Edzard Ernst

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

Benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH) affects many men aged 50 and older. It is caused by an enlargement of the prostate resulting in difficulties to urinate and to fully empty the bladder. There are several conventional treatment options, including life-style changes that are effective. In addition, a myriad of alternative therapies are being promoted, most of which are of doubtful effectiveness. Recently, a homeopathy-promoter, Dr Jens Behnke, triumphantly tweeted a trial of homeopathy for BPH allegedly proving that homeopathy does work after all. There is no conceivable reason why homeopathic remedies should have any effect on this (or any other) condition. Therefore, I decided to have a closer look at this paper.

The objective of this 5-centre, three-armed, open, randomised study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Homoeopathic Constitutional remedy (HC) and Homoeopathic Constitutional + Organ remedy (HCOM) in comparison to Placebo (PL) in patients suffering from BPH using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), ultrasonographic changes in prostate volume, post-void residual urine, uroflowmetry and in WHO Quality of Life (QOL)-BREF. Patients were randomised into three groups in 2:2:1 ratio and were followed up for 6 months. The statistical analysis was done with modified intention-to-treat principle (mITT).

Of 461 patients screened, 254 patients were enrolled in the study and 241 patients were analysed as per mITT. The mean changes in IPSS and QOL due to urinary symptoms from baseline to end of study showed a positive trend in all the three groups. However, in the HC group, the changes were more prominent as compared to the other two groups. There was no difference between HC and HCOM groups and they were equally effective in terms of managing lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH. With regard to secondary outcome, there was no difference between the groups. The psychological, social and environmental domains of WHOQOL-BREF have shown positive trend, but there was no statistically significant difference in intervention groups.

The authors concluded that statistical significance was found in the IPSS in all the three groups but only in HC and not in any of the objective parameters.

The paper is so badly written that I struggle to make sense of it. However, the above graph seems clear enough. The changes are perhaps statistically significant (which I find odd and cannot quite understand) but they are certainly not clinically relevant. Most likely, they are due to the fact that this study was not blind, meaning that patients and investigators were aware of the group allocations. This suggests to me that this study

  • is dubious in more than one way,
  • tests a hypothesis that lacks plausibility,
  • yields a result that is clinically irrelevant.

In other words, it does not amount to anything remotely resembling a proof of homeopathy’s efficacy.

Acupressure is the stimulation of specific points, called acupoints, on the body surface by pressure for therapeutic purposes. The required pressure can be applied manually of by a range of devices. Acupressure is based on the same tradition and assumptions as acupuncture. Like acupuncture, it is often promoted as a panacea, a ‘cure all’. While it certainly not a ‘cure all’, one may well ask whether it is good for anything.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of acupressure on pain severity in patients undergoing a coronary artery graft. Seventy patients were selected randomly after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery based on inclusion criteria and then assigned to two groups (35 in acupressure and 35 in control) randomly by the minimization method. The intervention group received acupressure at the LI4 point for 20 minutes in 10-second pressure and 2-second resting periods. In the control group, only touching was applied without any pressure in the same pattern as the intervention group. Pain severity was measured before, immediately, and 20 minutes after applying pressure and touch in both groups using the visual analogue scale.

The results of repeated measures analysis of variance showed a decrease in the pain score in the intervention group (group effect) during multiple measurements (time effect) and a reduction in the mean pain score in the various measurements taking into account the groups (the interaction between time and group; P = 0.001).

(1 = after regaining consciousness, 2 = 6 hours later, 3 = 7 hours later)

The authors concluded that acupressure can be used as a complementary and alternative therapeutic approach to relieve post-operative pain in CABG patients.

I find it hard to believe those results.

Why?

For several reasons:

  1. Even though the authors call this study ‘double blind’, it clearly was not. The patients were obviously able to tell whether pressure was applied or not. Similarly, the therapist applying acupressure cannot have been blinded.
  2. All patients received standard care. The control group received more anaesthetics than the acupressure group, according to the authors. I feel that the lack of pain control in the control group is not plausible and needs an explanation.

For me, the most plausible explanation of these (only seemingly impressive) results is that the therapist exerted influence other than acupressure on the patients which made the control group admit to more pain than the experimental group. One possibility is that social desirability made the acupressure group to claim they had less pain than they actually felt.

I came across an embarrassingly poor and uncritical article that essentially seemed to promote a London-based clinic specialised in giving vitamins intravenously. Its website shows the full range of options on offer and it even lists the eye-watering prices they command. Reading this information, my amazement became considerable and I decided to share some of it with you.

Possibly the most remarkable of all the treatments on offer is this one (the following are quotes from the clinic’s website):

Stemcellation injections or placenta lucchini (sheep placenta) treatments are delivered intravenously (via IV), although intramuscular (IM) administration is also possible. Stem cells are reported to possess regenerative biological properties.

We offer two types of Stemcellation injections: a non-vegetarian option and a vegetarian-friendly option. Please enquire for further details.

Alongside placenta lucchini, Stemcellation injections at Vitamin Injections London contain a range of other potent active ingredients, including: physiologically active carbohydrate, nucleic acid, epithelial growth factor, amino acids, hydrolysed collagen, concentrated bioprotein and stem cells.

Please visit our Vitamin 101 section to learn more about the ingredients in Stemcellation sheep placenta injections.

Renowned for their powerful regenerating properties, Stemcellation injections can stimulate collagen production as well as:

  • Remedy cosmetic problems such as wrinkles, discolouration, pigmentation, eye bags and uneven skin tone;
  • Can be undertaken by those who are interested in maintaining their physical activity levels;
  • Can be undertaken alongside other IV/IM injections.

Vitamin Injections London is headed by skilled IV/IM Medical Aesthetician and Skin Specialist Bianca Estelle. Our skilled IV/IM practitioners will conduct a full review of your medical history and advise you regarding your suitability for Stemcellation injections.

END OF QUOTES

The only Medline-listed paper I was able to locate on the subject of placenta lucchini injections was from 1962 and did not substantiate any of the above claims. In my view, all of this begs many questions; here are just seven that spring into my mind:

  1. Is there any evidence at all that any of the intravenous injections/infusions offered at this clinic are effective for any condition other than acute vitamin deficiencies (which are, of course, extremely rare these days)?
  2. Would the staff be adequately trained to diagnose such cases?
  3. How do they justify the price tags for their treatments?
  4. What is a ‘medical aesthetician’ and a ‘skin specialist’?
  5. Is it at all legal for ‘medical aestheticians’ and ‘skin specialists’ (apparently without medical qualifications) to give intravenous injections and infusions?
  6. How many customers have suffered severe allergic reactions after placenta lucchini (or other) treatments?
  7. Is the clinic equipped and its staff adequately trained to deal with medical emergencies?

These are not rhetorical questions; I genuinely do not know the answers. Therefore, I would be obliged, if you could answer them for me, in case you know them.

 

2019 starts well, namely with a comment entitled ‘Unproven medicines a risk to health and wallet’ on the recent statement of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) . As it is remarkable in that it confirms what I have been saying ad nauseam for years, I reproduce it here in full:

Australians are in danger of wasting their money on unproven complementary medicines and therapies, which could not only have serious side effects but could also leave them unable to pay for evidence-based treatments.

The AMA has released its updated Position Statement on Complementary Medicine 2018, which reflects changes to State laws and national monitoring systems that have come into place since the Position Statement was last reviewed in 2011-12.

AMA President, Dr Tony Bartone, said that Australian complementary medicine industry revenue had doubled over the past 10 years to $4.9 billion annually, including $630 million on herbal products and $430 million on weight loss products in 2017.

“While the AMA recognises that evidence-based aspects of complementary medicine can be part of patient care by a doctor, there is little evidence to support the therapeutic claims made for most of these medicines and therapies,” Dr Bartone said.

“The majority of complementary medicines do not meet the same standards of safety, quality, and efficacy as mainstream medicines, as they are not as rigorously tested.

“Some can cause adverse reactions, or interact with conventional medicine. Most just don’t do anything much at all.

“But they do pose a risk to patient health, either directly through misuse, or indirectly if a patient puts off seeking medical advice, or has spent so much on these products that they cannot afford necessary, evidence-based treatment.

“Children are particularly vulnerable, as diagnosing and treating illness in children is complex. A doctor must be involved in any diagnosis and ongoing treatment plan, including the use of complementary medicine.”

Dr Bartone said the AMA had long advocated for better regulation of non-registered health practitioners, such as naturopaths, herbalists, and Ayurveda practitioners.

“We have seen some positive changes over the past six years,” Dr Bartone said.

“All States and Territories now have regulations to protect Australians from unsafe and unethical practitioners.

“All unregistered practitioners must comply with a code of conduct, and they can be sanctioned or banned if they breach the code.

“But we still do not have a national, public register of non-registered practitioners who have been banned from working in their State or Territory, despite all Governments agreeing in 2015 to establish one.

“This register should be established as quickly as possible to alert the public and potential employers of any risks.”

The AMA Position Statement on Complementary Medicine 2018 is at https://ama.com.au/position-statement/ama-position-statement-complementary-medicine-2018

Background

  • Complementary medicine includes a wide range of products and treatments with therapeutic claims that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine.
  • These include herbal medicines, some vitamin and mineral supplements, other nutritional supplements, homeopathic formulations, and traditional medicines such as ayurvedic medicines and traditional Chinese medicines.
  • Complementary therapies include acupuncture, chiropractic, osteopathy, naturopathy, and meditation.
  • Registered health practitioners are those who are registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law in force in each State and Territory. They include doctors, nurses, dentists, occupational therapists, and other allied health practitioners.

END OF QUOTE

These are clear and timely words indeed!

One would wish that other national medical associations would have the courage to ignore the numerous and often powerful lobby groups that try to prevent them from following suit and issuing similarly clear, evidence-based and helpful comments. They have a responsibility to protect the public from exploitation and dangers to health, in my view.

“An optimist stays up until midnight to see the New Year in. A pessimist stays up to make sure the old year leaves.” (Bill Vaughan)

Any New Year resolutions?

As far as my blog is concerned, I can think of a few:

  1. Be more polite to people whose opinions differ from mine. I have to admit that I sometimes find it hard to respond politely to offensive or offensively stupid comments. I will try to improve in this respect.
  2. Try harder to keep an open mind (while being careful that my brain does not fall out in the process).
  3. Avoid technical lingo so that all people understand what I am trying to say.
  4. Try to enlarge the readership of my blog (not quite sure how to do this; perhaps by sticking to my resolutions?).
  5. Cover more areas of alternative medicine. I have always strived to include even the most exotic modalities; the problem, however, is that most are not supported by evidence, and in the absence of evidence I don’t know what to discuss.
  6. Report more positive results; the problem is that there are very few sound studies with positive findings – but I will try.
  7. Have fun.

My last post was rather depressive, and I certainly do not want my readers to be under the weather when they go into 2019. For this last post of 2018, I have therefore selected 20 events which gave me hope that perhaps we – those who prefer rationality to nonsense – are making progress.

  1. It has been reported that New Brunswick judge ruled this week that Canadian naturopaths — pseudoscience purveyors who promote a variety of “alternative medicines” like homeopathy, herbs, detoxes, and acupuncture — cannot legally call themselves “medically trained.”
  2. The Spanish Ministries of Health and Sciences announced their ‘Health Protection Plan against Pseudotherapies’.
  3. The medical school of Vienna axed their courses in homeopathy.
  4. A most comprehensive review of homeopathy concluded that the effects of homeopathy do not differ from those of placebo.
  5. The UK Pharmaceutical Society has stated that it does not endorse homeopathy and that pharmacists must advise patients considering a homeopathic product about their lack of efficacy beyond that of a placebo.
  6. A top medical journal has retracted a dodgy meta-analysis of acupuncture.
  7. A prominent BMJ columnist wrote : Many people seek to make money from those who don’t understand science. Doctors should call out bollocksology when they see it.
  8. Pharmacare and Bioglan received a ‘Stonky’ for its over-the-counter Melatonin Homeopathic Sleep Formula.
  9. The Governing Body of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) approved changes that mean NHS funded homeopathy will only be available in exceptional circumstances in the area.
  10. Health ministers of all German counties have decided that they will start reforming the profession of the Heilpraktiker, the German non-medically trained alternative practitioners.
  11. The NHS chief, Simon Stevens was quoted saying: There is no robust evidence to support homeopathy which is at best a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds.
  12. A systematic review concluded that there is no evidence in the literature of an effect of chiropractic treatment in the scope of primary prevention or early secondary prevention for disease in general. Chiropractors have to assume their role as evidence-based clinicians and the leaders of the profession must accept that it is harmful to the profession to imply a public health importance in relation to the prevention of such diseases through manipulative therapy/chiropractic treatment.
  13. A Cochrane review did not show any benefit of homeopathic medicinal products compared to placebo on recurrence of acute respiratory tract infections or cure rates in children. 
  14. The French minister of health stated that ‘the French are very attached [to homeopathy]; it’s probably a placebo effect. If it can prevent the use of toxic medicine, I think that we all win. I does not hurt.
  15. The Australian Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine Association retracted false accusation against me about their assumption that I had undeclared conflicts of interest.
  16. The ‘Daily Telegraph‘ published the following statement after misquoting me: Emeritus Professor Edzard Ernst, Britain’s first professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University said that doctors should make it clear to patients that they could not be taking herbal remedies alongside drugs. Prof Ernst said there was no good evidence that they work and that doctors were ‘contributing to disinformation’ by turning a blind eye to the practice.
  17. A comprehensive overview of the therapeutic options for chronic low back pain showed that chiropractic is not any better than over-the-counter painkillers or exercise, and that patients need to take precautions when seeking out a chiropractor.

Hold on, you promised 20, but these are just 17!!!, I hear my attentive readers mutter.

Correct! I tried to find 20 to match my last post; and I only found 17. This might be a reflection that, in the realm of SCAM, the bad still outweighs the good news (by much more that 20:17, I fear).

Yet, this should not depress us. On the contrary, let’s see it as a challenge to get on with out work of fighting for good evidence, ethical standards, rationality and critical thinking.In this spirit, I wish you all a very good, healthy and productive year 2019.

Over the years, I have become somewhat of an expert in spotting nonsense in the realm of alternative medicine, also known as SCAM. Here are – in no particular order – the 20 most remarkable examples of baloney that I came across (and wrote about) in 2018.

  1. Based on a totally inadequate study (which was tweeted by homeopaths as a success story), Indian homeopaths concluded that Ibuprofen and Belladonna 6C are effective and provide adequate analgesia with no statistically significant difference. Lack of adverse effects with Belladonna 6C makes it an effective and viable alternative.
  2. Chinese researchers conducted a meta-analysis and found that Ginkgo Leaf Extract and Dipyridamole Injection was associated with a curative effect for patients with angina pectoris.
  3. A German ‘journalist’ and PR-man likened critics of homeopathy (naming me and others) to the Nazis during the 1930s.
  4. A ‘landmark study‘ was celebrated by homeopaths (shortly afterwards it was suspected to be fraudulent. The journal published this note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.)
  5. The World President of the International Homeopathic Medical league published a book entitled ‘Cancer is Curable with Homeopathy’
  6. The WHO has decided to tolerate nonsensical TCM diagnoses by including a classification system on TCM in their next ICD.
  7. Osteopaths conducted a laughably insufficient study concluding that the results demonstrate that Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy should be considered in the treatment of patients with chronic symptoms of MS.
  8. Chinese authors reviewed the evidence on injectable TCM-preparations and found them to be ‘promising’ despite the lack of good evidence for them.
  9. The ‘Royal College of Chiropractors‘ made a rather pathetic attempt to re-invent chiropractic.
  10. A ‘respectable’ German medical journal published a homeopath’s claim that homeopathy can cure cancer.
  11. The UK Society of Homeopaths published recommendations that have the potential of killing many holidaymakers.
  12. The skeptical movement was called ‘an offshoot of the Communist Party‘ by a proponent of SCAM.
  13. I was accused of having falsified my qualifications.
  14. Dana Ullman decided that “evidence based medicine” can no longer be trusted.
  15. The Sunday Times broke my BS-meter.
  16. German osteopaths decided to promote intra-vaginal manipulations.
  17. A homeopath from Delhi advocated homeopathy for treating AIDS/HIV.
  18. A naturopaths was sued by a naturopath for telling the truth about naturopathy.
  19. Some homeopaths advocated increasing the height of children by giving them homeopathic remedies!
  20. A doctor from a Gerson clinic claims that Dr. Gerson, murdered in 1959, remains the most censured doctor in the history of medicine as he was reversing virtually every degenerative disease known to man, including TERMINAL cancer…

This is, of course, a highly personal choice. It nevertheless suggests that we have still more than enough work to do, if we want to instil some reason into SCAM.

You probably know what yoga is. But what is FODMAP? It stands for fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols, more commonly known as carbohydrates. In essence, FODMAPs are carbohydrates found in a wide range of foods including onions, garlic, mushrooms, apples, lentils, rye and milk. These sugars are poorly absorbed, pass through the small intestine and enter the colon . There they are fermented by bacteria a process that produces gas which stretches the sensitive bowel causing bloating, wind and sometimes even pain. This can also cause water to move into and out of the colon, causing diarrhoea, constipation or a combination of both. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) makes people more susceptible to such problems.

During a low FODMAP diet these carbohydrates are eliminated usually for six to eight weeks.  Subsequently, small amounts of FODMAP foods are gradually re-introduced to find a level of symptom-free tolerance. The question is, does the low FODMAP diet work?

This study examined the effect of a yoga-based intervention vs a low FODMAP diet on patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Fifty-nine patients with IBS undertook a randomised controlled trial involving yoga or a low FODMAP diet for 12 weeks. Patients in the yoga group received two sessions weekly, while patients in the low FODMAP group received a total of three sessions of nutritional counselling. The primary outcome was a change in gastrointestinal symptoms (IBS-SSS). Secondary outcomes explored changes in quality of life (IBS-QOL), health (SF-36), perceived stress (CPSS, PSQ), body awareness (BAQ), body responsiveness (BRS) and safety of the interventions. Outcomes were examined in weeks 12 and 24 by assessors “blinded” to patients’ group allocation.

No statistically significant difference was found between the intervention groups, with regard to IBS-SSS score, at either 12 or 24 weeks. Within-group comparisons showed statistically significant effects for yoga and low FODMAP diet at both 12 and 24 weeks. Comparable within-group effects occurred for the other outcomes. One patient in each intervention group experienced serious adverse events and another, also in each group, experienced nonserious adverse events.

The authors concluded that patients with irritable bowel syndrome might benefit from yoga and a low-FODMAP diet, as both groups showed a reduction in gastrointestinal symptoms. More research on the underlying mechanisms of both interventions is warranted, as well as exploration of potential benefits from their combined use.

Technically, this study is an equivalence study comparing two interventions. Such trials only make sense, if one of the two treatments have been proven to be effective. This is, however, not the case. Moreover, equivalence studies require much larger sample sizes than the 59 patients included here.

What follows is that this trial is pure pseudoscience and the positive conclusion of this study is not warranted. The authors have, in my view, demonstrated a remarkable level of ignorance regarding clinical research. None of this is all that unusual in the realm of alternative medicine; sadly, it seems more the rule than the exception.

What might make this lack of research know-how more noteworthy is something else: starting in January 2019, one of the lead authors of this piece of pseudo-research (Prof. Dr. med. Jost Langhorst) will be the director of the new Stiftungslehrstuhl “Integrative Medizin” am Klinikum Bamberg (clinic and chair of integrative medicine in Bamberg, Germany).

This does not bode well, does it?

What is osteopathy?

That’s a straightforward question; and it’s one that I am being asked regularly. Embarrassingly, I am not sure I know the optimal answer. A dictionary definition states that osteopathy is ‘a system of medical practice based on a theory that diseases are due chiefly to loss of structural integrity which can be restored by manipulation of the parts supplemented by therapeutic measures (such as use of drugs or surgery).‘ And in my most recent book, I defined it as ‘a manual therapy involving manipulation of the spine and other joints as well as mobilization of soft tissues‘. However, I am aware of the fact that these definitions are not optimal. Therefore, I was pleased to find a short article entitled ‘What is osteopathy?’; it was published on the website of the London-based UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHY (UCO).

The UCU has a proud history of ~100 years and a mission stating that they want to continually provide the highest quality education and research for all and the very best care, for each patient, on every occasion. Surely, they must know what osteopathy is.

Here is how they define it:

Osteopathy is a person-centred manual therapy that aims to enable patients to respond and adapt to changing circumstances and to live well.

At the UCO, we believe that osteopathy has the potential to help people change their lives – not only by searching for ways to manage disease, but also by helping patients to discover ways to enhance and maintain their own health and wellbeing.

A core principle of osteopathy is that wellbeing is dependent on how each person is able to function and adapt to changes in physical capability and their environment. Osteopaths are often described as treating the individual rather than the condition: when treating a patient they consider the symptom or injury alongside other biological, physiological and social factors which may be contributing to it.

Osteopaths work to ensure the best possible care for their patients, aiding their recovery and supporting them to help manage their conditions through a range of approaches, including physical manipulation of the musculoskeletal system and education and advice on exercise, diet and lifestyle.

END OF QUOTE

Let’s analyse this text bit by bit:

  1. … a person-centred manual therapy that aims to enable patients to respond and adapt to changing circumstances and to live well. Sorry, but this sounds like a platitude to me. It could apply to any quackery on the planet: Homeopathy is a person-centred manual therapy that aims to enable patients to respond and adapt to changing circumstances and to live well. Faith healing is a person-centred manual therapy that aims to enable patients to respond and adapt to changing circumstances and to live well. Chiropractic is a person-centred manual therapy that aims to enable patients to respond and adapt to changing circumstances and to live well. etc., etc.
  2. … we believe that osteopathy has the potential to help people change their lives – not only by searching for ways to manage disease, but also by helping patients to discover ways to enhance and maintain their own health and wellbeing. Of course, they believe that. Homeopaths, faith healers, chiropractors believe the same about their bogus treatments. But medicine should have more to offer than mere belief.
  3. … wellbeing is dependent on how each person is able to function and adapt to changes in physical capability and their environment. Yes, perhaps. But this statement is too broad to amount to more than a platitude.
  4. Osteopaths are often described as treating the individual rather than the condition: when treating a patient they consider the symptom or injury alongside other biological, physiological and social factors which may be contributing to it. Really? I thought that all great clinicians can be described as treating the individual rather than the condition: when treating a patient they consider the symptom or injury alongside other biological, physiological and social factors which may be contributing to it. (‘The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease.’ [William Osler], ‘Reductionism is a dirty word, and a kind of ‘holistier than thou’ self-righteousness has become fashionable.’ [Richard Dawkins])
  5. Osteopaths work to ensure the best possible care for their patients, aiding their recovery and supporting them to help manage their conditions through a range of approaches… What is this supposed to mean? Do non-osteopaths work to ensure the worst possible care for their patients, obstructing their recovery and preventing them to help manage their conditions through a range of approaches? In my view, this sentence is just plain stupid.

What have we learnt from this excursion?

Mainly two things, I think:

  1. Osteopaths and even the UCO seems unable to provide a decent definition of osteopathy. The reason for this odd phenomenon might be that it is not easy to define nonsense.
  2. Osteopaths, like other SCAM-practitioners, may not be all that good at logical thinking, but – by Jove! – they are excellent at touting fallacies.

Who would not like to get rid of their post-Christmas bulge? Diet and exercise would do the trick, of course, but they are all too cumbersome for most. And liposuction? That’s invasive. Why not chose something much easier? Why not ‘LASER LIPO’? This website explains it all:

If you have or are considering Liposuction, take a look at Laser Lipo. We utilize a cold laser non-invasively to turn fat cells into energy. This process allows you to lose inches and weight fast, safely and effectively. Our Laser Lipo will have those hard to lose inches melting away.

Obesity has been linked to the driving force of all major inflammatory diseases. These diseases include diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Utilizing the most current technology in Lipo Laser, New-Start bares a cold laser, capable of transforming your fat tissue into energy, EFFORTLESSLY!

  • LOSE INCHES!
  • GAIN ENERGY!
  • Zero Side Effects
  • Zero Pain
  • Zero Surgery
  • Zero Down Time
  • Add a Detoxification Program to Lose Inches and Weight

What to Expect with Laser Assisted Fat Loss in Columbus!

  1. This is a twenty minute procedure designed to transform any trouble fat areas that you might have into usable energy.
  2. The cold laser technology stimulates your fat cells, allowing the stored water glycerol and fatty acids to leak out, leaving your body slimmer and trimmer.
  • This is not another “body wrap” procedure that only dehydrates the skin for temporary results — this is a positive change if you follow the simple New-Start Solution rules.
  1. After the relaxing 20 minute laser procedure, the New-Start protocol consists of spending 10 minutes on a hypervibe pivotal vibration machine.
  2. The hypervibe is a relatively new technology that has been developed in the exercise world. This machine is capable of helping you increase your inch loss results and stimulate your metabolism. Vibration technology has evidence to even strengthen your bones and muscles.
  3. This document will also help you understand our Laser Lipo procedure: How Does it Work? (pdf)

END OF QUOTE

Sounds great!

Even more so because the site belongs to Dr. Trent Mozingo who has recently proved himself to be such a reliable and avid commentator on this blog (see the comments section of this post). According to his site, he enrolled in Purdue University where he earned a Bachelor’s of Science degree. Upon completion of Purdue’s curriculum, Dr. Mozingo earned a Doctorate of Chiropractic at Palmer College of Chiropractic, Florida. During his time at Palmer, Dr. Mozingo, focused his education on a scientific approach to chiropractic care, where evidence backs up each diagnosis and treatment.  Additionally, Dr. Mozingo gave much attention to nutrition, inflammatory diseases, and the American diet. While musculoskeletal pain is the initial reason he pursued a chiropractic education, Dr. Mozingo has focused most of his patient treatment plans to the prevention of disease, with proper lifestyle changes.

As much as we all trust a man with such a background, I am sure, we might still ask whether there is any evidence that LASER LIPO takes any body fat away. My searches did not result in any such evidence, I am afraid. All I did find was a website that provides further explanation as well as some clinical impressions:

This is not a stand-alone treatment and requires that the guest do at least 30 minutes of exercise after the treatment. The fat cells are porous for approximately 3 hours, and any contents that are not peed, sweated or exercised out will settle back and reduce the results.

Many spas will do measurements around certain areas right before and after the treatment, usually resulting an about an average quarter inch loss. Some spas will do multiple measurements in one area and add up the results. For example, if three areas are measured around the abdomen (at the belly button and one inch above and below), and a quarter inch difference is noticed in all three areas, many spas will claim this is a three quarter inch reduction—this can be misleading.

The average cost (in Canadian) is $200 per treatment, with a series of 8 recommended. Many spas will give an introductory price of $50 or $100 for your first visit so you can see the results. Although there is usually an immediate inch loss difference (which gets you hooked), this rarely lasts until the next day.

With the numerous guests that I performed this service on, I found that about 80% of the people who completed their series of 8 were dissatisfied with the results. Many saw no change on their last measurement from the first, and a few even saw a gain at the end. For the guests who did see a difference, it was clear that their lifestyle had a big influence, with many going regularly to the gym. My professional opinion on this treatment is to skip it and save your money…

SORRY ‘DOCTOR’ TRENT MOZINGO!

And sorry also to all of those readers who had hoped the LASER LIPO might do them some good.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

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.

Categories