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

wellness

Need to find a last-minute Christmas present?

What about the ‘libido-boosting soft drink G Spot? That surely would make a wonderful holiday season (provided the drink does not get highjacked by your mother-in-law). Here is more info, in case you are interested:

Launched in May 2023, the line of plant-based sparkling drinks include “life-enhancing adaptogens and nootropics that invigorate and boost performance and cognitive functions”.

“I’ve had a serious soft drink habit for the past 20 years, and I don’t drink enough water,” Gillian Anderson (OBE), the firm’s founder and brain behind the drinks, said. “I know sugar and caffeine are not good for me, but I haven’t found an alternative that has the same effect. And although I love the idea of flavoured water, I really don’t like the taste of what’s out there. So, I thought, if what I’m looking for doesn’t exist, why don’t I make it?”

Arouse, specifically, has been designed to “awaken your senses” with Passionfruit, White Peach and Habanero, blended expertly with functional ingredients, including: Butterfly Pea (Clitoria ternatea), a plant species used in traditional medicine as an aphrodisiac; I-Arginine and I-Citrulline, amino acids which increase blood flow to sexual organs to improve libido; and Vitamin B6, a nutrient that regulates sexual hormones.

“At G Spot, we believe wellness is due a fresh take. One that’s less intense and anxiety inducing. One that truly makes you feel good, without guilt or inhibition. Our newest drink, Arouse, embodies our commitment to this philosophy. Arouse isn’t just a flavour; it’s an experience!” says CEO Rebekah Hall.

Named after their intended effects, the rest of the line comes in the form of Lift, combining berry, apply and peppercorn flavors with the wellbeing benefits of bacopa, theanine, cordyceps, and lion’s mane (boosting energy levels, stamina, and brain power while also combating stress); Protect, blending meadowsweet, ginger, lemon, turmeric, peppercorn and chaga (offering additional immune system-boosting benefits)’ and Soothe, which combines apples, sage, and cornflower with magnesium, maca, reishi, and ashwagandha (which works to relax the body as it benefits from the brand-wide libido boost).

All G Spot drinks available online in 6- and 12-pack bundles (250ml per can), as well as in Harvey Nichols (in-store and online) in the UK.

Prices range from £3.50 to £29.99 ($4.28 to $36.54).

The drinks are advertised to invigorate and boost performance and cognitive functions.

Any evidence for these medicinal claims?

Sadly not – at least I could not find any.

A case for the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA)?

Possibly!

 

“Le Figaro” has published two articles (one contra and one pro) authored by ‘NoFakeMed’ (an association of health professionals warning of the danger of fake medicine) signed by a long list of healthcare professionals (including myself) who argue that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) should be excluded from public healthcare. It relates to the fact that, since last June, a committee set up by the French government has been bringing together opponents and supporters of SCAM. At the heart of the debate is the question of how SCAMs should be regulated, and the place they should occupy in the realm of healthcare. Should they be included or excluded?

Here is the piece arguing for EXCLUSION (my translation):

They’re called alternative medicine, complementary medicine, parallel medicine, alternative medicine, SCAM, and other fancy words. The authorities prefer to call them “non-conventional healthcare practices” (NCSP), or “non-conventional health practices” (NCHP). The choice of terminology is more than just a parochial quarrel: it’s a question of knowing what quality of medicine we want, and whether we agree to endorse illusory techniques whose main argument is their popularity. This raises the question of how to regulate these practices. Some people want to force them into the healthcare system, hospitals, health centres and nursing homes. And they are prepared to use all manner of oratory and caricature to legitimise questionable practices.

Unconventional healthcare practices are on the up, and the number of practitioners and practices has been rising steadily since the 2000s; there are now around 400 therapeutic NHPs. But their success is often due to a lack of understanding of the philosophy behind them, and their lack of effectiveness beyond context effects. This was seen in the debate surrounding homeopathy, which lost much of the confidence placed in it as soon as it stopped to be reimbursed in France and was confronted with the work of popularising it on its own merits among the general public. The ethical imperative of respect for patients means providing them with reliable information so that they can make a free and informed choice.

This raises the question of the place or otherwise to be given to NHPs within the healthcare system. Although there are many different names for them, they are all practices that claim to relate to care and well-being, without having been proven to be effective, and based on theories that are not supported by scientific evidence. Admittedly, the evidence is evolving, and a practice can demonstrate its usefulness in healthcare. This is true, for instance, of hypnosis, whose usefulness as a tool in certain situations is no longer debated since it has become possible to measure and explain both its benefits and its limitations.

However, there is no question of legitimising the entire range of NHPs on the pretext that they are supposedly harmless. Many of them do have adverse effects, sometimes serious, either directly or because they lead to a lack of care. These effects also exist with conventional treatments, but the risks must always be weighed against the proven benefits. The risks associated with NHPs are therefore unacceptable, given their ineffectiveness.

Furthermore, there are abuses associated with NHPs, even if (fortunately!) they are not frequent. Sectarian aberrations are not systematically linked to NHPs, but here again the risk is unacceptable. In its 2021 activity report, Miviludes indicates that 25% of referrals concern the field of health, and that 70% of these relate to SCAM. The number of health-related referrals has risen from 365 in 2010 to 842 in 2015, and exceed 1,000 in 2021.

Conventional medicine is of course not immune to such aberrations, and Miviludes estimates that 3,000 doctors are linked to a sectarian aberration. But the health professional associations have tackled the problem head-on, notably by setting up a partnership with Miviludes and multiple safeguards (verification of diplomas and authorisation to practise, obligation to undergo continuing training, codes of ethics and public health codes, professional justice, declaration of links of interest, etc.). The professional associations have raised awareness of sexual and gender-based violence, universities are providing training in critical reading of scientific articles, and community initiatives are flourishing to improve public information.

We agree that the choices of our patients must be respected, and everyone has recourse to the wellness practices of their choice. But, at the same time, patients have the right when they consult a healthcare professional, a hospital or a health centre, to know that they will be looked after by healthcare professionals offering conscientious, dedicated, evidence-based care.

In view of the current challenges facing our healthcare system, the response must not be to offer more pseudo-medicine on the pretext that people are already using it. The real answer is to rely on evidence, to provide resources for more research, to continue with research, to rely on social work, not to neglect mental health, to improve disease prevention, and to keep pressure groups at bay, whether they come from pharmaceutical companies or the promoters of esoteric, costly and sometimes dangerous practices.

___________________________

Tomorrow, I will translate and comment on the pro-piece that ‘Le Figaro’ today published alongside this article.

 

PS

The list of signatories can be found in the origninal paper.

Despite effective vaccines, there is still a need for effective treatments for COVID, especially for people in the community. Dietary supplements have long been used to treat respiratory infections, and preliminary evidence indicates some may be effective in people with COVID-19. This study tested whether a combination of vitamin C, vitamin D3, vitamin K2 and zinc would improve overall health and decrease symptom burden in outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19.

Participants were randomised to receive either vitamin C (6 g), vitamin D3 (1000 units), vitamin K2 (240 μg) and zinc acetate (75 mg) or placebo daily for 21 days and were followed for 12 weeks. An additional loading dose of 50 000 units vitamin D3 (or placebo) was given on day one. The primary outcome was participant-reported overall health using the EuroQol Visual Assessment Scale summed over 21 days. Secondary outcomes included health status, symptom severity, symptom duration, delayed return to usual health, frequency of hospitalisation and mortality.

A total of 90 patients (46 control, 44 treatment) were randomised. The study was stopped prematurely due to insufficient capacity for recruitment. The mean difference (control-treatment) in cumulative overall health was -37.4 (95% CI -157.2 to 82.3), p=0.53 on a scale of 0-2100. No clinically or statistically significant differences were seen in any secondary outcomes.

The authors concluded that, in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19, the dietary supplements vitamin C, vitamin D3, vitamin K2 and zinc acetate showed no clinically or statistically significant effects on the documented measures of health compared with a placebo when given for 21 days. Termination due to feasibility limited our ability to demonstrate the efficacy of these supplements for COVID-19. Further research is needed to determine clinical utility.

In several ways I am puzzled by this study. On the other hand, I should congratulate the naturopathic authors for honestly reporting such a squarely negative result. One could, of course, argue that the study was under-powered and that thus the findings are not conclusive. However, the actual survival curve depicting the results show clearly that there was not even the tiniest trend for the supplement to show any effect. In other words, a larger sample would have most likely yielded the same result.

Participants randomised to the treatment arm received:

  1. Vitamin D3 50 000 units orally once on day 1 of the study (capsule).
  2. Vitamin K2/D3 120 μg/500 units orally two times per day for 21 days (liquid).
  3. Vitamin C/Zinc acetate 2 g/25 mg orally three times daily for 21 days (capsule).

I fail to understand why the researchers might have conceived the hypothesis that such a mixture would be effective. Only 90 of a planned 200 participants were enrolled in this study which ran between September 2021 and April 2022. I fail to understand why recruitment was so poor that the study eventually had to be aborted. My speculation is that the naturopaths in charge of running the trial were too inexperienced in conducting such research to make it a success.

The study was supported by the Ottawa Integrative Cancer Centre Foundation and by Mavis and Martin Sacher. All investigational products for this study were provided in-kind by New Roots Herbal. Perhaps in future these sponsors should think again before they support amateurs pretending to be scientists?

The BBC has a popular program entitled JUST ONE THING presented by Dr, Michael Mosely. In each of these short broadcasts, Mosely presents JUST ONE THING that will make your life more healthy. Whenever I listen to them, I get slightly irritated. Mosely is clearly a very skilled presenter and makes complicated things easy to understand; but for my taste his approach is totally devoid of critical thinking. This is obviously the point of the series and probably one reason for its success. So, maybe it needs to be tolerated – perhaps, but surely not if it seriously misleads the public on important health issues.

The most recent broadcast was entitled EMBRACE THE RAIN and, in my view, it did cross this crucial line. Mosely explained that after it has rained, the air is full of negative ions and these ions are effective against depression. The center piece was his interview with Prof Michael Terman who explained some of his research on the subject, in particular a clinical trial which showed that intensely ionized air was effective against depression. Terman explained that this was more than a placebo effect, that it worked even for serious chronic depressed patients, and that the effect was better than standard treatments.

At no stage was there an even mildly critical question from Mosely. Consequently many depressed patients might now abandon their standard treatments and opt for air ionizers in their homes or walks in the rain which was deemed to be just as effective. In view of the fact that chronic depression, through its suicide risk, can be a life-threatening condition, I find this rather concerning.

My concerns were not exactly alleviated when I did a quick search for the evidence. The most recent review on the subject states that there has been considerable interest in the potential effects of negative air ions (NAIs) on human health and well-being, but the conclusions have been inconsistent and the mechanisms remain unclear. So, why does Terman promote NAIs as though they are the best thing since sliced bread? It took me less than a minute to find a possible answer: he holds a patent for a NEGATIVE ION GENERATOR!

It is laudable of the BBC and Michael Mosely to present aspects of healthcare in a simple, understandable way. Yet, it would be even more laudable, if they did their homework a bit better and, crucially, tried to also educate the public in critical thinking. After all ’embracing the rain’ will not change lives but critical thinking most certainly does!

How often have we heard that, even if so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) does not improve the more tangible health outcomes, at least it does improve the quality of life of those who use it. But is that popular assumprion correct?

The present study investigated the use of SCAM and its relationship with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A total of 421 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who met the inclusion criteria were recruited in this cross-sectional study. The researchers recorded the use of SCAM, such as:

  • supplements,
  • Kampo,
  • acupuncture,
  • yoga.

HRQOL was assessed by EuroQOL.

A total of 161 patients (38.2%) with type 2 diabetes mellitus used some type of SCAM. The use of supplements and/or health foods was the highest among SCAM users (112 subjects, 26.6%). HRQOL was significantly lower in patients who used some SCAM (0.829 ± 0.221) than in those without any SCAM use (0.881 ± 0.189), even after adjustments for confounding factors [F(1, 414) = 2.530, p = 0.014].

The authors concluded that proper information on SCAM is needed for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

We have often discussed whether SCAM use improves or reduces QoL. The evidence is mixed.

Some studies of often poor quality suggest that SCAM improves QoL, e.g.:

However, other studies suggest that SCAM has no effect or even reduces QoL, e.g.:

The authors of the present study contribute further evidence to the discussion:

Huo et al. evaluated HRQOL in 17,923 patients with bronchial asthma using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and showed that HRQOL was significantly lower in patients with than in those without the use of CAM []. Opheim et al. also demonstrated that HRQOL was significantly lower in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with than in those without the use of CAM []. These findings indicate that the use of some CAM is associated with lower HRQOL. Consistent with previous findings, HRQOL was significantly lower in patients with the use of some CAM than in those without any CAM in the present study.

The issue is obviously complex. Findings would depend on the type of patient and the form of SCAM as well on a multitude of other factors. Moreover, it is often unclear what was the cause and what the effect: did SCAM cause low (or high) QoL or did the latter just prompt the use of the former?

In view of this confusion, it is probably safe to merely conclude that the often-heard blanket statement that SCAM improves QoL is not nearly as certain as SCAM enthusiasts want it to be.

Guest post by Ken McLeod

Readers will recall that Barbara O’Neill is an Australian health crank, completely unqualified in anything, who is subject of a Permanent Prohibition Order issued by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission, (HCCC),[1] preventing her from engaging in any health-related activity, including ‘health education,’ in Australia. The NSW Public Health Act 2010 provides that it is an offence for a person to provide ‘health education’ in contravention of a prohibition order, with a fine of $60,500 AUD ($38,151 USD, 36251 Euros) for an individual or imprisonment for 3 years, or both, or $121,000 AUD for a corporation.

For jurisdictional reasons that Order does not apply outside Australia and for several years she been touring the world giving health education lectures. The latest was a lecture tour of Ireland.[2] Despite the thorough debunking of her fruitloop beliefs by the HCCC,[3] she has maintained them and continues to give the ‘health education’ that was so dangerous that it led to the Prohibition Order in Australia.

Her Irish ‘health education’ lectures were live-streamed to people in Australia who paid the 20 Euro fee, and one was recorded by us.[4]

A transcript was made and is available online.[5] Her statements were analysed and some comments are made as follows. Alas, we didn’t have time to take a deep dive of her lecture to find the best references, but the following shows that an amateur with limited time and resources can prove that she does not know what she is talking about and that her advice is dangerous, even life-threatening.

It is up to the health regulators and immigration authorities in each country to act on her activities there, but so far none outside Australia have done so.

So a quick analysis of her ‘lecture’ in Dublin on 27 September 2023 shows that O’Neill has learned nothing from her experience with the HCCC. Some comments:

1. O’Neill and her husband, after the Prohibition Order was issued, changed the name of their facility from ‘Misty Mountain Health Retreat’ to ‘Misty Mountain Lifestyle Retreat’ to avoid the jurisdiction of the HCCC. However on four occasions in her lecture O’Neill referred to it as a ‘health retreat.’ 00:07:23 , 00:15:48, 01:30:04, 01:40:16.

2. At 00:12:53 O’Neill claims that the Amish don’t get autism. That is false, as explained by AP Factcheck. [6]

3. At 00:12:54 O’Neill claims that the Amish, ‘They don’t vaccinate their Children. Did you know that they don’t vaccinate their Children and yet they don’t get autism Very rare. Maybe 1%. And often that’s because of chemical exposure. There is always a reason. So why are vaccinations causing autism? Well, it’s neurotoxins, the neurotoxins. ‘

False; Amish do vaccinate their children. [7] However, studies have documented cases of autism, diabetes and cancer among the Amish, albeit at lower rates in some cases than the broader population and for reasons that are unrelated to their vaccination status. These reasons include the cultural norms and customs that may be playing a role in the reporting style of caregivers. [8] O’Neill is engaging in cherry-picking on a grand scale here.

4. At 00:13:37 O’Neill claims that ‘there are still two more neurotoxins’ (In vaccines.) Because children are still autistic. There’s formaldehyde, and there is aluminium, both neurotoxins.’

This is scaremongering disinformation. The CDC says ‘Formaldehyde is diluted during the vaccine manufacturing process, but residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in some current vaccines. The amount of formaldehyde present in some vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern.’ As for aluminium, the CDC says ‘Ingredients like aluminum salt help boost the body’s response to the vaccine.’ The CDC says that both are safe. [9]

5. At 00:15:01 O’Neill claims ‘did you know that the milk in the supermarket if you give that to a newborn baby cow, that cow will die?’

I can find no reference supporting that and I suggest that it is pure fantasy.

6. At 00:18:29 O’Neill claims that ‘parents discover that they put their trust in the princes and vaccinated their child. Now their child has epilepsy. Now their child has autism.’

This is misleading panic-mongering that is a misrepresentation of the science. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners says ‘Seizures and status epilepticus can occur within 14 days following administration of inactivated and live-attenuated vaccines. These vaccine-proximate seizures can undermine parental confidence in vaccine safety and affect further vaccination decisions. Vaccine-proximate status epilepticus (VP-SE) is uncommon but may be the first manifestation of genetic developmental epileptic encephalopathies, including Dravet syndrome.’ So ‘epilepsy’ may be first encountered [10] following vaccination but the root cause is genetic.

7. At 00:20:27 O’Neill says that she would like to suggest that no child would be vaccinated, because the fact is, our body was designed to heal itself.

This is pure crazy antivax propaganda, unsupported by the facts.

8. At 00:22:01 O’Neill claims ‘skin cancer has only been around in about the last 80 years, and you know what they’re finding today? That vitamin D deficiency is a big contributing back factor to skin cancer’.

The first claim is false; the science shows that skin cancers have been around ‘since the beginning of time.’ [11]

As for the second claim, the research published at the US National Library of Medicine shows that O’Neill’s advice is dangerous. ‘It is, therefore, preferable and safer to obtain adequate levels of vitamin D through diet than through sun exposure. In fact, it is currently accepted that dietary and supplemental vitamin D is functionally identical to that produced after UV exposure, being more reliable and quantifiable (the risks of keeping high levels of vitamin D have not been extensively studied) source of this vitamin.’ And ‘Neither natural nor artificial sun exposure should be encouraged as the main source of vitamin D.’ [12]

9. At 00:23:18 O’Neill disputes claims that ‘cholesterol causes heart disease. Well, it’s been going for 40 years now, and it still hasn’t proven that. But you know what? It has proven that people with high cholesterol levels don’t get Alzheimer’s.’

O’Neill’s first claim points to the conflicting research as revealed by the Cochrane Collaboration. [13] As for her second claim, the research does not justify her claim that it is ’proven.’ The evidence is conflicting and as the Alzheimer’s Society of the UK say, ‘More research is needed to better understand this relationship and what it can tell us.’ [14] O’Neill’s conviction is not based on evidence.

10. At 00:34:41 O’Neill said that at Dublin airport ‘about 10 days ago,’ she was approached by a man who asked ‘Are you the Australian doctor? And I smiled.’

O’Neill did not correct him and allowed him to be duped into believing she is a real doctor. Despite having no qualifications in anything O’Neill has used the honorific title ‘Dr’ many times in social media,[15] so it is no surprise that he assumed she was a doctor. I can’t help but be confused by her use of the ‘Dr.’ Throughout her lectures she denigrates real doctors, and then tries to boost her credibility by adopting the title.

11. At 00:35:21 she claimed that with ‘epigenetics, you can actually turn your genes on or off.’…. ‘So Michael effectively turned those genes off with castor oil. Castor is very effective for for cataracts. Put it in your eye, one lady said. Is it safe? Does anyone ever ask that of the doctor? Is that drug safe? Then the people have been putting cholesterol in their eyes for centuries. It’s safe.’

Bollocks! As Consumer Lab says ‘Although eye drops containing castor oil may help improve symptoms of dry eye and blepharitis, there is currently no compelling evidence that applying castor oil to the eye can diminish cataracts.’ [16] And there is no evidence that Michael turned the genes off.

12. At 00:40:08 she refers to a woman who recently had a stroke. She says

‘… because she had a stroke, she was put on the protocol she was on put on statins. Cholesterol lowering medication with clear arteries. How much sense does that make? You don’t have. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work this out. Trust in your gut feeling trust in this incredible body that God has given you. Her blood was no longer thick. Her arteries are open now. And so she came to our retreat and I said, Well, I can’t tell you what to do. And I have no authority over your medication. Only you, and go. You and your doctor do. But this is what I would do. I would stop the blood thinning medication immediately because that aspirin causes brain bleeds, eye bleeds and stomach bleeds. Got that? And I would stop the statin drugs because that the side effect of statin drugs is Alzheimer’s dementia, uh, memory loss, muscle wasting. And they’ve just added another one, which is breast cancer, because all our sex hormones are made from cholesterols.’

O’Neill told a woman who had suffered a stroke to stop taking her life-saving medication! These medications are prescribed by highly qualified medical specialists based on the research. As the UK Stroke Association says, ‘Blood-thinning medications reduce your risk of stroke by helping to prevent blood clots from forming. You might be prescribed them after a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or a stroke caused by a blockage (an ischaemic stroke, or clot).’[17] It is clear that O’Neill, who has no qualifications in anything, does not know what she is talking about.

As for her claim that the side effects of statins is breast cancer, the research shows the opposite. ‘While statins do not affect the incidence of most cancers, they do exert significant benefits on recurrence and survival in many cancer types, including breast cancer.’ [18]

13. At 42:48 O’Neill claims ‘If you are on cholesterol lowering medication and many have been deceived….’ As above, it is O’Neill who is doing the deceiving.

14. At 45:09 O’Neill claims that ‘If you stop your cholesterol lowering medication, there will be a side effect. Your memory will return. Your muscles will get stronger. Any little appearances of Alzheimer’s will start to ease.’

As above, the available research does not show that.

15. At 48:57 O’Neill claims ‘Why did they put fluoride in water? The claim was to harden the teeth. Has it hardened the teeth? Not at all. Has it reduced tooth decay? Not at all.’ And ‘But that fluoride is very hard on the kidneys, very hard on the liver.’

The research here is overwhelming; as the CDC says: ‘The CDC named community water fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

‘Many research studies have proven the safety and benefits of fluoridated water. For  75 years people in the United States have been drinking water with added fluoride and enjoying the benefits of better dental health.

‘Drinking fluoridated water keeps teeth strong and reduces cavities (also called tooth decay) by about 25% in children and adults.’

As for O’Neill’s claim that fluoride is very hard on the kidneys, very hard on the liver,’ the research is inconclusive, and in fact the reverse may be true. Research shows ‘Fluoride exposure may contribute to complex changes in kidney and liver related parameters among U.S. adolescents. As the study is cross-sectional, reverse causality cannot be ruled out; therefore, altered kidney and/or liver function may impact bodily fluoride absorption and metabolic processes.’ So the science does not support O’Neill’s certainty.

16. At 48:57 O’Neill claims that ‘all body symptoms and body diseases and shows how dehydrating has a huge factor.’ O’Neill gives no evidence to support that huge claim.

17. At 01:00:20 O’Neill claims that a woman told her ‘I had the vaccine. Now I’ve got clots. Barbara, I had the vaccine. I can’t. I cannot even remember all the diseases that are arising. Have you noticed? And so many people were blackmailed into that vaccine.’ And ‘Is that (COVID19) a crisis? it’s not a crisis at all. And yet we’re seeing so many problems arising.’

O’Neill is dreadfully wrong here. COVID 19 was a crisis. How else would we describe a pandemic that is known to have killed at least 6,961,014 deaths, as reported to the WHO? [19] And what are the problems that we are seeing arising? Outside her imagination, that is.

18. At 01:00:20 O’Neill claims that ‘one man said, Show me the safety studies. They gave him three pages of blank paper. No safety studies, no safety studies at all.’ (On vaccines). And ‘drugs never cure disease.’ And a few lines later, again, ‘Drugs never cure disease.’

The allegation that ‘They (doctors) gave him three pages of blank paper’, is just so deranged. No doctor would do that because there are thousands of studies of vaccine safety.

O’Neill’s claim that there are no safety studies on vaccines is hopelessly wrong and dishonest. It’s one of the many anti-vax lies circulating on the internet, so beloved by the gullible. As the Australian Dept of Health and Aged Care say, ‘Research and testing is an essential part of developing safe and effective vaccines. In Australia, every vaccine must pass strict safety testing before the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) will register it for use. Before vaccines become available to the public, they are tested on thousands of people who take part in large clinical trials.’ [20] It took me a few seconds on the internet to find an interesting research paper on HPV vaccines, including a section on safety. [21] O’Neill could do that so the inevitable conclusion is that she set out to deceive. As for ‘drugs never cure disease,’ that is so bizarre, so whacky, so deluded, that it almost not worth challenging. But I will anyway; medical professionals have seen drugs work billions of times, and I can testify that I was saved from a life-threatening illness due to cephalexin.

19. At 01:10:49 O’Neill claims ‘some (medications) can be stopped immediately, like your statin drugs and your blood thinners. Yeah, what do you take instead of statin drugs? Well, there’s no need, because cholesterol is not a problem.’

O’Neill’s advice here is life-threatening rubbish. As the Mayo Clinic says ‘Abruptly stopping an anticoagulant can increase your risk of a stroke.’ [22] As for her advice on cholesterol, see above.

20. At 01:15:39 O’Neill claims that there was ‘No diabetes on the planet til sugar was well established.’ And lack of nose-breathing causes ‘Chronic fatigue syndrome. There’s one cause; it’s lack of oxygen at the cellular level.’

Humans have gathered sugar since we first became homo sapiens and diabetes has always been a problem for us and other animals.

As for her claim that lack of nose-breathing causes ‘Chronic fatigue syndrome;’ the Mayo Clinic says ‘The cause of ME/CFS is unknown, although there are many theories. Experts believe it might be triggered by a combination of factors.’ They go on to list many possible causes but lack of nose-breathing is not one of them.[23]

21. At 01:26:08 O’Neill claims that a researcher ‘…. could turn cancer cells on and off by the amount of animal, pro and animal protein that he was giving’ and liver cancer could be prevented by ‘a simple diet and cancer weights were very low low compared to the city again, with that high meat diet….’ There is some truth in this, but it does not justify O’Neill’s other advice to avoid prescribed medications.

22. At 01:49:26 O’Neill claims ‘if someone has a rash and they put cortisone on it, what happens to the rash? It’s gone, but But it comes back in about another week. Is that right? Twice as bad.’ And ‘No drug can heal cancer. The body and the body alone when it’s given the right conditions can cause cancer to be conquered in the body.’ And ‘A fever is nothing to fear.’

O’Neill’s claim that ‘No drug can heal cancer’ is demonstrably wrong. Life expectancy following cancer treatment has improved vastly over the decades, largely due to better detection and prescribed medications. As the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimates, ‘due to improved detection and treatment, deaths have dropped 41 percent from 1989 to 2018, according to the ACS.’ [24]

As for O’Neill’s claim that ‘a fever is nothing to fear,’ the Victorian Dept of Health says ‘High fever (about 41.5°C or more) is extremely dangerous and could trigger convulsions.’ [25]

23. At 01:53:47 O’Neill claims that drug therapy is not working.

What does O’Neill mean by that? Does she mean that prescribed medication does not work? If she is repeating her earlier claim that ‘drugs never cure disease?’ I repeat my earlier rebuttal. That is so bizarre, so whacky, so deluded, that it almost not worth challenging. But I will anyway; medical professionals have seen drugs work billions of times, and I can testify that I was saved from a life-threatening illness due to cephalexin.

I’ll finish the analysis here because you have suffered enough.

Readers everywhere now have rock-solid evidence that should be presented to their national health regulators, showing that O’Neill, as the HCCC put it, ‘poses a risk to the health and safety of members of the public’ and therefore ‘should be permanently prohibited from providing any health services, whether in a paid or voluntary capacity.’ And you have rock-solid evidence that should be presented to venue managers who have allowed O’Neill to present life-threatening ‘education’ to the public on their premises, asking them to cancel the booking. It’s not hard; it was done in Ireland by members of the public. That led to cancellation of the booking, and a rush by O’Neill’s supporters to find a new venue.

References

1 https://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/decisions-orders/public-statements-and-warnings/public-statement-and-statement-of-decision-in-relation-to-in-relation-to-mrs-barbara-o-neill

2 https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/controversial-wellness-coach-barbara-oneill-set-to-host-talk-in-ireland-this-month/a1781099169.html

3 https://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/216/Statement%20of%20Decision%20-%20Mrs%20Barbara%20ONeill.pdf.aspx

4 The video is available at https://rumble.com/v3lt611-barbara-oneill-positive-life-event-27th-september.html and a backup is available at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vqe9plhgjijunvl22kvb6/Barbara-ONeill-Positive-Life-Event-27th-September.mp4?rlkey=1kjyi9jdl8kfdp8kcdf1p4xba&dl=0

5 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/csl95hg7gomr318nygotx/TRANSCRIPT-BARBARA-O-NEILL-POSITIVE-LIFE-EVENT-DUBLIN-27-SEPT-2023.pdf?rlkey=z2d5uh59fwagzdfdk30hvpauy&dl=0

6 https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-amish-covid-vaccines-cancer-diabetes-autism-356029928165

7 https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-amish-covid-vaccines-cancer-diabetes-autism-356029928165

8https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268144514_Prevalence_Rates_of_Autism_Spectrum_Disorders_Among_the_Old_Order_Amish

9 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

10 https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2020/october/seizures-following-vaccination-in-children

11 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/08/03/false-claim-skin-cancer-has-only-been-around-for-60-years-fact-check/70515019007/

12 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8709188/

13 https://s4be.cochrane.org/blog/2018/07/02/cholesterol-and-heart-disease-whats-the-evidence/

14 https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/risk-factors-and-prevention/cholesterol-and-dementia

15 https://www.facebook.com/people/Dr-Barbara-ONeill/100093111507726/

16 https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/castor-oil-eye-drops-for-cataracts/castor-oil-cataracts/

17 https://www.stroke.org.uk/resources/blood-thinning-medication-and-stroke

18 https://breast-cancer-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13058-018-1066-z#author-information

19 https://covid19.who.int/

20 https://www.health.gov.au/are-vaccines-safe

21 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7565290/

22 https://connect.mayoclinic.org/blog/take-charge-healthy-aging/newsfeed-post/know-the-warning-signs-of-blood-thinner-complications/

23 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-fatigue-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20360490

24 https://www.healthline.com/health/breast-cancer/survival-facts-statistics#breast-cancer-stages

25 https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/fever#bhc-content

The ‘University College of Osteopathy’ announced a proposal to merge with the AECC University College (AECC UC).  Both institutions will seek to bring together the two specialist providers to offer a “unique inter-disciplinary environment for education, clinical practice and research in osteopathy, chiropractic, and across a wide range of allied health and related disciplines”.

The partnership is allegedly set to unlock significant opportunities for growth and development by bringing together the two specialist institutions’ expertise and resources across two locations – in Dorset and central London.

As a joint statement, Chair of the Board of Governors at AECC UC, Jeni Bremner and Chair of the Board of Governors at UCO, Professor Jo Price commented:

“We believe the proposed merger would further the institutional ambitions for both of our organisations and the related professional groups, by allowing us to expand our educational offering, grow student numbers and provide a unique inter-disciplinary training environment, providing students the opportunity to be immersed in multi-professional practice and research, with exposure to and participation in multi-disciplinary teams.

“There is also an exciting and compelling opportunity to expedite the development of a nationally unique, and internationally-leading MSK Centre of Excellence for Education and Research, developed and delivered across our two sites.”

The announcement is accompanied by further uncritical and promotional language:

Established as the first chiropractic training provider in Europe, AECC UC has been at the forefront of evidence-based chiropractic education, practice and research for more than 50 years. The institution is on an exciting journey of growth and development, having expanded and diversified its academic portfolio and activity beyond its traditional core offering of chiropractic across a broad range of allied health courses and apprenticeships, working closely with NHS, local authority and other system partners across Dorset and the south-west. The proposed merger with UCO would allow AECC UC to enhance the breadth and depth of its offer to support the expansion and development of the health and care workforce across a wider range of partners.

Now in its 106th year, UCO is one of the UK’s leading providers of osteopathic education and research with an established reputation for creating highly-skilled, evidence-informed graduates. UCO research is recognised as world-leading, delivering value to the osteopathic and wider health care community.

Sharon Potter, Acting Vice-Chancellor of UCO, said:

“As an institution that has long been at the forefront of osteopathic education and research, we are committed to ensuring further growth and development of the osteopathic profession.

“UCO has been proactively considering options to future-proof the institution. Following a review of strategic options, UCO is delighted by the proposed merger, working closely with AECC UC to ensure that UCO and osteopathy thrives as part of the inter-professional health sciences landscape, both academically and clinically. There is significant congruence between UCO and AECC UC in our strong aligned values, commitment to and delivery of excellent osteopathic education, clinical care and research, and opinion leadership.

“AECC UC has a strong track record of respecting the differences in professions, evidenced by the autonomy across the 10 different professional groups supported by the institution. The merger will not only mean we are protecting UCO through preserving its osteopathic heritage and creating a sustainable future, but that our staff and students can collaborate with other professional groups such as physiotherapy, chiropractic, sport rehabilitation, podiatry and diagnostic imaging, in a multidisciplinary MSK and rehabilitation environment unlike anywhere else in the UK.”

Professor Lesley Haig, Vice-Chancellor of AECC UC, commented:

“Preserving the heritage of UCO and safeguarding its future status as the flagship osteopathy training provider in the UK will be critical, just as it has been to protect the chiropractic heritage of the AECC brand. UCO is seen as synonymous with, and reflective of, the success of the osteopathy profession and we fully recognise and respect the important role that UCO plays not only as a sector-leading provider of osteopathic education, research and clinical care, but as the UK’s flagship osteopathy educational provider.

“Overall it is clear that UCO and AECC UC already have a common values base, similar understanding of approaches to academic and clinical delivery, and positive relationships upon which a future organisational structure and opportunities can be developed. It’s an exciting time for both institutions as we move forward in partnership to create something unique and become recognised nationally and internationally as a centre of excellence.”

The proposed merger would continue the already founded positive relations between the institutions, where regular visits, sharing of good practice, and collaborative research work are already taking place. Heads of terms for the potential merger have now been agreed and both institutions are entering into the next phase of discussions, which will include wide consultation with staff, students and other stakeholders to produce a comprehensive implementation plan.

__________________________________

In case this bonanza of platitudes and half-truths has not yet overwhelmed you,  I might be so bold as to ask 10 critical questions:

  1. What is an “evidence-based chiropractic education”? Does it include the messages that 1) subluxation is nonsense, 2) chiropractic manipulations can cause harm, 3) there is little evidence that they do more good than harm?
  2. How  an an “expansion and development of the health and care workforce” be anticipated on the basis of the 3 points I just made?
  3. What does the term “evidence-informed graduates” mean? Does it mean they are informed that you teach them nonsense but instruct them to practice this nonsense anyway?
  4. Do “options to future-proof the institution” include the continuation of misleading the public about the value of chiropractic/osteopathy?
  5. Does the”delivery of excellent osteopathic education, clinical care and research, and opinion leadership” account for the fact that the evidence for osteopathy is weak at best and for most conditions negative?
  6. By “preserving its osteopathic heritage”, do you intend to preserve also the reputation of your founding father, Andrew Taylor Still, who did many dubious things. In 1874, for instance, he was excommunicated by the Methodist Church because of his “laying on of hands”; specifically, he was accused of trying to emulate Jesus Christ, labelled an agent of the Devil, and condemned as practicing voodoo. Or do you prefer to white-wash the osteopathic heritage?
  7. You also want “to protect the chiropractic heritage”; does that mean you aim at white-washing the juicy biography of the charlatan who created chiropractic, DD Palmer, as well?
  8. “UCO and AECC UC already have a common values base” – what are they? As far as I can see, they mainly consist in hiding the truth about the uselessness of your activities from the public.
  9. How do you want to “recognised nationally and internationally as a centre of excellence”? Might it be a good idea to begin by critically assessing your interventions and ask whether they do more good than harm?
  10. Crucially, what is really behing the merger that you are trying to sell us with such concentrated BS?

Anja Zeidler (born 1993) became known in 2012 as the most successful fitness personality in Switzerland. After joining the bodybuilding scene in Los Angeles, a phase of self-discovery followed. Anja published her development and became what one nowadays calls an ‘INFLUENCER’. As Managing Director and Content Director of her own company, Anja Zeidler GmbH, Anja has made a name for herself as a public figure far beyond the fitness market with her activities as a ‘Selflove Influencer’, blogger, book author, motivational speaker, presenter and expert in the food & health sector. Furthermore, she is completing a degree at the Academy of Naturopathy for Holistic Health.

About a year and a half ago, Anja Zeidler had a desmoid tumor removed from under her left breast – and now it was reported to be back. The conventional treatment methods are clear: another surgical procedure or radiation. But Zeidler said she wants to wait with such interventions. For the time being, she has decided to go her own way. She wants to “balance any imbalances” with her naturopathic doctor and wishes to fight the disease on her own and with a “positive mindset.”

“On a spiritual level, they say that tumors can be related to trauma. That’s why I’ve tried breathing exercises and cocoa ceremonies. With these methods, I get into my subconscious and get closer to traumas, which I am not aware of, and try to dissolve them. So far, blatant things have come up that I had long forgotten and repressed,” she says enthusiastically. In addition, Zeidler wants to give up refined sugar with immediate effect, keep better control of her diet in general – even in her stressful everyday life – and drink freshly squeezed celery and beetroot juice every morning. In addition, she relies on “natural capsules with and grape seed OPC.” “I’ve read in studies that certain types of fungi and strong antioxidants like OPC are supposed to fight tumor cells.” There I follow the motto: ‘if it doesn’t help, at least it does not harm.'”

Zeidler’s tumor is a desmoid tumor, an abnormal growth that arises from connective tissues. These tumors are generally not considered malignant because they do not spread to other parts of the body; however, they can aggressively invade the surrounding tissue and can be very difficult to remove surgically. These tumors often recur, even after apparently complete removal.

Zeidler commented: “I am convinced that with a positive mindset you can contribute extremely much to the healing process. If the checks reveal rapid growth, I will of course seek medical treatment. Then I would opt for radiation.”

The trouble with ‘influencers’ is that they are gullible and influence the often gullible public to become more gullible. Thus their influence might cost many lives. Personally, I hope that the young woman does well with her erstwhile refusal of evidence-based treatments. Yet, I fear that the ‘Academy of Naturopathy for Holistic Health’ will teach her a lot of BS about the power of natural cancer cures. The sooner she agrees to have her tumor treated based on evidence, the better her prognosis, I’m sure.

When the media does not adhere to reporting guidelines regarding so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), this may deceive or mislead consumers about the safety and efficacy of these practices. A team of researchers analyzed whether Serbian online media adheres to reporting guidelines and described dominant psychological appeals used to promote TM/CAM.

They conducted a content analysis of 182 articles from six news and six magazine websites, published July–December 2021. Biologically based treatments – predominantly herbal products – were the most common (205/289 practices). SCAM practices were claimed to:

  • improve general health (71/386 claims),
  • alleviate respiratory problems,
  • boost the immunity,
  • and detox the body.

The tone was overwhelmingly positive, with most of the positive articles (145/176) neglecting to disclose the potential harms of SCAM. Few articles provided a recommendation to speak with a healthcare provider (24/176). Articles tended to appeal to SCAM’s long tradition of use (115/176), naturalness (80/176), and convenience (72/176). They used vague pseudoscientific jargon (105/176) and failed to cite sources for the claims that SCAM use is supported by science (39/176).

The authors concluded that given that SCAM use may lead to harmful outcomes (such as adverse events, avoidance of official treatment or interaction with it), Serbian online media reports on SCAM are inadequate to assist consumers’ decision-making. Our findings highlight issues that need to be addressed towards ensuring more critical health reporting, and, ultimately, better informed SCAM consumption choices.

A long time agao, in 2000, we did a similar survey. We compared what UK newspapers published about SCAM and conventional medicine to what German papers did. We found that the proportion of articles about SCAM seems to be considerably larger in the UK (15% v 5%), and, in contrast to articles on medical matters in general, reporting on SCAM in the UK was overwhelmingly positive. I wonder whether, 23 years later, the situation has changed.

The US ‘Public Citizen‘ is an American non-profit, progressive consumer rights advocacy group, and think tank based in Washington, D.C. They recently published an article entitled “FDA Guidance on Homeopathic Drugs: An Ongoing Public Health Failure“. Here are a few excerpts:

In December 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued new guidance on homeopathic drug products. The guidance states that the agency now “intends to apply a risk-based enforcement approach to the manufacturing, distribution and marketing of homeopathic drug products.”

Under this new risk-based approach, the agency plans to target its enforcement actions against homeopathic drug products marketed without FDA approval that fall within the following limited categories:

  • products with reports of injury that, after evaluation, raise potential safety concerns
  • products containing or purportedly containing ingredients associated with potentially significant safety concerns (for example, infectious agents or controlled substances)
  • products that are not administered orally or topically (for example, injectable drug products and ophthalmic drug products)
  • products intended to be used to prevent or treat serious or life-threatening diseases
  • products for vulnerable populations, such as immunocompromised individuals, infants and the elderly
  • products with significant quality issues (for example, products that are contaminated with foreign materials or objectionable microorganisms)

But this new FDA guidance fails to adequately address the public health threat posed by the agency’s decades-long permissive approach to these illegal drug products.

Under FDA regulations, prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) homeopathic products are considered drugs and are supposed to be subject to the same review and approval requirements as all other prescription and OTC medications. However, under a flawed enforcement policy issued in 1988, the FDA has allowed these drug products to be marketed in the U.S. without agency review or approval. Thus, all products labeled as homeopathic are being marketed without the FDA having evaluated their safety, effectiveness or quality…

… there is no plausible physiologic or medical basis to support the theory underlying homeopathy, nor is there evidence from well-designed, rigorous clinical trials showing that homeopathic drugs are safe and effective.

The FDA should declare unequivocally that all unapproved homeopathic drug products are illegal and direct all manufacturers to immediately remove such products from the market. In the meantime, as we have recommended for many years, consumers should not use homeopathic products. At best, the products are a waste of money, given the lack of any evidence that they are effective. At worst, they could cause serious harm because of the lack of FDA oversight to ensure safety.

_____________________

I fully agree with these sentiments. The harm caused by homeopathy is considerable and multi-facetted. Many previous posts have discudded these problems, e.g.:

Having warned about the dangers of homeopathy for decades, I feel it is high time for regulators across the world to take appropriate action.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

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

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

Archives
Categories