65 and 91 years of age. There was moderate-quality evidence that SMT results in similar outcomes at 4 weeks (pain: mean difference [MD] – 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] – 5.78 to 0.66; functional status: standardized mean difference [SMD] – 0.18, 95% CI – 0.41 to 0.05). Second-stage and sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings.

The authors concluded that SMT provides similar outcomes to recommended interventions for pain and functional status in the older adult with chronic LBP. SMT should be considered a treatment for this patient population.

This is a fine analysis. Unfortunately, its results are less than fine. Its results confirm what I have been saying ad nauseam: we do not currently have a truly effective therapy for back pain, and most options are as good or as bad as the rest. This is most frustrating for everyone concerned, but it is certainly no reason to promote SMT as usually done by chiropractors or osteopaths.

The only logical solution, in my view, is to use those options that:

  • are associated with the least risks,
  • are the least expensive,
  • are widely available.

However you twist and turn the existing evidence, the application of these criteria does not come up with chiropractic or osteopathy as an optimal solution. The best treatment is therapeutic exercise initially taught by a physiotherapist and subsequently performed as a long-term self-treatment by the patient at home.


Two million people in UK are estimated to be currently suffering from long COVID, says the Office for National Statistics. Fatigue continues to be the most common symptom – experienced by 55% of those with self-reported long COVID – followed by 32% with shortness of breath, 23% with a cough, and 23% with muscle ache. The problem is only going to increase in the near future. Thus, many people are frantically looking for an effective therapy. Practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are no exception.

This study aimed to evaluate the potential for inhalation of essential oils to improve energy levels among otherwise healthy female survivors of acute COVID-19 who experience a lack of energy more than five months after recovery.

This was a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the potential for inhalation of Longevity™, a proprietary essential oil blend manufactured by Young Living Essential Oils (Lehi, Utah, USA), on energy levels among female survivors of COVID-19 who continue to experience fatigue more than 5 months recovery from the acute infection. Forty women were randomized to two groups: intervention and placebo. The placebo product contained an inert, odorless fractionated coconut oil. Both groups inhaled the assigned product twice daily for fourteen consecutive days. Fatigue scores were measured using the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory (MFSI). Secondary outcomes included scores on each of the MFSI’s ten subscales.

Individuals who inhaled the essential oil blend for 2 weeks had significantly lower fatigue scores after controlling for baseline scores, employment status, BMI, olfactory function, and time since diagnosis, with a large effect size (F (1,39) = 6.15, p = .020, partial eta squared = 0.198). Subscale analysis identified subscales of vigor, as well as global, behavioral, general, and mental fatigue as benefiting from the intervention. This study provides evidence that a proprietary aromatherapy blend can significantly improve energy levels among women who are experiencing fatigue after recovering from COVID-19.

The authors concluded that the use of aromatherapy with Longevity™ essential oil blend to boost energy levels in women who have recovered from COVID-19 provides a novel, non-invasive approach to improving quality of life in this population. This intervention is particularly beneficial for global and mental fatigue, as well as vigor. Other subdomains may experience improvements to energy levels with a smaller effect size; future studies should be conducted to explore this potential.

This trial was funded by Young Living Essential Oils. Perhaps, this explains why there is no mention of the elephant in the room: the trial was not blind! Participants in the verum group knew that they received aromatherapy. Likewise, participants in the placebo group knew that they received the placebo.

Could this fact have influenced the outcome? Certainly!

Could the trial have been designed better? Certainly!

All the investigators needed to do is to use a nice-smelling oil that, according to aromatherapists, does not boost energy, as the placebo.

As it stands, we have no idea whether the authors’ assumption that the verum oil caused the effect is true.


Or maybe not?

Perhaps Young Living Essential Oils, the sponsor of the study and producer of the oil never wanted to know the truth. Maybe they are happy to abuse science as a marketing tool?

Osteopathic visceral manipulation (VM) is a bizarre so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that has been featured on this blog with some regularity, e.g.:

Rigorous trials fail to show that it works for anything. So, the obvious solution to this dilemma is to conduct dodgy trials!

This study tested the effects of VM on dysmenorrhea, irregular, delayed, and/or absent menses, and premenstrual symptoms in PCOS patients.

Thirty Egyptian women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), with menstruation-related complaints and free from systematic diseases and/or adrenal gland abnormalities, participated in a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. They were recruited from the women’s health outpatient clinic in the faculty of physical therapy at Cairo University, with an age of 20-34 years, and a body mass index (BMI) ≥25, <30 kg/m2. Patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups (15 patients); the control group received a low-calorie diet for 3 months, and the study group that received the same hypocaloric diet added to VM to the pelvic organs and their related structures for eight sessions over 3 months. Evaluations for body weight, BMI, and menstrual problems were done by weight-height scale, and menstruation-domain of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (PCOSQ), respectively, at baseline and after 3 months from interventions. Data were described as mean, standard deviation, range, and percentage whenever applicable.

Of 60 Egyptian women with PCOS, 30 patients were included, with baseline mean age, weight, BMI, and a menstruation domain score of 27.5 ± 2.2 years, 77.7 ± 4.3 kg, 28.6 ± 0.7 kg/m2, and 3.4 ± 1.0, respectively, for the control group, and 26.2 ± 4.7 years, 74.6 ± 3.5 kg, 28.2 ± 1.1 kg/m2, and 2.9 ± 1.0, respectively, for the study group. Out of the 15 patients in the study group, uterine adhesions were found in 14 patients (93.3%), followed by restricted uterine mobility in 13 patients (86.7%), restricted ovarian/broad ligament mobility (9, 60%), and restricted motility (6, 40%). At baseline, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) in any of the demographics (age, height), or dependent variables (weight, BMI, menstruation domain score) among both groups. Post-study, there was a statistically significant reduction (p=0.000) in weight, and BMI mean values for the diet group (71.2 ± 4.2 kg, and 26.4 ± 0.8 kg/m2, respectively) and the diet + VM group (69.2 ± 3.7 kg; 26.1 ± 0.9 kg/m2, respectively). For the improvement in the menstrual complaints, a significant increase (p<0.05) in the menstruation domain mean score was shown in the diet group (3.9 ± 1.0), and the diet + VM group (4.6 ± 0.5). On comparing both groups post-study, there was a statistically significant improvement (p=0.024) in the severity of menstruation-related problems in favor of the diet + VM group.

The authors concluded that VM yielded greater improvement in menstrual pain, irregularities, and premenstrual symptoms in PCOS patients when added to caloric restriction than utilizing the low-calorie diet alone in treating that condition.


  • Tiny sample size.
  • A trail design (A+B vs B) which will inevitably generate a positive result.
  • Questionable ethics.

VM is a relatively invasive and potentially embarrassing intervention for any woman; I imagine that this is all the more true in Egypt. In such circumstances, it is mandatory to ask whether a planned study is ethically justifiable. I would answer this question related to an implausible treatment like VM with a straight NO!

I realize that there may be people who disagree with me. But even those guys should accept that, at the very minimum, such a study must be designed such that it leads to a clear answer – is VM effective or not? The present trial merely suggests that the placebo effect associated with VM is powerful (which is hardly surprising for a therapy like VM).

Practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) often argue against treating back problems with drugs. They also frequently defend their own therapy by claiming it is backed by published guidelines. So, what should we think about guidelines for the management of back pain?

This systematic review was aimed at:

  1. systematically evaluating the literature for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that included the pharmaceutical management of non-specific LBP;
  2. appraising the methodological quality of the CPGs;
  3. qualitatively synthesizing the recommendations with the intent to inform non-prescribing providers who manage LBP.

The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Index to Chiropractic Literature, AMED, CINAHL, and PEDro to identify CPGs that described the management of mechanical LBP in the prior five years. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts and potentially relevant full text were considered for eligibility. Four investigators independently applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument for critical appraisal. Data were extracted for pharmaceutical intervention, the strength of recommendation, and appropriateness for the duration of LBP.

Only nine guidelines with global representation met the eligibility criteria. These CPGs addressed pharmacological treatments with or without non-pharmacological treatments. All CPGs focused on the management of acute, chronic, or unspecified duration of LBP. The mean overall AGREE II score was 89.3% (SD 3.5%). The lowest domain mean score was for applicability, 80.4% (SD 5.2%), and the highest was Scope and Purpose, 94.0% (SD 2.4%). There were ten classifications of medications described in the included CPGs: acetaminophen, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, oral corticosteroids, skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), and atypical opioids.

The authors concluded that nine CPGs, included ten medication classes for the management of LBP. NSAIDs were the most frequently recommended medication for the treatment of both acute and chronic LBP as a first line pharmacological therapy. Acetaminophen and SMRs were inconsistently recommended for acute LBP. Meanwhile, with less consensus among CPGs, acetaminophen and antidepressants were proposed as second-choice therapies for chronic LBP. There was significant heterogeneity of recommendations within many medication classes, although oral corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, and antibiotics were not recommended by any CPGs for acute or chronic LBP.

Oddly, this review was published by chiros in a chiro journal. The authors mention that nearly all guidelines the included CPGs recommended non-pharmacological treatments for non-specific LBP, however it was not always delineated as to precede or be used in conjunction with pharmacological intervention.

I find the review interesting because I think it suggests that:

  1. CPGs are not the most reliable form of evidence. Their guidance depends on how up-to-date they are and on the identity and purpose of the authors.
  2. Guidelines are therefore often contradictory.
  3. Back pain is a symptom for which currently no optimal treatment exists.
  4. The most reliable evidence will rarely come from CPGs but from rigorous, up-to-date, independent systematic reviews such as those from the Cochrane Collaboration.

So, the next time chiropractors osteopaths, acupuncturists, etc. tell you “BUT MY THERAPY IS RECOMMENDED IN THE GUIDELINES”, please take it with a pinch of salt.

Ayush-64 is an Ayurvedic formulation, developed by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), the apex body for research in Ayurveda under the Ministry of Ayush. Originally developed in 1980 for the management of Malaria, this drug has now been repurposed for COVID-19 as its ingredients showed notable antiviral, immune-modulator, and antipyretic properties. Its ingredients are:

Alstonia scholaris R. Br. Aqueous extract of (Saptaparna) Bark-1 part
Picrorhiza Kurroa Royle Aqueous extract of (Kutki) Rhizome-1 part
Swertia chirata Buch-Ham. Aqueous extract of (Chirata) Whole plant-1 part
Caesalphinia crista, Linn. Fine powder of seed (Kuberaksha) Pulp-2 parts

The crucial question, of course, is does AYUSH-64 work?

An open-label randomized controlled parallel-group trial was conducted at a designated COVID care centre in India with 80 patients diagnosed with mild to moderate COVID-19 and randomized into two groups. Participants in the AYUSH-64 add-on group (AG) received AYUSH-64 two tablets (500 mg each) three times a day for 30 days along with standard conventional care. The control group (CG) received standard care alone.

The outcome measures were:

  • the proportion of participants who attained clinical recovery on days 7, 15, 23, and 30,
  • the proportion of participants with negative RT-PCR assay for COVID-19 at each weekly time point,
  • change in pro-inflammatory markers,
  • metabolic functions,
  • HRCT chest (CO-RADS category),
  • the incidence of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR)/Adverse Event (AE).

Out of 80 participants, 74 (37 in each group) contributed to the final analysis. A significant difference was observed in clinical recovery in the AG (p < 0.001 ) compared to CG. The mean duration for clinical recovery in AG (5.8 ± 2.67 days) was significantly less compared to CG (10.0 ± 4.06 days). Significant improvement in HRCT chest was observed in AG (p = 0.031) unlike in CG (p = 0.210). No ADR/SAE was observed or reported in AG.

The authors concluded that AYUSH-64 as adjunct to standard care is safe and effective in hastening clinical recovery in mild to moderate COVID-19. The efficacy may be further validated by larger multi-center double-blind trials.

I do object to these conclusions for several reasons:

  1. The study cannot possibly determine the safety of AYUSH-64.
  2. Even for assessing its efficacy, it was too small.
  3. The trial design followed the often-discussed A+B vs B concept and is thus prone to generate false-positive results.

I believe that it is highly irresponsible, during a medical crisis like ours, to conduct studies that can only produce unreliable findings. If there is a real possibility that a therapy might work, we do need to test it, but we should take great care that the test is rigorous enough to generate reliable results. This, I think, is all the more true, if – like in the present case – the study was done with governmental support.

A recent article in LE PARISIEN entitled “L’homéopathie vétérinaire, c’est sans effet… mais pas sans risque” – Veterinary homeopathy is without effect … but not without risk, tells it like it is. Here are a few excerpts that I translated for you.

More than 77% of French people have tried homeopathy in their lifetime. But have you ever given it to your pet? Harmless in most cases, its use can be dangerous when it replaces a treatment whose effectiveness is scientifically proven … from a safety point of view, the tiny granules are indeed irreproachable: their use does not induce any drug interaction or undesirable side effects, nor does it run the risk of overdosing or addiction … homeopathic preparations owe their harmlessness to their lack of proper effects. “Neither in human medicine nor in veterinary medicine, at the current stage, clinical studies of all levels do not provide sufficient scientific evidence to support the therapeutic efficacy of homeopathic preparations”, stated the French Veterinary Academy in May 2021. These conclusions are in line with those of the French Academies of Medicine and Pharmacy, the British Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and all the international scientific bodies that have given their opinion on the subject.

Therefore, when homeopathy delays diagnosis or is used in place of proven effective treatments, its use represents a “loss of opportunity” for your pet. The greatest danger of homeopathy is not that the remedies are ineffective, but that some homeopaths believe that their therapies can be used as a substitute for genuine medical treatment,” summarizes a petition to the UK veterinary regulatory body signed by more than 1,000 British veterinarians. At best, this claim is misleading and, at worst, it can lead to unnecessary suffering and death.”

But how can we explain the number of testimonies from pet owners who say that “it works”? “I am very satisfied with the Kalium Bichromicum granules for my cat with an eye ulcer, which is healing very well”… These improvements, real or supposed, can be explained by “contextual effects”, among which the famous placebo effect (which is not specific to humans), your subjective interpretation of his symptoms, or the natural history of the disease.

When these contextual effects are ignored or misunderstood, the spontaneous resolution or reduction of the disease can be wrongly attributed to homeopathy, and thus maintain the illusion of its effectiveness. This confusion is all the more likely because homeopathy owes much of its popularity to its use to treat “everyday ailments”: nausea, allergies, fatigue, bruises, nervousness, etc., which tend to get better on their own with time, or which have a fluctuating expression…

In April 2019, the association published an open letter addressed to the National Council of the Order of Veterinarians, calling on it to take a position on the compatibility of homeopathy with the “ethical and scientific requirements” of the profession. The organization, whose official function is to guarantee the quality of the service rendered to the public by the 20,000 veterinarians practicing in France, issued its conclusions last October. It invited veterinary training centers to remove homeopathy from their curricula, under penalty of having their accreditation withdrawn, and thus their ability to deliver training credits.

In my view, this is a remarkably good and informative text. How often do homeopathy fans claim IT WORKS FOR ANIMALS AND THUS CANNOT BE A PLACEBO! The truth is that, as we have so often discussed on this blog, homeopathy does not work beyond placebo for animals. This renders veterinary homeopathy:

  • a waste of money,
  • potentially dangerous,
  • in the worst cases a form of animal abuse.

My advice is that, as soon as a vet recommends homeopathy, you look for the exit.

I know, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is not really a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) but it is used by many SCAM practitioners and pain patients. It is, therefore, worth knowing whether it works.

This systematic review investigated the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for the relief of pain in adults. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were considered which compared strong non-painful TENS at or close to the site of pain versus placebo or other treatments in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis.

Reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB, Cochrane tool) and certainty of evidence (Grading and Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). The outcome measures were the mean pain intensity and the proportions of participants achieving reductions of pain intensity (≥30% or >50%) during or immediately after TENS. Random effect models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios. Subgroup analyses were related to trial methodology and characteristics of pain.

The review included 381 RCTs (24 532 participants). Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo (91 RCTs, 92 samples, n=4841, SMD=-0·96 (95% CI -1·14 to -0·78), moderate-certainty evidence). Methodological (eg, RoB, sample size) and pain characteristics (eg, acute vs chronic, diagnosis) did not modify the effect. Pain intensity was lower during or immediately after TENS compared with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used as part of standard of care (61 RCTs, 61 samples, n=3155, SMD = -0·72 (95% CI -0·95 to -0·50], low-certainty evidence). Levels of evidence were downgraded because of small-sized trials contributing to imprecision in magnitude estimates. Data were limited for other outcomes including adverse events which were poorly reported, generally mild, and not different from comparators.

The authors concluded that there was moderate-certainty evidence that pain intensity is lower during or immediately after TENS compared with placebo and without serious adverse events.

This is an impressive review, not least because of its rigorous methodology and the large number of included trials. Its results are clear and convincing. In the words of the authors: “TENS should be considered in a similar manner to rubbing, cooling or warming the skin to provide symptomatic relief of pain via neuromodulation. One advantage of TENS is that users can adjust electrical characteristics to produce a wide variety of TENS sensations such as pulsate and paraesthesiae to combat the dynamic nature of pain. Consequently, patients need to learn how to use a systematic process of trial and error to select electrode positions and electrical characteristics to optimise benefits and minimise problems on a moment to moment basis.”

1 2 3 18
Recent Comments

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

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