Edzard Ernst

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

Therapeutic touch (TT) is a form of paranormal or energy healing developed by Dora Kunz (1904-1999), a psychic and alternative practitioner, in collaboration with Dolores Krieger, a professor of nursing. TT is popular and practised predominantly by US nurses; it is currently being taught in more than 80 colleges and universities in the U.S., and in more than seventy countries. According to one TT-organisation, TT is a holistic, evidence-based therapy that incorporates the intentional and compassionate use of universal energy to promote balance and well-being. It is a consciously directed process of energy exchange during which the practitioner uses the hands as a focus to facilitate the process.

The question is: does TT work beyond a placebo effect?

This review synthesized recent (January 2009–June 2020) investigations on the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic touch  (TT) as a therapy in clinical health applications. A rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach was used to review recent TT research adopting PRISMA 2009 guidelines. CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Web of Science, PsychINFO, and Google Scholar were screened between January 2009-March 2020 for studies exploring TT therapies as an intervention. The main outcome measures were for pain, anxiety, sleep, nausea, and functional improvement.

Twenty-one studies covering a range of clinical issues were identified, including 15 randomized controlled trials, four quasi-experimental studies, one chart review study, and one mixed-methods study including 1,302 patients. Eighteen of the studies reported positive outcomes. Only four exhibited a low risk of bias. All others had serious methodological flaws, bias issues, were statistically underpowered, and scored as low-quality studies. Over 70% of the included studies scored the lowest score possible on the GSRS weight of evidence scale. No high-quality evidence was found for any of the benefits claimed.

The authors drew the following conclusions:

After 45 years of study, scientific evidence of the value of TT as a complementary intervention in the management of any condition still remains immature and inconclusive:

  • Given the mixed result, lack of replication, overall research quality and significant issues of bias identified, there currently exists no good quality evidence that supports the implementation of TT as an evidence‐based clinical intervention in any context.
  • Research over the past decade exhibits the same issues as earlier work, with highly diverse poor quality unreplicated studies mainly published in alternative health media.
  • As the nature of human biofield energy remains undemonstrated, and that no quality scientific work has established any clinically significant effect, more plausible explanations of the reported benefits are from wishful thinking and use of an elaborate theatrical placebo.

TT turns out to be a prime example of a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that enthusiastic amateurs, who wanted to prove TT’s effectiveness, have submitted to multiple trials. Thus the literature is littered with positive but unreliable studies. This phenomenon can create the impression – particularly to TT fans – that the treatment works.

This course of events shows in an exemplary fashion that research is not always something that creates progress. In fact, poor research often has the opposite effect. Eventually, a proper scientific analysis is required to put the record straight (the findings of which enthusiasts are unlikely to accept).

In view of all this, and considering the utter implausibility of TT, it seems an unethical waste of resources to continue researching the subject. Similarly, continuing to use TT in clinical settings is unethical and potentially dangerous.

Germany seems to have a significant problem with anti-vaxxers. Today, only 68% of the population has had a COVID vaccination. In the UK and France, these figures are 72% and 75% respectively.

How come?

This study investigated the willingness to vaccinate of parents of minors and people without children who are minors. The investigation was based on a random sample of Germans (telephone survey, n = 2,014, collected between 12 November and 10 December 2020). The evaluation is primarily based on the sub-sample of people with minors in the household (n = 461).

Parents of minors consistently show a lower willingness to be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine than respondents without minors (54.1% vs 71.1%). Fathers show a stronger willingness to be vaccinated than mothers. Furthermore, men are more willing to get their own child vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine than are women.

The authors concluded that among parents and especially mothers, a considerable misrepresentation of vaccination risks and frequent beliefs in vaccination conspiracy theories can be observed. Clear and easily understandable information on the effects and side effects of vaccination with a COVID-19 vaccine by relevant institutions and physicians is recommended.

And what has this to do with so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and homeopathy?

In the results section of the paper, the authors report interesting  additional findings (my translation):

In the total sample, a significantly higher willingness to vaccinate is associated with the rejection of “alternative healing methods”. There is also a significant correlation between the attitude towards homeopathy and one’s own willingness to vaccinate: if homeopathy is supported, the willingness to vaccinate is lower. This correlation between the attitude towards homeopathy and willingness to vaccinate is also evident in the sub-sample of parents. Among parents, it is again women who significantly more often have a positive attitude towards homeopathy than men, who more often do not think anything of it.

The authors also report that the parents were asked: “If a vaccine against the coronavirus is approved in Germany, would you get vaccinated?” CERTAINLY NOT was the answer of:

  • 41% of homeopathy fans
  • 10% of people who thought nothing at all about homeopathy
  • 15% of participants who were not fully convinced by homeopathy

Yes, Germany seems to have a problem with the anti-vaccination brigade but it seems that at the heart of it is a problem with a homeopathy cult.

 

A second look at old research suggested that the recommended dose for vitamin C is far too low. Here is the abstract of the recently published  paper:

A double-blind controlled trial initiated in 1944 has led to the common narrative that a 10-mg daily vitamin C intake is adequate to prevent and treat impaired wound healing, and by inference, other collagen-related diseases such as heart disease or stroke. The WHO relies on this narrative to set the recommended nutrient intake for vitamin C. This narrative, however, is based on what is known as the eyeball method of data assessment. The 1944 trial published individual participant data on scar strength providing an opportunity to statistically probe the validity of the 10-mg narrative, something which has not yet been done. The findings show that a vitamin C intake that averages to 10 mg/d over a mean follow-up of 11.5 mo was associated with a 42% weakened scar strength when compared with 80 mg vitamin C intake/d (P < 0.001). The observed dose-response curve between scar strength and vitamin C intake suggests that the daily vitamin C intake needed to prevent collagen-related pathologies is in the range recommended by the National Academy of Medicine and the European Food Safety Authority (75 to 110 mg/d), not the WHO recommendation (45 mg/d). The findings also show that a vitamin C intake that averages to 65 mg/d over a mean follow-up of 6.5 mo failed to restore the normal wound-healing capacity of vitamin C-depleted tissues; such tissues had a 49% weaker scar strength when compared with nondepleted tissues (P < 0.05). Thus, average daily vitamin C intakes ∼50% higher than the WHO recommends may fail to treat existing collagen-related pathologies. It is concluded that the prior lack of statistical analyses of a landmark trial may have led to a misleading narrative on the vitamin C needs for the prevention and treatment of collagen-related pathologies.

The lead author of the recent re-analysis, Professor Philippe Hujoel from the Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, said: “The vitamin C experiment is a shocking study. They depleted people’s vitamin C levels long-term and created life-threatening emergencies. It would never fly now. The findings of the re-analyses of the Sorby data suggest that the WHO’s recommendation is too low to prevent weak scar strength. Robust parametric analyses of the trial data reveal that an average daily vitamin C intake of 95mg is required to prevent weak scar strength for 97.5 percent of the population. Such a vitamin C intake is more than double the daily 45mg vitamin C intake recommended by the WHO but is consistent with the writing panels for the National Academy of Medicine and (other) countries.”

The original research of 1944 was headed by the British-German biologist and Nobel-prize winner Sir Hans Adolf Krebs. At the time, researchers conducted an experiment that controlled and monitored vitamin C consumption of just 20 volunteers. They were each given varying amounts of vitamin C,  which helps the body to produce collagen – and given wounds to observe how quickly their scar tissue healed. The research aimed to ascertain how much vitamin C navy members living off rations is required in order to prevent them from developing scurvy, rather than how much is needed to boost health overall.

Prof Hujoel concluded that: “The failure to reevaluate the data of a landmark trial with novel statistical methods as they became available may have led to a misleading narrative on the vitamin C needs for the prevention and treatment of collagen-related pathologies.”

This article from AP News caught my attention. Here it is (I haven’t changed a word):

The flashy postcard, covered with images of syringes, beckoned people to attend Vax-Con ’21 to learn “the uncensored truth” about COVID-19 vaccines.

Participants traveled from around the country to a Wisconsin Dells resort for a sold-out convention that was, in fact, a sea of misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines and the pandemic. The featured speaker was the anti-vaccine activist who appeared in the 2020 movie “Plandemic,” which pushed false COVID-19 stories into the mainstream. One session after another discussed bogus claims about the health dangers of mask wearing and vaccines.

The convention was organized by members of a profession that has become a major purveyor of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic: chiropractors.

At a time when the surgeon general says misinformation has become an urgent threat to public health, an investigation by The Associated Press found a vocal and influential group of chiropractors has been capitalizing on the pandemic by sowing fear and mistrust of vaccines.

They have touted their supplements as alternatives to vaccines, written doctor’s notes to allow patients to get out of mask and immunization mandates, donated large sums of money to anti-vaccine organizations and sold anti-vaccine ads on Facebook and Instagram, the AP discovered. One chiropractor gave thousands of dollars to a Super PAC that hosted an anti-vaccine, pro-Donald Trump rally near the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

They have also been the leading force behind anti-vaccine events like the one in Wisconsin, where hundreds of chiropractors from across the U.S. shelled out $299 or more to attend. The AP found chiropractors were allowed to earn continuing education credits to maintain their licenses in at least 10 states.

On this blog, I have often discussed that chiropractors tend to be anti-vax. It all goes back to their founding father, DD Palmer, who famously wrote:

  • Vaccination and inoculation are pathological; chiropractic is physiological,
  • and who in 1894, published 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 …’
  • and who stated in 1896 that keeping tissue healthy is therefore the best prevention against infections; and this is best achieved by magnetic healing.

But that’s long ago! We are not like that anymore! … say the chiros of today.

Do you believe them?

If so, you might want to read this article by Jann Bellamy. Or alternatively, just look at some of my finds from the Internet:

 

 

 

The purpose of this survey was to quantify and describe the clinical practice beliefs and behaviors associated with US chiropractors. A 10% random sample of US chiropractors (n = 8975) was selected from all 50 state regulatory board lists and invited to participate in a survey. The survey consisted of a 7-item questionnaire; 6 items were associated with chiropractic ideological and practice characteristics and 1 item was related to the self-identified role of chiropractic in the healthcare system which was utilized as the dependent variable to identify chiropractic subgroups. Multinomial logistic regression with predictive margins was used to analyze which responses to the 6 ideology and practice characteristic items were predictive of chiropractic subgroups.

The survey instrument used in this study was developed by the authors and modeled after similar chiropractic identity analyses. The survey instrument included a total of 7 items intended to elicit divergent ideologies and practice behaviors. The figure below is a copy of the survey instrument.

A total of 3538 responses were collected (39.4% response rate). Respondents self-identified into three distinct subgroups based on the perceived role of the chiropractic profession in the greater healthcare system:

  1. 57% were spine/neuromusculoskeletal focused;
  2. 22% were primary care focused;
  3. 21% were vertebral subluxation focused.

Patterns of responses to the 6 ideologies and practice characteristic items were substantially different across the three professional subgroups.

The authors concluded that respondents self-identified into one of three distinct intra-professional subgroups. These subgroups can be differentiated along themes related to clinical practice beliefs and behaviors.

Here are the results in more detail as sated by the authors:

Regarding scope of examination (survey question 1), respondents reporting the scope of their clinical examination to only include spinal analysis for the assessment of vertebral subluxation had a 70% probability of belonging to the subluxation focused subgroup, a 20% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. Conversely, respondents who reported the scope of their clinical examination only includes a differential diagnosis had a 0% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, an 80% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Concerning conditions treated (survey question 2), respondents who reported predominantly treating vertebral subluxation as an encumbrance to health had an 80% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 10% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. In contrast, respondents reporting predominantly treating neuromusculoskeletal conditions had a 0% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 90% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Regarding the role of spinal manipulation for those with cancer (survey question 4), respondents reporting the role of spinal manipulation for those with cancer is to remove interference to innate intelligence had a 70% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 20% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. Respondents reporting there is no role of spinal manipulation in those with cancer also had a 10% probability of belonging to the subluxation focused subgroup, an 80% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Regarding vaccination (survey question 5), respondents who strongly disagreed that vaccinations have had a positive effect on global public health had a 50% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, an approximately 25% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and an approximately 25% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. In contrast, respondents who strongly agreed that vaccinations have had a positive effect on global public health had a 0% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 90% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 10% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Concerning the detection of vertebral subluxation on x-ray (survey question 6), respondents who strongly agreed that x-ray is helpful in detecting vertebral subluxations had a 40% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 40% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. Respondents who strongly disagreed that x-ray is helpful in detecting vertebral subluxations had a near 0% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, an 80% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and slightly below a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

Regarding use of x-rays for new patients (survey question 7), respondents who reported prescribing x-rays for 0–20% of new patients had a 20% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 60% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup. Respondents reporting prescribing x-rays for 81–100% of new patients had a 40% probability of belonging to the vertebral subluxation focused subgroup, a 40% probability of belonging to the spine and neuromusculoskeletal focused subgroup, and a 20% probability of belonging to the primary care focused subgroup.

END OF QUOTE

While I am not sure that the division into the 3 subgroups is valid and suspect that there must be a substantial overlap between them, I must admit that the paper is rich in fascinating information. Generally speaking, I find all subgroups somewhat mysterious and would ask them the following questions:

Subgroup 1: why did you not study medicine or physiotherapy?

Subgroup 2: does it not bother you that your education and training are woefully insufficient for primary care?

Subgroup 3: is it not time to abandon the obsolete nonsense of your guru, the old charlatan DD Palmer?

 

 

Practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) regularly claim with great pride that they treat the ROOT CAUSES of disease. The claim has at least 4 effects:

  1. It distracts from the true causes of disease which are often multifactorial.
  2. It attracts customers to SCAM.
  3. It implies that conventional medicine is at best symptomatic and thus far inferior to SCAM.
  4. It encourages the patients of SCAM practitioners to turn their backs on mainstream healthcare.

The notion that SCAM practitioners treat the root causes is based on the practitioners’ understanding of etiology:

  • If a traditional acupuncturist, for instance, becomes convinced that all disease is the expression of an imbalance of life-forces, and that needling acupuncture points will re-balance these forces thus restoring health, he must automatically assume that he is treating the root causes of any condition.
  • If a chiropractor believes that all diseases are due to ‘subluxations’ of the spine, it must seem logical to him that spinal ‘adjustment’ is synonymous with treating the root cause of whatever complaint his patient is suffering from.
  • If a Bowen therapist is convinced that “the Bowen Technique aims to balance the whole person, not just the symptoms“, he is bound to be equally sure that the root cause of “practically any problem can potentially be addressed” by this intervention.
  • If a homeopath is convinced that all illness stems from a weakness of the ‘vital force’ and that only homeopathic remedies can revitalize it, they are likely to believe that their remedies tackle the root cause of all diseases.
  • Etc., etc.

So, are SCAM practitioners correct when they claim to treat the root causes of disease?

When a root cause has been eliminated, the disease has been eliminated by its root. Treating a root cause, therefore, means that the disease is permanently cured. The above question can therefore be re-phrased as follows:

Is there any SCAM that cures any disease permanently?

I think the answer is NO. (At least, I know none. I would, however, be most grateful if someone could name one together with the evidence)

Even demonstrably effective forms of SCAM are effective only in terms of alleviating the symptoms. The one with the best evidence is probably St John’s wort. It works fine for mild to moderate depression. Yet, it does not cure depression: if we discontinue the treatment, the depression is likely to return.

And what about conventional medicine? Does it offer any permanent cures?

I have been searching and have to admit that I cannot find many either. Here is my list so far of diseases that are potentially curable (meaning they are unlikely to come back once the treatment has stopped and excluding disease prevention) with conventional medicine – and again, I would be really grateful if readers could add to my preliminary list:

  • Acute emergencies, like anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, etc.
  • Bacterial infections (well most of them)
  • Cancer (some), like Hodgkin lymphoma
  • Malnutrition like beriberi of iron-deficiency anemia
  • Phobias (some)
  • Fungal infections (some)
  • Poisonings (some)
  • Many surgical indications such as appendicitis, gall stones, carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.

Not a long list, I admit (but better than nothing!) – so, please help me to prolong it by adding diseases that I did not mention.

THANKS

 

Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa, Korth.) is an evergreen tree that is indigenous to Southeast Asia. It is increasingly being used as a recreational drug, to help with opium withdrawal, and as a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for pain, erectile dysfunction, as a mood stabilizer, and for boosting energy or concentration.  When ingested, Kratom leaves produce stimulant and opioid-like effects (see also my previous post).

Kratom contains 7‑hydroxymitragynine, which is active on opioid receptors. The use of kratom carries significant risks, e.g. because there is no standardized form of administration as well as the possibility of direct damage to health and of addiction.

There are only very few clinical trials of Kratom. One small placebo-controlled study concluded that the short-term administration of the herb led to a substantial and statistically significant increase in pain tolerance. And a recent review stated that Kratom may have drug interactions as both a cytochrome P-450 system substrate and inhibitor. Kratom does not appear in normal drug screens and, especially when ingested with other substances of abuse, may not be recognized as an agent of harm. There are numerous cases of death in kratom users, but many involved polypharmaceutical ingestions. There are assessments where people have been unable to stop using kratom therapy and withdrawal signs/symptoms occurred in patients or their newborn babies after kratom cessation. Both banning and failure to ban kratom places people at risk; a middle-ground alternative, placing it behind the pharmacy counter, might be useful.

In Thailand, Kratom had been outlawed since 1943 but now it has become (semi-)legal. Earlier this year, the Thai government removed the herb from the list of Category V narcotics. Following this move, some 12,000 inmates who had been convicted when Kratom was still an illegal drug received amnesty. However, Kratom producers, traders, and even researchers will still require licenses to handle the plant. Similarly, patients looking for kratom-based supplements will need a valid prescription from licensed medical practitioners. Thai law still prohibits bulk possession of Kratom. Users are encouraged to handle only minimum amounts of the herb to avoid getting prosecuted for illegal possession.

In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration stated that Kratom possesses the properties of an opioid, thus escalating the government’s effort to slow usage of this alternative pain reliever. The FDA also wrote that the number of deaths associated with Kratom use has increased to a total of 44, up from a total of 36 since the FDA’s November 2017 report. In the majority of deaths that the FDA attributes to Kratom, subjects ingested multiple substances with known risks, including alcohol.

In most European countries, Kratom continues to be a controlled drug. In the UK the sale, import, and export of Kratom are prohibited. Yet, judging from a quick look, it does not seem to be all that difficult to obtain Kratom via the Internet.

I was surprised to discover that there is an entire website by a homeopath. He used to comment regularly on my blog but eventually got banned (I think). Now that chap writes pages and pages explaining that my criticisms of homeopathy are all wrong and that I actually haven’t got a clue. This seems to suggest that his homeopathy is not very effective for anger control. The texts are so intensely funny that I took the liberty of copying a short passage for you (without altering a single word).

Here we go:

When I started this blog in 2013, it was aimed to rebut Professor Edzard Ernst’s scientific examination and critique of homeopathy.

After 7 years of engaging with his posts, I realised that he does not have a clue about homeopathy due to rejecting the central tenet of homeopathy that disorder of the vital force leads to disease and, over time, to incurable medical conditions.

This blog aims to dispel false notions about the philosophy and practice of homeopathy and I recommend that the widely used clinical approach to homeopathy is discarded and replaced with spiritual/dynamic approach to homeopathy that is aligned with the principles set out in Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine.

Dr. Edzard Ernst has, for more than two decades, engaged in a comical and polemical critique of what he considers to be ‘homeopathy’:

  • He does not hold a recognized qualification in homeopathy.
  • His understanding of homeopathy has, from the very outset, been below par: See my post ‘Arnica’.
  • He associated Bach Flower Remedies with ‘homeopathy’ because both use potentised substances.
  • He included Berlin Wall remedy in his new book, a remedy that he referred to as homeopathy’s finest in one of his blogs. Berlin Wall originated in the imagination of Colin Griffith (‘New Materia Medica’: isn’t that hilarious?) and it is not listed in the official Homeopathic Pharmacopeia.
  • He continues to write blogs about homeopathic treatment of certain clinical conditions and his study of the ‘adjunctive treatment’ of asthma with homeopathy is in opposition to Hahnemann’s instruction that no other medicines should be used during homeopathic treatment.
  • He seems to be unable to understand that homeopathy does not treat medical conditions, and that for classical homeopathy, as set out by Kent, most ‘medical conditions’ are beyond the curable stage of homeopathic treatment.
  • He seems not even to know in detail Hahnemann’s works: The Organon, Chronic Diseases, and Materia Medica Pura. Evidence of this is that, in 7 years, I never read a post that was written by him that engaged in a critique of these works.
  • He writes silly blogs about Boris Johnson almost being a homeopath.
  • He has, on last count, six pages of blogs written in derision and criticism of HRH Prince of Wales.
  • In discussion, he even asks the question: ‘are you speaking out of your arse?’
  • He did a bit of reading on the Russia collusion investigation that he seemed to think was negative against President Trump and worried that the Donald might start world war 3.
  • He rated himself as the world’s number one researcher in SCAM (so called alternative medicine of which homeopathy is one of the major forms of treatment).

I rate him as the world’s number one clown-critic of homeopathy.

Before Dr. Ernst started his journey to become the world eminent critic of homeopathy (and every other alternative health modality), he could have done two things:

  1. Undertaken a meticulous study of the works by Samuel Hahnemann and James Tyler Kent in order to gain an understanding of what Homeopathy is. I have yet to read a post by Edzard Ernst that provides a critique of the original works on homeopathy by the founders of homeopathy. Instead, he seems to have preferred to bypass the tedious work of reading texts and substituted his own interpretation of homeopathy in his critical reviews of ‘homeopathy’.

In Dr. Ernst’s view, the central tenet of homeopathy that there is a ‘vital force’ (living intelligence) in the human body must be rejected because it is an ‘outdated’ concept of ‘vitalism’. It seems to me, from my reading of his posts, that he considers atheism and materialist epistemology to be self-evident and idealist epistemology to be obviously deluded.  Edzard Ernst is obviously not the philosophical type because if he was then he would have realised that his rejection of the ‘principle of vitalism’ automatically invalidates homeopathy as a credible subject of scientific investigation. Why did he waste so much time studying something that is evidently nonsense?

  1. Before embarking on expensive and time consuming trials and meta analyses of homeopathy, Dr. Ernst ought to have first sought to find independently verified scientific evidence of homeopathic cures of non self-resolving clinical conditions and illnesses documented in clinical practice and publications. As far as I am aware, there is no hard medical scientific evidence that homeopathy cures any non self-resolving clinical conditions and illnesses and so how sensible was it that numerous researchers conducted RCTs over several decades to test whether or not homeopathy is an effective treatment for medical conditions?

END OF QUOTE

 

There is more, much more – and it’s all as hilarious as the above. So, whenever you are having a bad day and feeling a bit low, please read it. It is certain to cheer you up.

The global market for dietary supplements has grown continuously during the past years. In 2019, it amounted to around US$ 353 billion. The pandemic led to a further significant boost in sales. Evidently, many consumers listened to the sly promotion by the supplement industry. Thus they began to be convinced that supplements might stimulate their immune system and thus protect them against COVID-19 infections.

During the pre-pandemic years, the US sales figures had typically increased by about 5% year on year. In 2020, the increase amounted to a staggering 44 % (US$435 million) during the six weeks preceding April 5th, 2020 relative to the same period in 2019. The demand for multivitamins in the US reached a peak in March 2020 when sales figures had risen by 51.2 %. Total sales of vitamins and other supplements amounted to almost 120 million units for that period alone. In the UK, vitamin sales increased by 63 % and, in France, sales grew by around 40–60 % in March 2020 compared to the same period of the previous year.

Vis a vis such impressive sales figures, one should ask whether dietary supplements really do produce the benefit that consumers hope for. More precisely, is there any sound evidence that these supplements protect us from getting infected by COVID-19? In an attempt to answer this question, I conducted several Medline searches. Here are the conclusions of the relevant clinical trials and systematic reviews that I thus found:

Confused?

Me too!

Does the evidence justify the boom in sales of dietary supplements?

More specifically, is there good evidence that the products the US supplement industry is selling protect us against COVID-19 infections?

No, I don’t think so.

So, what precisely is behind the recent sales boom?

It surely is the claim that supplements protect us from Covid-19 which is being promoted in many different ways by the industry. In other words, we are being taken for a (very expensive) ride.

Exploring preventive therapeutic measures has been among the biggest challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A team of Indian and US researchers explored the feasibility and methods of recruitment, retention, and potential signal of efficacy, of selected homeopathic medicines as a preventive measure for developing COVID-19 in a multi-group study.

A six-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prophylaxis study was conducted in a COVID-19 exposed population in a quarantine facility in Mumbai, India. Each group received one of the following:

  1. Arsenicum album 30c,
  2. Bryonia alba 30c,
  3. Arsenicum album 30c, Bryonia alba 30c, Gelsemium sempervirens 30c, and Influenzinum 30c
  4. coronavirus nosode CVN01 30c,
  5. Camphora 1M,
  6. placebo.

Six pills twice a day were administered for 3 days. The primary outcome measure used was testing recruitment and retention in this quarantined setting. Secondary outcomes were numbers testing positive for COVID-19 after developing symptoms of illness, the number of subjects hospitalized, and days to recovery.

Good rates of recruitment and retention were achieved. Of 4,497 quarantined individuals, 2,343 sought enrollment, with 2,294 enrolled and 2,233 completing the trial (49.7% recruitment, 97.3% retention). Subjects who were randomized to either Bryonia alba (group 2) or to the CVN01 nosode (group 4) signaled a numerically lower incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and a shorter period of illness, with evidence of fewer hospitalizations than those taking placebo. The three other groups did not show signals of efficacy.

The authors concluded that this pilot study supports the feasibility of a larger randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Bryonia alba 30c and CVN01 30c should both be explored in disease prevention or shortening the course of disease symptomatology in a COVID-19-exposed population.

Signals of efficacy?

Are they kidding us?

The results failed to be statistically significant!

Hence the conclusions should be rewritten as follows:

This pilot study supports the feasibility of a larger trial in India where people have been told by an irresponsible government to believe in homeopathy. None of the 5 homeopathic treatments generated encouraging findings and none should be explored further. Studies of this nature must be discouraged firstly because homeopaths would not accept the findings of a trial of non-individualized homeopathy, and secondly because such trials will further confuse the public who might think that homeopathy is worth trying.

 

 

 

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