Updated Edition!
Wiki states that George Vithoulkas has been described as “the maestro of classical homeopathy” and is “widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist”. Others call him a “contemporary master of homeopathy” or credit him with the revival of the credibility of homeopathy.
A few days ago, THE MAESTRO has given an interview about the coronavirus which, I believe, is too hilarious to miss:
Q. What is your opinion of coronavirus, what homeopathy can do ?
A. Unless we have selected the real symptoms of the different stages of this influenza from the clinicians who are dealing at this moment with the infected cases, we cannot do anything substantial.
We should know the symptomatology of the beginning stages -before the pneumonia- and propose remedies for this stage in order to reduce the victims of going to the second stage. Also we should know the symptomatology of the later stage of pneumonia or diarrhea to propose different remedies for this advanced stage.
But the symptomatology has to be taken by an experienced homeopath in order to be reliable.
I think the best would be to establish contact with the clinicians in order to give us a fist hand information.
To give at random remedies as a prophylaxis and to make people think that they are protected it is irresponsible.
Q. What do you think about those homeopaths who advertise that are treating cancer cases using homeopathic remedies while at the same time the patients are treated with allopathic drugs?
Advertising that cancer cases can be cured by homeopathy in spite of the fact patients are treated with conventional drugs is an unethical act that should be avoided at all costs by any honest homeopath.
The reasons are simple.
A. The homeopathic remedy will act if it is prescribed according to the symptoms of the case. But in such a situation where the patient is under chemotherapy, the symptoms are suppressed by the allopathic drugs. Therefore the prescriptions at best are not prescribed according to the law of similars but are given in an arbitrary way, therefore instead of the similimum, several remedies are prescribed at random. Actually in this way, the case becomes more and more confused and the organism is more and more disorganised.
B. The homeopathic remedy acts on the energy level -on the vital force- inciting the organism to increase its response (initial aggravation) so the two treatments are antagonistic, the one suppresses the defense mechanism, the other strengthens it.
C. Out of such a confusion within the organism, no one can say what actually has happened in such a patient.
Of course each doctor is free to apply any treatment that according to his understanding will benefit the patient, but to claim publicly that homeopathy can cure cancer under such conditions is totally immoral.
Obviously patients will flock around such physicians in the beginning and can make them rich but in the end the disappointments will be for both parties, the doctors and the patients but mostly on the part of doctors.
Q. Perhaps because of the guilt for all the lies and false hopes?
Homeopathy is an amazing therapeutic system, that can make doctors and patients extremely happy but has limits and the doctors should not transgress these boundaries for material gain.
It is a great pity that homeopathy will be reduced to a routine massive therapy with meagre results by those who are advertising polypharmacy with such mongrel practices like the ones with prearranged therapeutic protocols or mixopathy.
If such practices prevail, finally the real classical homeopathy, that can have such amazing results, if it is learned and practiced correctly, will die out amidst an aggressive and competitive society.
So, essentially the great Vithoulkas seems to be saying that treating even the most serious diseases with homeopathy is fine, as long as homeopaths use no treatments other than homeopathy and as long as they do exactly what Vithoulkas proclaims or – even better – Vithoulkas does it himself.
I know, this is very similar to what Hahnemann, the creator of this cult, stated about 200 years ago … but it is nevertheless totally bonkers.
It seems that some people are pushing the notion that Boiron’s homeopathic product
Oscillococcinum®
might be helpful for the prevention and/or treatment of the Corona virus infection. To get an idea how implausible this assumption is, read my previous post on the subject.
The website of Boiron, the producer of the product, seems undeterred by plausibility and states the following:
Clinical studies show Boiron Oscillococcinum (Oscillo®) reduces the duration and severity of flu-like symptoms when taken at the onset of symptoms.1-2 Oscillo does not cause drowsiness and has no known or reported drug interactions.
Uses*
- Temporarily relieves flu-like symptoms such as body aches, headache, fever, chills and fatigue
- Non-drowsy; no drug interactions
- Easy-to-take, quick-dissolving pellets
- For everyone 2 years of age and older
- Make sure your patients always have Oscillococcinum on hand—it works best when taken at the first sign of symptoms. Help your patients feel better before they feel worse.
While this text does not state that Oscillococcinum works for the coronavirus, one could easily read it as implying it, particularly if one also considers this tweet:
Oscillococcinum USA
@OscilloUSA
Getting sick when travelling can ruin the best of vacations. Take non-drowsy Oscillococcinum the moment you feel body aches, headache, fever, chills or fatigue coming on. http://bit.ly/2BGCmCz
________________________________________________________________________________
On the Internet we find many much more direct claims. Take this website, for instance:
The commonly indicated Homeopathic remedies for Coronavirus are: –
• OSCILLOCOCCINUM
• Arsenic Album
• INFLUENZINUM
**However, for best results contact a Qualified Homeopathic doctor so that correct medicines can be prescribed.
And even some politicians promote such irresponsible nonsense.
________________________________________________________________________________
All the claims about Oscillococcinum have one thing in common: they are not evidence based! Any notion that it might work against the coronavirus is pure fantasy. And the above statement by Boiron is based on two cherry-picked studies. The totality of the evidence, however, does not show that Oscillococcinum is effective. The current Cochrane review says about its effectiveness: There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum(®) in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum(®) could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum(®).
The reason, I guess, why this conclusion is not more forthright stating THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE THAT OSCILLOCOCCINUM HAS ANY EFFECT can be found in the list of conflicts of interest of the paper’s authors:
All three review authors are research‐active in the field of homeopathy. They were members of the International Scientific Committee for Homeopathic Investigations (ISCHI), whose membership also included two employees of Boiron (the manufacturers of Oscillococcinum®), and whose committee activities ceased in July 2013. Progress with the Cochrane Review on Oscillococcinum® was presented briefly at ISCHI meetings in 2010 and 2011. The drafting of this Cochrane Review was carried out independently of those communications and of the authors’ other ongoing research activity. ISCHI has not run or sponsored any research on Oscillococcinum®.
Robert T Mathie: Dr Mathie is Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association. He was a member of the International Scientific Committee on Homeopathic Investigations, which ceased its committee activities in July 2013. Joyce Frye: Part of Dr Frye’s salary was supported by a research grant from the Standard Homeopathic Company, paid to her employer, the Center for Integrative Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, University of Maryland, USA. Support ended in June 2013 when Dr Frye resigned from the University of Maryland. Standard Homeopathic Company does not manufacture Oscillococcinum or any similar product, and had no interest in the outcome of the review. Dr Frye received honoraria from the International Scientific Committee on Homeopathic Investigations, which was dissolved in July 2013. Peter Fisher: I am Expert Adviser on Complementary and Alternative Medicine to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which may take an interest in the evidence in this review. I am Editor in Chief of an international, peer‐reviewed journal dedicated to homeopathy. All payments and reimbursements for lectures have been from universities or professional or learned societies. None of these lectures has been dedicated to the subject of this review. Some meetings have been supported by grants from commercial interests, including the manufacturer of the product that is the subject of the review.
So, to be clear: oscillococcinum does not help against the corona or any other virus. Those who claim otherwise are either mistaken, or have a commercial interest, or both.
It is not often that a top journal reports a trial of a (mostly) herbal remedy. For this reason alone, this Italian study (published in the Journal of the American Heart Association) is remarkable.
Sixty‐nine uncontrolled hypertension patients, aged 40 to 68 years, on antihypertensive medication were enrolled in 2 double‐blind studies. In the first study, 45 were randomized to placebo or a new nutraceutical combination named AkP05. Blood pressure (BP), endothelial function, and circulating nitric oxide were assessed before and at the end of 4 weeks of treatment. In the second study, 24 patients were randomized to diuretic or AkP05 for 4 weeks and underwent a cardiopulmonary exercise test to evaluate the effects of AkP05 on functional capacity of the cardiovascular, pulmonary, and muscular systems. Furthermore, vascular and molecular studies were undertaken on mice to characterize the action of the single compounds contained in the AkP05 nutraceutical combination.
AkP05 supplementation reduced BP, improved endothelial function, and increased nitric oxide release; cardiopulmonary exercise test revealed that AkP05 increased maximum O2 uptake, stress tolerance, and maximal power output. In mice, AkP05 reduced BP and improved endothelial function, evoking increased nitric oxide release through the PKCα/Akt/endothelial nitric oxide synthase pathway and reducing reactive oxygen species production via NADPH‐oxidase inhibition. These effects were mediated by synergism of the single compounds of AkP05.
The authors concluded that this is the first study reporting positive effects of a nutraceutical combination on the vasculature and exercise tolerance in treated hypertensive patients. Our findings suggest that AkP05 may be used as an adjunct for the improvement of cardiovascular protection and to better control BP in uncontrolled hypertension.
These are good studies, it seems. However, I am puzzled by the authors’ conclusions:
- I very much doubt that this is the first such study.
- The studies did not test AkP05 ‘as an adjunct’, so their findings cannot suggest that it should be used as such.
And now you are, of course, all dying to learn what this new wonder nutraceutical contains. It is a mixture of Bacopa monnieri, extract of Ginkgo biloba leaves, extract of green tea leaves, and phosphatidylserine and is manufactured by Damor Farmaceutici, Italy.
Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is usually a blood clot in a deep vein of a leg. It is a potentially life-threatening condition, because the clot can detach itself and end up in the lungs thus causing a pulmonary embolism which can be fatal. A DVT therefore is a medical emergency which is typically managed by immobilising the patient and putting him/her on anticoagulants.
Yet, homeopaths seem to have discovered another approach. Indian homeopaths just published a case report of a DVT in an old patient totally cured exclusively by the non-invasive method of treatment with micro doses of potentized homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of the totality of symptoms and individualization of the case. The authors concluded that, since this report is based on a single case of recovery, results of more such cases are warranted to strengthen the outcome of the present study. 
The patient was advised by his doctor to have surgery which he refused. Instead, he consulted a homeopath who treated him homoeopathically. No conventional treatments were given. The patient recovered, yet his recovery is almost certainly unrelated to the homeopathics he received. Spontaneous recovery after DVT is not uncommon, and it is almost certain that it is this what the case report describes.
It is simply not plausible, nor is there evidence that homeopathy can alter the natural history of a DVT. This means that what the Indian homeopaths have described in their paper is nothing less than a case of gross negligence. Had the patient died of a pulmonary embolism due to an untreated DVT, it could have put them behind bars.
While it is, of course, most laudable that homeopaths have taken to publishing even their most serious errors, it would be more reassuring, if they developed some sort of insight into their mistakes. Instead, they seem naively confident and stupidly ignorant of the danger they pose to the public: homeopathy can play significant therapeutic roles in very serious diseases like DVT, provided the drugs are needs to be carefully selected on the basis of i) individualization of cases, ii) the totality of symptoms and personalized data, and iii) taking into consideration the pathogenicity level and proper diagnosis of the disease. Further, homeopathy may also be safely used in patients with conventional drug allergy (antibiotics) or other physical conditions preventing intake of conventional medicines.
My conclusion and recommendation: stay away from homeopaths, folks!
A team of chiropractic researchers conducted a review of the safety of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in children under 10 years. They aimed to:
1) describe adverse events;
2) report the incidence of adverse events;
3) determine whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events compared to other interventions.
They searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from January 1, 1990 to August 1, 2019. Eligible studies were case reports/series, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Studies of high and acceptable methodological quality were included.
Most adverse events are mild (e.g., increased crying, soreness). One case report describes a severe adverse event (rib fracture in a 21-day-old) and another an indirect harm in a 4-month-old. The incidence of mild adverse events ranges from 0.3% (95% CI: 0.06, 1.82) to 22.22% (95% CI: 6.32, 54.74). Whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children is unknown.
The authors concluded that the risk of moderate and severe adverse events is unknown in children treated with SMT. It is unclear whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children < 10 years.
Thanks to their ingenious methodology, the authors managed to miss 11 of the 13 studies included in the review by Vohra et al which reported 9 serious adverse events and 20 cases of delayed diagnosis associated with SMT. Another review reported 15 serious adverse events and 775 mild to moderate adverse events following manual therapy. As far as I can see, the authors of the new review make just one reasonable point:
We recommend the implementation of a population-based active surveillance program to measure the incidence of severe and serious adverse events following SMT treatment in this population.
In the absence of such a surveillance system, any incidence figures are not just guess-work but also a depiction of the tip of a much bigger iceberg. So, why do the authors of this review not make this point clearly and powerfully? Why does the review read mostly like an attempt to white-wash a thorny subject? Why do they not provide a breakdown of the adverse events according to profession? The answer to these questions can be found at the very end of the paper:
This study was supported by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to Ontario Tech University. The College of Chiropractors of British Columbia was not involved in the design, conduct or interpretation of the research that informed the research. This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program to Pierre Côté who holds the Canada Research Chair in Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation at Ontario Tech University, and from the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation to Carol Cancelliere who holds a Research Chair in Knowledge Translation in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ontario Tech University.
This study was supported by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to Ontario Tech University. The College of Chiropractors of British Columbia was not involved in the design, conduct or interpretation of the research that informed the research. This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program to Pierre Côté who holds the Canada Research Chair in Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation at Ontario Tech University, and funding from the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation to Carol Cancelliere who holds a Research Chair in Knowledge Translation in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ontario Tech University.
I have often felt that chiropractic is similar to a cult. An investigation by cult members into the dealings of a cult is not the most productive of concepts, I guess.
Hard to believe but true: a German court recently decided that a homeopathic product called ‘HCG C30 Globuli’ is legal. HCG, of course, stands for ‘Human Chorionic Gonadotropin’, the hormone that supports the normal development of an egg in a woman’s ovary, and stimulates the release of the egg during ovulation.
The plaintiff had argued that a C30 potency contains no HCG at all, and that therefore consumers are misled by the name. To be precise, a C30 is a dilution of 1:1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000! This corresponds to something like one molecule of HCG per universe. The manufacturer, on the other hand, argued that their product complies with the rules of manufacturing homeopathics.
The court ruled as follows: ‘The fact that, due to the extreme dilution, the materiel cannot be identified any longer using current methodologies, does not mean that one can assume that the material is not, in fact, contained in the homeopathic drug’. As consumers who buy homeopathics are open to its tenets, they are not being misled by this product. Critics of homeopathy may see this differently; however, this group of people are unlikely to use such products. Therefore, there is no case to answer.
The judge also mentioned that, if the ruling had come out in favour of the defendant, it would have affected no end of further homeopathic products. And this, the court argued, would not be in the interest of the consumer.
For those who read German, here is the article reporting the case:
Beim Thema Homöopathie scheiden sich die Geister. Viele Wissenschaftler halten die Zuckerkügelchen bestenfalls für Placebos, andere hingegen schwören auf die heilende Wirkung. Ein Hersteller von Homöopathischen Arzneimitteln konnte nun vor Gericht einen Erfolg für sich verbuchen: Das Landgericht (LG) Darmstadt hat die Unterlassungsklage eines Vereins abgewiesen, der beantragt hatte, dem Hersteller zu verbieten, das Produkt “HCG C30 Globuli” unter dieser Bezeichnung zu bewerben oder in den Verkehr zu bringen (Urt. v. 30.01.2020, Az. 15 O 25/19).
Der Verein, dem laut Urteil beinahe alle Industrie- und Handelskammern sowie zahlreiche Apothekerkammern und Pharmaunternehmen angehören, hatte argumentiert, dass sich das Schwangerschaftshormon HCG gar nicht in den Produkten des Herstellers befinde und somit Verbraucher in die Irre führe. Die Präparate bestünden ausschließlich aus Zucker. Der Hersteller entgegnete dem, dass das Präparat HCG in der Dosierung C30 enthalte und gemäß dem Homöopathischen Arzneimittelhandbuch hergestellt worden sei.
Bei der Dosierung C30 wird der Ausgangsstoff 30 mal im Verhältnis 1:100 verdünnt. Am Ende beträgt das Verdünnungsverhältnis 1:10 hoch 60.
Dass der Ausgangsstoff bei dieser Dosierung “aufgrund der extremen Verdünnung mit den bisher bekannten wissenschaftlichen Methoden nicht mehr nachweisbar ist, führt nicht dazu, dass angenommen werden kann, dass der Stoff tatsächlich nicht in dem homöopathischen Medikament enthalten ist”, entschied das LG jedoch.
Eine Irreführung der angesprochenen Verbraucherkreise könne nicht angenommen werden, so das LG weiter. Laut Urteil müsse grundsätzlich davon ausgegangen werden, “dass es sich bei dem angesprochenen Verkehrskreis um Personen handelt, die grundsätzlich der Homöopathie offen gegenüberstehen und denen bekannt ist, dass die Wirkstoffe bei homöopathischen Arzneimitteln geringer dosiert sind, als bei klassischen schulmedizinischen Produkten.”
Anhänger der klassischen Schulmedizin würden laut Gericht hingegen davon ausgehen, dass Homöopathie wirkungslos sei und Behandlungserfolge ausschließlich auf den Placeboeffekt zurückzuführen seien. “Dieser Personenkreis wird von der Werbung der Beklagten nicht angesprochen, da klar erkennbar ist, dass ein homöopathisches Arzneimittel vertrieben wird”, entschieden die Darmstädter Richter.
Würde man der Auffassung des klagenden Vereins folgen und unterstellen, dass der Inhaltsstoff bei einer Verdünnung “C30” nicht enthalten ist, würde dies laut Gericht dazu führen, dass eine Vielzahl homöopathischer Arzneien nicht mehr vertrieben werden dürfte. “Ein solches faktisches Verbot dürfte sicherlich nicht im Sinne der Verbraucher sein, die – aus welchen Gründen auch immer – von einer gewissen Möglichkeit der Wirksamkeit homöopathischer Arzneimittel, auch in der Verdünnung C30 ausgehen”, hieß es im Urteil.
Auch die von dem Verein vorgeschlagene Verwendung von Phantasiebezeichnungen für die fraglichen Produkte lehnte das Gericht ab. Da Angaben zu Anwendungsgebieten bzw. Beschwerden bereits aufgrund gesetzlicher Vorgaben “zum Nachteil des Verbrauchers” verboten worden seien, würden Phantasiebezeichnungen eine Anwendung nach der klassischen Homöopathie erheblich erschweren, “wenn nicht gar unmöglich machen.”
[see also here]
Apart from the fact that homeopathic HCG makes no sense (for which condition should it be effective?), what has happened here, it seems to me is nothing less that the German judiciary defending the madness of homeopathy.
An article in the ‘Long Island Press’ caught my attention. Here are some excerpts:
A simple painless spinal adjustment by a chiropractor could be the latest breakthrough in the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction… Bridge Back to Life, an outpatient addiction treatment program, has teamed up with New York Chiropractic College (NYCC) … to offer the latest breakthrough therapy for substance use disorder. The first-of-a kind partnership, the brainchild of Bridge Back to Life’s medical director Dr. Russell Surasky, brings doctors from NYCC to evaluate and treat the center’s patients undergoing addiction therapy. Several diagnostic tests are performed at the base of the brainstem to determine if a misalignment exists. If present, the practitioners are taught to incorporate gentle painless, corrective spinal adjustments into the patient’s care plan. This treatment reduces stress on the spinal column and limbic system of the brain…
“Safe, painless adjustments to the upper cervical spinal bones can help normalize the brain’s limbic system by helping with the overall circulation of cerebrospinal fluid of the brain… I truly believe that this agreement with the college will serve as a national model for drug rehabilitation centers throughout the country,” says Surasky, who is triple board certified in neurology, addiction medicine, and preventive medicine. “Not only can spinal adjustments reduce the chronic pain issues that may have led patients into drug addiction in the first place, but now we also have evidence that spinal adjustments actually accelerate the healing of the brain from addiction.”
Surasky points to a study done in 2001 in the journal Nature: Molecular Psychiatry, which looked at the impact of spinal manipulations at an inpatient addiction treatment facility in Miami. The study found that chemically dependent patients who received specific spinal adjustments as part of their treatment reported fewer drug cravings and mental health symptoms. Moreover, 100 percent of the study patients who received chiropractic care completed the inpatient program, while about half of those not receiving treatments dropped out prior to completion. Yet no further studies were performed, and the information languished. Surasky began treating patients with the spinal adjustments at his private practice in Great Neck before bringing the treatment to Bridge Back to Life.
Mary W. came to Surasky’s Great Neck office for help with alcohol addiction nearly one year ago. She received monthly Vivitrol shots and had marked success in curbing her cravings and drastically reducing her drinking. But Mary still had one-day “slips” from time to time. She also complained of insomnia and migraine headaches. She recalled an accident in the past, where she hit her head. Dr. Surasky took X-rays of her upper neck and performed a Tytron scan. He said the digital images showed she had misalignments at the C1 vertebral level, likely putting pressure on the lower brainstem area. In addition to Vivitrol shots, Mary started receiving upper cervical adjustments and has remained sober since. Her migraines have dropped from five per month to one or none and she is sleeping better.
Where to start?
There is much to be concerned about in this short article. Let me mention just a few obvious points:
- A treatment that is not backed by solid evidence is hardly a ‘breakthrough’.
- The ‘misalignments’ they are looking for do not exist.
- Spinal manipulation is not as safe as presented here.
- The assumption that it reduces stress on the limbic system is far-fetched.
- To suggest this approach as a ‘national model’, is simply ridiculous.
- The notion that adjustments increase the circulation of the cerebrospinal fluid is not evidence-based.
- What are ‘chronic pain tissues’?
- The claim that spinal manipulation accelerates healing of the brain is not evidence-based.
- The study in Nature Molecular Psychiatry does not seem to exist (I could not find it, if anyone can, please let me know).
- X-ray diagnostics cannot diagnose ‘misalignments’.
- Tytron scans are used mostly by chiropractors are not a reliable diagnostic method.
- Anecdotes are not evidence.
In short: this article reads like an advertisement for chiropractic as a treatment of addictions. As there is no evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulations are effective for this indication, it is hard to think of anything more irresponsible than that.
And here is the question that I often ask myself:
Are there any bogus, profitable, unethical claims that chiropractors would shy away from?
I first wrote about Dr Grams when, 5 years ago, she published her book HOMOEOPATHIE NEU GEDACHT (which has recently also been published in English under the title HOMEOPATHY RECONSIDERED). In it, she explains that, after having practised as a homeopath in Germany for several years, she did some research. Her initial intention was to prove critics (like myself) wrong. As she read more and more of the original research, she arrived at the conclusion that the critics of homeopathy had been correct all along.
At the time, my post concluded with the following remarks:
When reading her account, I could repeatedly feel the agony she must have felt through her discoveries. Eventually, she had no choice but to agree with most of the arguments of homeopathy’s critics and disagreed with practically all of the arguments of her fellow homeopaths.
I predict that Natalie’s painful ‘journey’ has not yet come to an end; she now argues that the 200 year old assumptions of homeopathy are all obsolete and homeopathy is certainly not an effective drug therapy. However, it may turn out to be a valuable ‘talking therapy’, she believes.
I hate to say it, but I am fairly certain that she will have to go through further agony and find that her discovery is not truly workable. It might have some theoretical value but, for a whole number of reasons, it will not function in real life heath care.
My hope is that Natalie will find her way back to what she calls ‘normal medicine’ (there is, of course, the danger that she does the opposite and wanders off into even more esoteric grounds). We need doctors like her who have empathy, compassion and understanding for their patients. These are qualities many homeopaths who I have met have in abundance – but these are qualities that belong not into the realm of quackery, they belong into real medicine.
Today I must admit that my predictions were mostly wrong. Yes, Dr Grams had to go through further agony, I am sure, but she certainly did not wonder off into further eccentricities of esoteric medicine. On the contrary, she has become one of Germany’s most vociferous sceptic with many feathers in her cap:
- She co-founded the Information Network on Homeopathy (Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie — INH).
- She became a member of the “Münsteraner Kreis“.
- She joined the Science Council of the Society for the Scientific Investigation of Parasciences (GWUP – the German Sceptics Association) and became the organisation’s Communications Manager for the GWUP.
- She serves on the advisory board of the Humanist Giordano Bruno Foundation.
- She is vice president of the Humanist Press Foundation in Germany.
- Her second book, GESUNDHEIT, was published in 2017.
- And a few days ago, her third book WAS WIRKLICH HILFT (Treatments that truly help) has become available. I highly recommend it to all who read German and hope it soon becomes available in English.
Unsurprisingly, Natalie has, during the last 5 years, become a thorn in the flesh of homeopaths and their supporters. One German firm even went as far as sending her a desist letter demanding she never again to claim that homeopathy does not work beyond placebo, or else she would be heavily fined.
The argument homeopaths most regularly use for their attacks is that, as a clinician, she was an under-qualified, unexperienced homeopath who failed and thus turned against her trade in anger and frustration.
I have always been intrigued by this argument and want to take a minute or two and scrutinise it a little closer:
- Dr Grams had all the qualifications needed for practising as a homeopath.
- She had practised as a homeopath for around 6 years.
This means the often-voiced claim that she was under-qualified, unexperienced, etc. is truthful only in homeopathic doses.
But let’s have a little fun and assume it is true. Let’s disregard the ad hominem attacks. Let’s just for a moment agree with the German homeopathy lobby that Dr Grams was a very poor and utterly ungifted homeopath. Let’s assume that therefore her experience with homeopathy became more and more unsatisfactory, and that consequently she turned into an anti-homeopath.
And now, let’s take a step backwards and think. If all this were true, what would follow from this line of reasoning?
Clearly, it would follow that homeopathy does not need any homeopathic skills for generating a loyal following. Because the facts are demonstrably clear: as a homeopaths, Dr Grams was highly successful.
- She had a full practice.
- She enjoyed a good income.
- Her patients were satisfied and loyal.
- There even was a waiting list for getting an appointment.
So, if (in the view of homeopaths) an under-qualified, unexperienced clinician can practice homeopathy with such outstanding success, what does that tell us about homeopathy?
It tells us, I am sure, that Dr Grams’ conclusions stated in her first book are true: the effects of homeopathy do not rely on the specifics of the skilfully chosen remedy, they rely on placebo and other non-specific effects.
In other words, those homeopaths who attack Dr Grams for being not up to the job, tacidly concede that homeopathy is a placebo treatment!
HOMEOPATHY = THE ART OF SHOOTING SPECTACULAR SELF-GOALS!
The website of this organisation is always good for a surprise. A recent announcement relates to a course of Thought Field Therapy (TFT):
As part of our ongoing programme to explore prospects for improved healthcare, the College is pleased to announce a course on TFT – a “Tapping” therapy – independently provided by Janet Thomson MSc.
In healthcare we may find ourselves exhausting the evidence-based options and still looking for ways to help our patients. So when trusted practitioners suggest simple and safe approaches that appear to have benefit we are interested.
TFT is a simple non-invasive, technique that anyone can learn, for themselves or to pass on to their patients, to help cope with negative thoughts and emotions. It was developed by Roger Callahan who discovered that tapping on certain meridian points could help counter negative emotions. Janet trained with Roger and has become an accomplished exponent of the technique.
Janet has contracted her usual two-day course into one: to get the most from this will require access to her Tapping For Life book and there will be pre-course videos demonstrating some of the key techniques. The second consecutive day is available for advanced TFT training, to help in dealing with difficult cases, as well as how to integrate TFT with other modalities.
How much does it cost (excluding booking fee)? Day One only – £195; Day Two only – £195 (only available if you have previously completed day one); Both Days – £375.
When is it? Saturday & Sunday 7th-8th March – 09:30-17:30
What, you don’t know what TFT is? Let me fill you in.
According to Wiki, TFT is a fringe psychological treatment developed by an American psychologist, Roger Callahan.[2] Its proponents say that it can heal a variety of mental and physical ailments through specialized “tapping” with the fingers at meridian points on the upper body and hands. The theory behind TFT is a mixture of concepts “derived from a variety of sources. Foremost among these is the ancient Chinese philosophy of chi, which is thought to be the ‘life force’ that flows throughout the body”. Callahan also bases his theory upon applied kinesiology and physics.[3] There is no scientific evidence that TFT is effective, and the American Psychological Association has stated that it “lacks a scientific basis” and consists of pseudoscience.[2]
Other assessments are even less complimentary: Thought field therapy (TFT) is a New Age psychotherapy dressed up in the garb of traditional Chinese medicine. It was developed in 1981 by Dr. Roger Callahan, a cognitive psychologist. While treating a patient for water phobia:
He asked her to think about water, tap with two fingers on the point that connected with the stomach meridian and much to his surprise, her fear of water completely disappeared.*
Callahan attributes the cure to the tapping, which he thinks unblocked “energy” in her stomach meridian. I don’t know how Callahan got the idea that tapping on a particular point would have anything to do with relieving a phobia, but he claims he has developed taps for just about anything that ails you, including a set of taps that can cure malaria (NPR interview).
TFT allegedly “gives immediate relief for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD ), addictions, phobias, fears, and anxieties by directly treating the blockage in the energy flow created by a disturbing thought pattern. It virtually eliminates any negative feeling previously associated with a thought.”*
The theory behind TFT is that negative emotions cause energy blockage and if the energy is unblocked then the fears will disappear. Tapping acupressure points is thought to be the means of unblocking the energy. Allegedly, it only takes five to six minutes to elicit a cure. Dr. Callahan claims an 85% success rate. He even does cures over the phone using “Voice Technology” on infants and animals; by analyzing the voice he claims he can determine what points on the body the patient should tap for treatment.
_____________________________________________________________
Yes, TFT seems utterly implausible – but what about the clinical evidence?
There are quite a few positive controlled clinical trials of TFT. They all have one thing in common: they smell fishy to me! I know, that’s not a very scientific judgement. Let me rephrase it: I am not aware of a single trial that proves TFT to have effects beyond placebo (if you know one, please post the link).
And Janet Thomson, MSc (the therapist who runs the course), who is she? Her website is revealing; have a look if you are interested. If not, it might suffice to say that she modestly claims that she is an outstanding Life Coach, Therapist & Trainer.
So, considering that TFT is so very implausible and unproven, why does the ‘College of Medicine and Integrated Healthcare’ promote it in such strong terms?
I have to admit, I do not know the answer – perhaps they want at all costs to become known as the ‘College of Quack Medicine’?
In his writings, DD Palmer (the father of chiropractic), left little doubt about how he felt about himself and his achievements. A few quotes will suffice to give an impression:
- I was the first to adjust the cause of disease
- Chiropractors adjust causes instead of treating effects
- Vaccination and inoculation are pathological; chiropractic is physiological
- It was my ingenious brain which discovered [chiropractic’s] first principle; I was its source; I gave it birth; to me all chiropractors trace their chiropractic lineage
- Among the wonderful achievements of this century, the discovery and development of chiropractic is preeminent; it is destined to replace all methods which treat effects
With this post, I will simply outline DD’s extraordinary life. I intend to leave it to you, the reader of this post, to decide whether it was the life of a genius or that of a charlatan.
- 1845, 7 March: birth in Port Perry, near Toronto, Canada
- 1865, April: Palmer family immigrate to the US
- 1867: DD Palmer starts as a teacher in Concord, Iowa
- 1869, November: DD and his younger brother TJ become beekeepers in Letts, Iowa
- 1871, 20 January: DD marries Abba Lord who calls herself a ‘psychometrist, clairvoyant physician, soul reader and business medium’.
- 1872, 6 July: DD publishes an article in the ‘ Religio Philosophical Journal’ calling himself an atheist
- 1872: DD later states that he started his career as a ‘healer’ during this period
- 1873: Abba leaves DD and later becomes a ‘homeopathic physician’ in Mineapolis.
- 1876, 7 October: DD marries Louvenia Landers, a widow; they have 4 children together, including BJ who later becomes DD’s partner in the chiropractic business.
- 1878, 19 April: the Palmer’s 5-months old daughter dies
- 1878, May: DD is elected president of the ‘Western Illonois and Eastern Iowa Society of Bee Keepers’
- 1880: DD publishes a pamphlet about spiritualism and refers to himself as a ‘spiritualist’
- 1881 BJ Palmer is born; he later all but took over the chiropractic business and is often referred to as the ‘developer of chiropractic’
- 1882 DD sells his beekeeping business, moves to What Cheer, Iowa where the rest of his family live
- 1883, 30 May: DD opens a grocery store in What Cheer
- 1884, 20 November: Louvenia dies of consumption
- 1885, February: DD sells his grocery store and ‘moves on’
- 1885, 25 May: DD marries Martha Henning. The marriage is short-lived; on 8 July of the same year, DD posted a public notice in the ‘What Cheer Patriot’ disowning her
- 1885: DD moves back to Letts where he teaches at the local school
- 1886: DD moves to Iola, Kansas where he practices as a magnetic healer and calls himself ‘Dr Palmer, healer’
- 1886, 3 September: DD advertises his services as a ‘vitalist healer’ in Burlington, Iowa
- 1887, 9 October: DD advertises ‘dis-ease is a condition of not ease, lack of ease’, a theme that he later uses regularly for chiropractic
- 1887, 25 October: one of DD’s patients has died and there is an inquest. The local paper describes DD with the term ‘dense ignorance’ and the coroner states that ‘we censure the so-called doctor, DD Palmer, attending physician, for his lack of treatment and ignorance in the case’. DD leaves Burlington to avoid persecution (a new law requires all healers to register with the state medical board. DD does not have such a registration)
- 1887: DD moves to Davenport and advertises: DD Palmer, cures without medicine…’
- 1888, 6 November: DD marries Villa; they stay together until her death in 1905
- 1894: DD publishes his views on smallpox vaccination: ‘…the monstrous delusion … fastened on us by the medical profession, enforced by the state boards, and supported by the mass of unthinking people …’
- 1894: DD publishes his views about ‘greedy doctors’ and the ‘medical monopoly’
- 1895, January: DD starts a business selling gold fish
- 1895, 18 September: DD administers the 1st spinal manipulation to Harvey Lillard (DD later seems confused about this date stating that this ‘was done about Dec. 1st, 1895’)
- 1896, 14 January is the date when, according to DD, chiropractic received its name with the help of Reverent Weed
- 1896: DD publishes an article in ‘The Magnetic’ stating ‘ the magnetic cure: how to get well and keep well without using poisonous drugs’
- 1896: DD publishes on bacteria outlining his theory that bacteria cannot grow on healthy tissue; keeping tissue healthy is therefore the best prevention against infections; and this is best achieved by magnetic healing
- 1896: DD claimed that 4 years earlier, in 1892, he had discovered the magnetic cure for cancer; it involved freeing the stomach and spleen of poisons
- 1896: DD formulates his concept of treating the root cause of any disease
- 1896, 10 July: DD, his wife and his brother turn the ‘Palmer School of Magnetic Cure’ in Davenport into an officially registered corporation
- 1897: DD defines chiropractic as ‘a science of healing without drugs’
- 1898: DD opens his first school of chiropractic in Davenport, the ‘Palmer School of Chiropractic’ which has survivied to the present day.
- 1902, 27 April: DD first used the term ‘subluxation’ in a letter to his son BJ (‘… where you find the greatest heat, there you will find the subluxation causing the inflammation which produces the fever…’)
- 1902: DD leaves suddenly for California, apparently to open a West Coast branch of the Palmer School; he stays for about two years and then returns to Davenport leaving behind substantial depts
- 1902, 6 September: DD is arrested in Pasadena when a patient suffering from consumption dies after DD’s second adjustment; in October, the charges were dropped because of a technicality
- 1903: DD opens the ‘Palmer Chiropractic School in Santa Barbara, California, together with his former student Oakley Smith
- 1903 DD is charged with practising medicine without licence but, before the case goes to trial, DD goes to Chicago where he charters a school together two other chiropractors (Smith and Paxson); the project fails
- 1903, 30 April: DD is back in Davenport for the wedding of BJ with Mabel
- 1904, December: DD starts his new journal ‘The Chiropractor’ which survives until 1961. DD’s very first article is entitled ’17 Years of Practice’
- 1905: DD’s former students Langworthy and Smith accuse DD of stealing the concepts of chiropractic from the Bohemian bonesetters of Iowa
- 1905, 9 November: DD’s wife Villa overdoses on morphine and dies; the coroner is unable to tell whether she committed suicide or intended it for pain relief
- 1906, 11 January: DD marries Mary Hunter, apparently his first love from Letts
- 1906, 26 March: DD is again on trial for practising medicine without a licence. He is found guilty the next day. The penalty is US$ 350 or 105 days in jail. DD choses jail. However, his new wife, Mary, bails him out after 23 days.
- 1906: DD sells his share in the chiropractic business to his son and moves to Medford Oklahoma. The reasons for this split are said to be personal, financial and professional
- 1906, 4 June: in a letter to John Howard, DD accuses his son of dishonesty and of running the school badly
- 1906: BJ and DD publish their opus maximus ‘Science of Chiropractic’; DD claims that most of the chapters were written by him
- 1907, January: DD opens another grocery store
- 1908: together with a colleague, DD opens the ‘Palmer-Gregory Chiropractic College’; it lasts only 9 weeks. DD leaves because he discovered that Alva Gregory, a medical doctor, was teaching medical ideas
- 1908, 9 November: DD opens the ‘Palmer College of Chiropractic’ in Portland, Oregon
- 1908, December: DD starts a new journal, ‘The Chiropractor’s Adjuster’; many of his articles focus on criticising BJ. The journal only seems to have survives until 1910
- 1910, December: DD publishes his book ‘The Chiropractor’s Adjuster’.
- 1911: DD toys with the idea of turning chiropractic into a religion, as this would avoid chiropractors being sued for practising medicine without a license
- 1913: DD visits Davenport for the ‘Lyceum Parade’ where he is injured. Mary accuses BJ of striking his father with his car and thus indirectly causing his death, a version of events which is disputed
- 1913, September: DD is back in California and writes to JB Olson that he gave 22 lectures in Davenport. DD also reports: ‘… On the return I cured a man of sun stroke by one thrust on the 5th dorsal. That is what I call definitive, specific, scientific chiropractic…’
- 1913, 20 October: DD dies; the official cause of death is typhoid fever, a condition that he repeatedly claimed to be curable by a single spinal adjustment.
- 1914: DD Palmer’s book ‘The Chiropractor’ is published.
