Updated Edition!
It does not happen every day that the prestigeous German FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG publishes an in-depth analysis of TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) and even discusses several of the themes that we, here on this blog, have often debated. Allow me, therefore, to translate a few passages from the recent FAZ article entitled “Der Fluch der alten Dinge” (The Curse of Old Things):
… TCM has countless followers in many countries. ‘TCM is a wonderful medicine that thinks ‘holistically’, that sees not just one organ but the whole person and that offers very good treatment options,’ says Dominik Irnich. He heads the German Medical Association for Acupuncture. Although there is not evidence for all indications, TCM is ‘a scientifically based option for a number of diseases, the effects of which have been proven many times over’…
Meanwhile, Beijing wants to utilise the positive image of TCM to present itself in a good light and promote exports. The current five-year plan also provides for the creation of around 20 TCM positions for epidemic prevention and control. Critics, on the other hand, see patients at risk due to insufficiently tested therapies – and medicine as a whole: many studies are hardly valid and distort the state of science…
The top leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is using the ‘old things’ to increase its global influence and utilise TCM not only in its own country, but also as an export hit. The global TCM market is estimated to be worth many billions of euros annually, but there are no reliable figures – not least because it often includes illegally traded products such as rhino horn or donkey skin, which has led to mass killings.
Officially, Beijing prosecutes illegal trade and promotes science-based medicine, but the interests are intertwined. Even under Mao, traditional methods were used in China as a favourable alternative to imported medicines, and Beijing is currently increasingly allowing them to be reimbursed. At the same time, China’s leadership is trying to anchor TCM products in healthcare worldwide, for example as part of a ‘health Silk Road’ in Africa. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the state not only used TCM products en masse in its own country, Chinese foreign representatives also distributed them to Chinese people in Europe. This included a product based on gypsum, apricot kernels and plant parts called Lianhua Qingwen. According to a report published by the consulate in Düsseldorf, this was distributed even though the sale of medicines outside of pharmacies is generally punishable by law.
Beijing has also been successful at the level of the World Health Organisation (WHO), which promotes traditional medicine from China. ‘This was part of the interests and election programme of former Chinese Director-General Margaret Chan,’ says WHO consultant Ilona Kickbusch. The WHO drew up standards for acupuncture training, including knowledge of the ‘function and interactive relationship of qi, blood, essence and fluid’, as the document states.
In 2019, the WHO member states decided to add a chapter on ‘traditional medicine’ to the standard classification of diseases. Doctors can now code alleged patterns of ‘qi stagnation’ or yang deficiency of the liver. The umbrella organisation of European science academies EASAC criticised this as a ‘significant problem’: doctors and patients could be misled and pressure could be exerted on healthcare providers to reimburse unscientific approaches. Nature magazine found: ‘The WHO’s association with drugs that have not been properly tested and could even be harmful is unacceptable for the organisation that has the greatest responsibility and power to protect human health.’ …
In general, the study situation on therapies that are categorised as TCM is extremely confusing. The evidence is ‘terrible’, says the physician Edzard Ernst, who has analysed such procedures. ‘There are thousands of studies – that’s part of the problem.’ Many studies come from China, but it is known that a large proportion are invalid or falsified. It is almost impossible to report critically on TCM there: according to media reports, a doctor was imprisoned for three months in 2018 after criticising a TCM remedy. In 2020, Beijing even considered banning criticism of TCM, but refrained from doing so after an outcry.
According to Ernst, the quality of even some of the meta-analyses from the respected Cochrane Collaboration is ‘hair-raising’ due to the inclusion of unreliable studies, and according to some Chinese researchers, acupuncture works for everything. Prof. Unschuld said at an event a year ago that he was asked in China not to address critical issues.
‘In a country without the open and free critical culture that is common in democratic countries, the control mechanisms are missing,’ says Jutta Hübner, Professor of Integrative Oncology at Jena University Hospital. The inclusion of Chinese studies, which almost never report negative results, can create a much too positive image of TCM at a formally very high level of scientific evidence, without the results being reliable…
Instead of allowing the research to be carried out by proponents, it would be desirable ‘if the universities in particular remembered that they have the duty to be critical,’ says physician Edzard Ernst. However, some university clinics prefer to advertise TCM methods in order to attract patients and money.
- slightly improved BPH symptoms measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at follow-ups of up to 12 months (standardized mean difference [SMD] -2.06, 95% confidence intervals [CI] [-3.22, -0.91] very low certainty evidence, 6 studies),
- reduced prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels (mean difference [MD] -0.37 ng/ml, 95% CI [-0.50, -0.23] low certainty evidence, 4 studies)
- had little effect on quality of life (SMD -0.59, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.38] very low certainty evidence, 2 studies).
The main reasons for downgrading the evidence were study limitations (studies judged to be at an unclear or high risk of bias), inconsistency (considerable heterogeneity), and imprecision (small effect sizes and wide confidence intervals around effect estimates). All six studies reported no adverse-effects.
- positive but not truly honest about the limitations of the evidence (we see this regularly on my blog);
- or they are sufficiently critical and thus arrive, like our above paper, at unequivocal (and sadly not very helpul) conclusions.
As this is so, we see very few SRs that conclude “there is sound evidence to show that SCAM xy is effective (or ineffective)”. Yet, such verdicts would be what consumers need.
The cause of the first scenario (false-positive conclusion) is that reviewers are biased and want to demonstrate that SCAM works. Such authors behave unethically, in my view, because they mislead the public and might cause untold harm. The cause of the second scenario (unequivocal conclusion) is the poor quality of the primary studies. This phenomenon too is mostly due to over-enthusiastic researchers who want to prove their SCAM instead of testing it. Conducting a clinical trial is far from easy or cheap. It is beyond me, why so many SCAM trialists do not try their best to do it well!
If you think of it, the most likely reason is that they are not really interested in finding the truth but mainly want to promote their agenda. If you don’t believe me, have a look at my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME and the amazing men and women in it.
It is time, I think, that SCAM researcher learn the most basic principle of their profession: science is not a game where you set out to confirm what you believe. Science works by
- formulating a hypothesis,
- doing your very best to prove your hypothesis wrong,
- only if it cannot be proven wrong, assuming that it probably is correct.
To put it bluntly: investigators who use science to prove their point are not scientists but pseudo-scientists, and sadly SCAM has more than its fair share of such charlatans (drunken men using a lamp-post for support rather than enlightenment!). To put it even more bluntly: to prevent serious harm – because that sort of thing does a lot of real harm! – researchers who repeatedly show themselves to be incapable of doing unbiased science (again, see my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME), should be banned from doing research.
CNN reported that a measles outbreak is growing in a rural area of West Texas where vaccination rates are well below the recommended level. In late January, two children in Gaines County were hospitalized for measles. On Wednesday, the state health department issued a health alert:
The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) is reporting an outbreak of measles in Gaines County. At this time, six cases have been identified with symptom onset within the last two weeks, all among unvaccinated school-aged children who are residents of Gaines County.
Due to the highly contagious nature of this disease, additional cases are likely to occur in Gaines County and the surrounding communities. DSHS advises clinicians to follow the below measles immunization recommendations for the communities affected by the outbreak and immediately report any suspected cases to your local health department, preferably while the patient is in your presence.
To immediately increase the measles immunity and prevent disease occurrence in the affected communities, DSHS advises the following immunization recommendations for residents of Gaines County:
- Infants ages 6 to 11 months:
- Administer an early dose of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
- Follow the CDC’s recommended schedule and get:
- Another dose at 12 through 15 months.
- A final dose at 4 through 6 years.
- Children over 12 months old:
- If the child has not been vaccinated, administer one dose immediately and follow with a second dose at least 28 days after the first.
- If the child has received one dose, administer the second dose as soon as possible, at least 28 days after the first.
- Teen and adults with no evidence of immunity:
Administer one dose immediately and follow with a second dose at least 28 days after the first.
As of last Friday afternoon, the outbreak has jumped to 14 confirmed cases and six probable cases among people who are symptomatic and had close contact with infected individuals.
Investigations are ongoing, as cases have been identified also in parts of the region that are outside the Gaines County lines where the first cases were reported.
All the cases are believed to be among people who are not vaccinated against measles, and most of them are children.
A record share of US kindergartners had an exemption for required vaccinations last school year, leaving more than 125,000 new schoolchildren without coverage for at least one state-mandated vaccine, according to data published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in October.
The US Department of Health and Human Services has set a goal that at least 95% of children in kindergarten will have gotten two doses of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, a threshold necessary to help prevent outbreaks of the highly contagious disease. The US has now fallen short of that threshold for four years in a row. MMR coverage is particularly low in Gaines County, where nearly 1 in 5 incoming kindergartners in the 2023-24 school year did not get the vaccine.
In the health alert Wednesday, the Texas health department warned that additional cases are “likely to occur in Gaines County and the surrounding communities” due to the highly contagious nature of the disease.
Officials recommend that residents of Gaines County immediately improve their immunity and help prevent disease spread by ensuring that they are up to date on vaccinations. Children and adults who have not been vaccinated should get one dose immediately, followed by a second dose after 28 days. Infants between 6 and 11 months should get an early dose of the vaccine, and children who have had their first shot should get their second as soon as possible.
‘US News’ adds the following: As Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the most influential purveyors of dangerous vaccine misinformation, prepares to take the helm of the Department of Health and Human Services, researchers say such bills have a higher chance of passing and that more parents will refuse vaccines because of false information spread at the highest levels of government.
“Mr. Kennedy has been an opponent of many health-protecting and life-saving vaccines, such as those that prevent measles and polio,” scores of Nobel Prize laureates wrote in a letter to the Senate. Having him head HHS, they wrote, “would put the public’s health in jeopardy.”…
On this blog, we have discussed Kennedy’s imbecilic attitudes to measles and other health issues several times, e.g.:
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Here is what you can do to prevent his appointment
- The ‘International Chiropractors Association’ Congratulated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on His Selection as ‘Secretary of Health and Human Services’
- Donald Trump might try to “outlaw” some vaccinations in the US
- The ‘moral and intellectual decay’ of COVID disinformants
In the forseeable future, we will most certainly encounter endemics and epidemics. I fear that, with Kennedy in charge of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the danger for them to grow into pandemics is hugely increased.
The February 2025 newsletter of the GCC stated that “there has been an increase in the number of complaints received from members of the public who are confused by chiropractors using the title “Doctor”, often being concerned that they are not a medical practitioner. As you will be aware, by law, all complaints received by the GCC must be considered by an Investigating Committee. In order to avoid confusion, and the potential stress of a complaint against you, we would ask all registrants to ensure they are following the guidance on the use of the title. The guidance clearly states that, if you use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’, you must make clear within all public domain text that you are not a registered medical practitioner, but a ‘Doctor of Chiropractic’. Failure to do so may lead to you being the subject of complaints or an investigation by the ASA and/or the GCC. The ASA will act in relation to advertisements implying that chiropractors are medical practitioners.”
________________
The GCC’s guidance on referring to your professional status or qualifications in advertising does indeed state the following:
“31. If you are suspended or removed from the GCC register, it is a criminal offence to say, imply or advertise that you are a chiropractor. In these circumstances, you must ensure that all information in the public domain that refers to you as being a ‘chiropractor’ is immediately withdrawn, until your suspension is lifted, or your name is restored to the register. This includes information published by employers or colleagues.
32. If you have not paid the practising fee for that registration year, any description of you or the services you offer must not refer to you as being a ‘chiropractor’ or imply that you can provide chiropractic care. If you move from practising to non practising status, you must ensure any information in the public domain is withdrawn.
33. If you use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’ you must make clear within all public domain text that you are not a registered medical practitioner, but a ‘Doctor of Chiropractic’. Failure to do so may lead to you being the subject of complaints or an investigation by the ASA and/or the GCC. The ASA will act in relation to advertisements implying that chiropractors are medical practitioners.”
______________________
I am not especially clever in searching the Internet, yet in about 2 minutes I could see that the usage of titles of UK Chiros is a total mess. Uncounted UK chiros present themselves as ‘Dr.’ without immediate explanation that they are, in fact, not medical doctors. Here are just some examples that I found within minutes:
- Dr. Mos Chiropractic
- Dr Peter S Westergaard
- Dr Charlene Warnell
- Dr Edmund Tso
- Dr Jack Humphrey
- Dr Eloise Moody
- Dr Morten Westergaard
- Dr Steve Cleary
- Dr Harriet Gillard
- Dr. Michael Baremboym
In most cases, it became clear that they were not real doctors but chiros, once I read or clicked on. Yet, initially advertising yourself as ‘Dr XY’ seems unnecessarily (or willfully?) misleading. Similarly many other chiros use approaches such as ‘ Dr. XY, DC’. If the ‘DC’ is meant to signify ‘doctor of chiropractic’, why the Dr up front? Do they have two doctorates? Others use the term ‘physician’; what is that supposed to mean? I thought in the UK, a physician is person with a medical degree. Am I mistaken?
What I don’t understand is this: most chiros do not much like real doctors or physicians, so why do they pretend to be one? In any case, I am sure the GCC has people who are much smarter than I when it comes to searching the Internet. So, why does the GCC not invest just a few hours to sort out this mess?
It has been reported that a woman who suffered a severe headache after injuring her neck during a workout died following a visit to a chiropractor. Joanna Kowalczyk, aged 29, declined a procedure at hospital for her injury and chose instead to try chiropractic. Her medical history showed she regularly suffered migraines and joint hypermobility issues. She also had an undiagnosed connective tissue disorder which made her susceptible to arterial dissections.
Ms Kowalczyk told the chiropractor that she had discharged herself from hospital. The chiropractor was unaware of her medical history but nevertheless manipulated her neck. It is thought Ms Kowalczyk suffered an arterial dissection when she injured her neck in the gym and that she suffered acute dissections to the same location when a chiropractor cracked her neck. She died on October 19, 2021, at Gateshead’s Queen Elizabeth Hospital several days after her chiropractic treatment.
Now her coroner has raised concerns that chiropractors aren’t required to check patient medical records after Ms Kowalczyk’s death. Specifically, the coroner’s report raised two matters of concern:
1. The evidence from the attending paramedic was that she was not aware that symptoms of a stroke can stop after a short time as clearly set out on NHS website and guidance, and that this was not part of her training. This was directly contrary to the Head of Operations’ evidence that this was part of both paramedic training and annual continuing professional development. This was a concerning feature given the accepted evidence of the time critical period to treat patients with symptoms potentially indicative of stroke.
2. The evidence on behalf of the treating chiropractor was that he did not consider it necessary to request GP records or hospital records, before assessment or treatment despite being informed about the Deceased’s recent hospital attendance, investigation which was recommended, and her discharge against medical advice. Even in the updated consent form I have been provided with, which was designed by the British Chiropractic Association, there is no prompt or question designed for the chiropractor to ask to consider obtaining medical records before assessment or treatment, and when this may be appropriate, and the only reference to medical records is a consent to communicate as deemed necessary for the treatment, and for a report to be sent to the GP after treatment. I am concerned that consideration to obtaining medical records should always be given before assessment, particularly where recent medical treatment or investigations has been undertaken.
Receiving a Regulation 28 (Prevent Future Deaths) report from the coroner, the GCC stated that the case may raise some concerns for chiropractors and their patients and published the following additional comment:
The chiropractor involved is subject to a GCC investigation, which was paused to allow for the coronial process. This is standard procedure.
It is not appropriate for us to comment further as it could prejudice proceedings. It is inappropriate and unprofessional for chiropractors to speculate publicly on the details of the case, or the identity of the individual involved.
All matters brought to the attention of the GCC are risk assessed and are considered by an Investigating Committee. More about the investigation process.
In her report, the Coroner has asked the GCC to consider the following concern.
(I am) “concerned that consideration to obtaining medical records should always be given before assessment, particularly where recent medical treatment or investigations has been undertaken.”
We will give full and careful consideration to her concern. Given the clinical matters involved, we are seeking expertise (from across the profession, and beyond) to consider the impact of such a step – including on the care and safety of all patients. The Registrar will be writing to the coroner in the next week to set out how her concerns will be considered, and the expected timing of that work.
We have been in contact with leaders from across the profession and are grateful to them all for their support of our proposed approach.
____________________________
The GCC’s main task is the protection of consumers. I have repeatedly pointed out that they seem to have forgotten this and seem to think it is to promote chiropractic in every way they can, e.g.:
- The UK General Chiropractic Council (yet again) protects the chiro rather than the patient
- The General Chiropractic Council “regulates chiropractors to ensure the safety of patients” … well, you could have fooled me!
- Hurray! The new professional standard by the General Chiropractic Council protects UK chiropractors
- Death of a chiropractic patient prompts a reaction by the UK General Chiropractic Council
- The UK General Chiropractic Council: fit for purpose?
- The GCC “seems to be a little self-regulatory chiropractic bubble where chiropractors regulate chiropractors.”
- The death of Mr Lawler highlights the scandals of chiropractic
Let’s hope the GCC takes the occasion of yet another tragic and unnecessary death as a wake-up call for finally getting its act together!
Harald Walach is probably known to many of my readers (he is also a co-author of the paper that was the subject of yesterday’s post), not least because I posted numerous articles about him on this blog, e.g.:
- Prof Walach: what lies ahead for research into SCAM?
- Walach’s new meta-analysis of homeopathy revisited
- A new review of the ‘efficacy’ of homeopathic Arnica by Harald Walach & Co
- Prof Harald Walach and the intriguing ‘Vaccination Control Group’ project
- Prof Harald Walach is really unlucky
- Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest?
- Prof Harald Walach’s new ground breaking study of praying the Rosary
- COVID-19 vaccinations: Prof Walach wants to “dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts”
The reason I dedicate yet another post to Walach is that recently I looked him up on Wikipedia where I learned things I did not previously know. As Walach is (since 2021) a member of our illustrious ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME, I find it appropriate to discuss him once more. The following is a slightly abbreviated version of his impressive Wikipedia page:
Walach was born in 1957. He received a degree in Psychology from the University of Freiburg in 1984, a PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Basel in 1991, and a PhD in History of Science from the University of Vienna in 1995. In 1998 he received his habilitation in psychology from the University of Freiburg. He was affiliated for a time with the Samueli Institute before its closure in 2017.
He worked for a time at the University of Northampton, then as director of the Institute of Transcultural Health Studies at Europa Universität Viadrina, where he led a training course for doctors in complementary medicine and cultural sciences. In 2012, the state of Brandenburg’s commission for reviewing Universities concluded that Walach’s institute should not be continued within the university.
In 2017, he was a part-time associate professor at Poznań University of Medical Sciences, teaching mindfulness to the international medical students. In July 2021 the university cut its ties with Walach, in response to a paper that he published in Vaccines, stating that Walach’s work “misleadingly used data to yield conclusions that are wrong and may lead to public harm.”
In 2017, he started the CHS Institute to publish his own writing, including COVID-19 satire and denial. Starting in 2001, along with theoretical physicists Hartmann Römer and Harald Atmanspacher, Walach developed what they termed a model of “weak quantum theory” or “generalised entanglement” that purported to explain anomalous phenomena, such as non-specific therapy effects and parapsychological claims. This was not taken seriously by other physicists.
In 2012, Walach received the negative prize “Goldenes Brett” from Austrian skeptics, an annual award for the “most astonishing pseudo-scientific nuisance” of the year. The prize was awarded in part for a masters thesis about the Kozyrev mirror conducted under his supervision, which was widely regarded as unscientific.
Walach was on the scientific advisory board of a blog called “CAM-Media Watch”, which was sponsored by the alternative medicine company Heel, among others. The blog described itself as a “spin doctor” for promoting Complementary and Alternative Medicine (“CAM”). In 2012, it was reported that the blog had been paid to smear Edzard Ernst, a scientist critical of homeopathy.
As of 2024, Walach has had three publications retracted.
In June 2021, Walach published two high profile papers containing research pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic, one exaggerating the risks of vaccination, and the other concluding that children should not wear masks. Both papers were retracted the following month.
- The first paper, published in Vaccines, was retracted within a week because of “misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the data,” “several errors that fundamentally affect the interpretation of the findings,” and “incorrect and distorted conclusions”. Five members of the editorial board of Vaccines resigned when the article was published, protesting it as “grossly irresponsible”.
- The second paper was published in JAMA Pediatrics, to immediate criticism. This study was funded by an organization (MWGFD) that was founded to fight governmental pandemic protocols, and is known in Germany for promoting COVID conspiracy theories and distributing anti-vaccine flyers. The journal retracted the paper 12 days later, after the authors did not provide sufficiently convincing evidence to resolve the scientific issues raised about the study.
In 2023, another paper about the efficacy of homeopathy was retracted “due to concerns regarding the analysis of the articles included in the meta-analysis”.
In a press statement, the Poznań University of Medical Sciences dissociated itself from Walach and asserted that his vaccine study “misleadingly used data to yield conclusions that are wrong and may lead to public harm.”
_________________
I know, some people are not impressed by Wikipedia, yet I must say that I did learn a lot from this page. I thought I knew everything relevant about Walach, but I was mistaken.
In any case, I am proud to have – since already 3 years! – such a prominent man in our
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME.
PS
I should perhaps mention that the ‘ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME’ is a gathering for pseudo-scientists who managed during their entire career to publish only or almost only positive results of their favorite SCAM (feel free to search on my blog for other members of this exceptional club)
According to the authors of a recent paper, “the placebo response in clinical trials has four components: regression to the mean (RTM), measurement artefacts, natural tendency (NT) of the disease, and the genuine placebo effect”. The objective of their analysis was to determine what contributes to the size of the placebo effect in clinical drug trials by meta-regressions of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials.
The authors identified 5 diseases where data on the rates of NT were available to search for a sample of n=150 (5×30) RCTs. They extracted various study descriptors and performed meta-regressions to predict improvement in treatment and placebo groups. The investigators sampled 30 trials each from the following diagnoses:
- osteoarthritis of the knee,
- irritable bowel syndrome,
- depression,
- sleep disorders,
- migraine,
and extracted relevant information. They estimated the effects due to RTM and NT and analyzed the improvement in the placebo and treatment groups by fitting two regression models. Both models were highly significant, explaining 72% of the variance. Improvement in the placebo group can be significantly predicted by improvement in the treatment group (beta= .84), whether a study was analyzed according to intention to treat (beta= -.10) or was a multicenter study (beta= .12). Improvement in the treatment group can be explained by the improvement in the placebo group (beta= .83), whether a study was a multi-center trial (beta = -.16), and by RTM (beta= -.18). The treatment effect is smaller in sleep studies (beta= -.17).
The authors concluded that the high correlation of r= .73 between placebo improvement and treatment improvement rates is genuine and not explainable by study or disease characteristics. We conclude from our data that the placebo-effect is the major driver of treatment effects in clinical trials that alone explains 69% of the variance. This leaves only limited space for effects due to pharmacological substances. Context effects are more important than pharmacological ones in the conditions studied by us.
Walach (senior author of the paper) offers the following explanation for the findings:
“The design of a clinical study, with blinding and randomisation, fulfils the formal criteria necessary to establish a generalised entanglement correlation [6-8]. This would mean: part of the therapeutic effect of a pharmacological substance is also found in the control group; but only because an entanglement correlation was generated by the blinding and randomisation. To put it another way: it is not really possible to draw any conclusions about the true effects of verum interventions based on such studies. Rather, one would have to use very different study types and extract the effect by combining the different data, as we once proposed. If one were to take these effects really seriously, the methodological canon would crumble quite quickly. But they are also the reason why, in interventions where the specific effects may be very small, it is not possible to separate ‘real’ from ‘fake’ effects by means of blinded, placebo-controlled studies.”
I might suggest an alternative explanation:
SLOPPY SCIENCE.
Let me explain:
- The authors lumped together trials of various drugs as though they are a homogeneous entity in terms of effectiveness beyond placebo (which, of course, they are not).
- The placebo response is the measured improvement of a patient in a clinical trial after receiving a sham treatment. Yet, the authors claim “the placebo response in clinical trials has four components: regression to the mean (RTM), measurement artefacts, natural tendency (NT) of the disease, and the genuine placebo effect”. This is nonsense, and I even fear that the authors know it.
- The paper’s ‘highlight’ claims that contextual factors like expectations and doctor-patient interactions drive healing. Yet, these phenomena are seperate from the placebo-effect and were not the subject of this investigation.
- Correlation is not causation.
I am surprised that the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology published this rubbish!
Today is World Cancer Day. It is an international day observed every 4 February to raise awareness about cancer, encourage its prevention, and mobilise action to address the global cancer epidemic. Cancer and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are closely linked, for instance, through the fact that large proportions of desperate cancer patients use SCAM, many in the hope to cure their disease. I have therefore often tried to instill some rational thought into the debate by discussing the emerging, largely negative evidence on SCAM for cancer. Here are just a few recent examples:
- Homeopathy as a therapy for cancer? A new review from India
- Geopathic stress allegedly can cause health issues such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis and cancer – BUT, PLEASE, DON’T BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE!
- Homeopathic Cancer Therapy? No, no and no!
- Medicinal Mushrooms for Cancer?
- Bioenergy therapies for cancer: implausible, ineffective, and an unethical waste of money
- Camel urine as a treatment for cancer patients?
- Homeopathy for cancer? Unsurprisingly, the evidence is not positive.
- When an undercover journalist tests alternative cancer healers
To mark the day, I had a look at what people post on ‘X’ about SCAM and cancer cure. Here are some of the more amazing assumptions, claims and comments that I found (warts and all):
- The Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton has been diagnosed with Cancer – there is a high probability she has Turbo Cancer, caused by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines she took in 2021.
- Blue butterfly pea flowers (Clitoria ternatea) is one of the best CANCER KILLING and CANCER PROTECTIVE plants available to man.
- Dandelion root far more effective in fighting cancer cells than chemotherapy.
- In Kenya, research shows 76% of cancer patient who turn to traditional medicine instead of chemotherapy have drastically improved.
- I’ve just been diagnosed w cancer and will approach it with nutrition, suppl,and cont’d exercise… other alternative therapies as well. Been an RN for decades and have witnessed the horrors and pitfalls of modern medicine. Must b your own best advocate.
- I had a niece, a cousin and a friend die same week of the big C. was an eye-opener for me cause chemo did not help them at all….so looked at the alternative medicine….down in Mexico. but it was too late. cancer spread like wildfire.
- I pray to God that no one has to suffer through cancer but I agree with you 1000% alternative medicine as a matter fact we already know that there are three that can cure cancer. I ivermectin is one and I can’t remember the other two.
- Cancer has been proven to be eliminated with alternative medicine you denounce without a single study. I’m starting to think you hate the American people.
- Next time you or your loved one gets cancer, use “alternative medicine“.
- Most Doctors use drugs for treatment of symptoms because that’s how they are trained. No nutrition or alternative medicine is taught or encouraged. In cancer treat Drs are required to only recommend chemo because they could lose their license for alternative nedicine referrals.
- Spiritual causes of illness, including cancer, are often explored within alternative approaches to healing and holistic philosophies. Although traditional medicine does not recognize spiritual causes, many spiritual traditions and energetic practices.
- I pray that you look to alternative medicine, don’t listen to the current medical model as it is designed to keep people sick, western medicine does not heal. Chinese medicine does like others around the world. A primary cause of cancer is parasites. Western medicine doesn’t look.
- Chemotherapy is brutal, attacking both cancer and healthy cells. Alternative solutions do exist, but mainstream medicine often won’t offer them. Take control of your research, explore your options, and question everything.
- I cured my cancer symptoms using alternative medicine, including Ayurveda. Not drugs.
- I’m a double cancer survivor and I was in a clinical trial testing chemo in 2013-2014. Chemo is poison and big pharma. Alternative medicine is better. Changed must be made. I love that PresidentTtump has done this. And I can’t wait for RFKJr to lead HHS.
- Cancer kills you if you follow the advice of the medical establishment. There are many alternative cures for cancer and even more ways to prevent it in the first place. Do some research into naturopathic medicine if you truly want to be healthy.
- Maybe Trump should redirect that 500 billion to alternative medicine/supplement/ivermectin research that will eradicate cancer. And what is causing cancer. Don’t need a mRNA cancer vaccine. We already have the tools to stop cancer.
- Please get checked for parasites which is what cancer is. Try alternative medicine and see how that works – I bet it does.
- I have a friend who cured her own breast cancer with alternative methods. There are cures out there. Mainstream medicine just won’t recognize them.
- Everything is fake in medical field nowadays. Not only petition but also pathogen hypothesis medical academic papers about virus, cancer etc.. We need to build an alternative medicine field ASAP.
- …
- …
[I could have gone on almost for ever]
I had not expected to find much wisdom on ‘X’, but what I did find truly horrified me. For every sensible Tweet, there seem to be 10 imbecillic and dangerous ones. Imaging a desperate cancer patient reads these lies, misleading claims, nonsensical statements and conspiracy theories!
To set the record straight, let me state these two simple facts:
There is no SCAM that would change the natural history of any form of cancer.
What is more, there never ill be one! As soon as a treatment might look promising as a cancer cure, it will be investigated by mainstream scientists and – if it turns out to be helpful – integrated into conventional oncology. In other words, it will become evidence-based medicine.
You don’t believe me without evidence?
Ok, then please read my book on the subject.
PS
And yes, there are some SCAMs that might have a role in improving QoL, but that’s a different topic.
As recently as 2019, a quarter more homeopathic remedies were sold than today in Germany, reported the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG [my translation]. The largest manufacturer is removing individual remedies from its range and most state medical associations have cancelled the corresponding training courses for doctors.
Demand for homeopathic remedies continued to fall in 2024: while a good 45 million packs were sold in 2023, the number fell to around 43 million in 2024. The number of remedies dispensed on prescription fell even more sharply by 14 per cent from just under one million to just over 830,000.
According to the official pharmacy retail price, the total turnover of homeopathic remedies in 2024 was 779 million Euros. In 2019, sales were still around 834 million Euros, with around 56 million packs sold, a quarter more than last year.
This development is reflected in the companies’ figures. According to the annual report of the Willmar Schwabe Group, which includes Deutsche Homöopathie-Union (DHU), one of the largest manufacturers, sales in 2023 were negative in the ‘tense homeopathy environment’, some individual products had become unprofitable ‘and are being withdrawn from marketing’.
Homeopathy is repeatedly criticised due to the absence of active ingredients in the highly diluted remedies. Most state medical associations have cancelled corresponding additional training courses in recent years, including the medical association in Baden-Württemberg in 2024.
Just over a year ago, Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach announced plans to remove the possibility for health insurance companies to reimburse homeopathic and anthroposophic remedies as part of so-called statutory benefits. However, these plans have not yet been realized.
_________________________
A dismayed fan of homeopathy posted on ‘X’ [my translation]: “Homeopathy is on the retreat? Well, conventional medicine has successfully fought off the competition. They no longer want to share. They don’t care what happens to the patients.”
I don’t think this is quite true! What has happened is more simple and has little to do with competition. The evidence that homeopathy generates more good than harm is clearly not positive. Therefore – in the name of evidence, consumer protection, suffering patients and medical ethics – it is unavoidable that homeopathy is in decline. In fact, it seems surprising that it is still being reimbursed!
This investigation seems highly relevant to my blog and some of the comments it receives:
The spread of misinformation has emerged as a global concern. Academic attention has recently shifted to emphasize the role of political elites as drivers of misinformation. Yet, little is known of the relationship between party politics and the spread of misinformation—in part due to a dearth of cross-national empirical data needed for comparative study. This article examines which parties are more likely to spread misinformation, by drawing on a comprehensive database of 32M tweets from parliamentarians in 26 countries, spanning 6 years and several election periods. The dataset is combined with external databases such as Parlgov and V-Dem, linking the spread of misinformation to detailed information about political parties and cabinets, thus enabling a comparative politics approach to misinformation. Using multilevel analysis with random country intercepts, we find that radical-right populism is the strongest determinant for the propensity to spread misinformation. Populism, left-wing populism, and right-wing politics are not linked to the spread of misinformation. These results suggest that political misinformation should be understood as part and parcel of the current wave of radical right populism, and its opposition to liberal democratic institution.
Whether related to health or politics, misinformation affects us all. Contrary to a widespread belief, not all sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty of bending the truth or spreading falsehoods.
According to this study, radical-right populists are far more likely to spread falsehoods than their counterparts. The study also points to the creation of an “alternative media ecosystem” by far-right groups that try to recreate reality and create an echo chamber that reinforces their worldview.
The study suggests that radical-right supporters often believe they are better informed than others, even when they are being misinformed. This makes them much more susceptible to misinformation that aligns with their worldview, creating a feedback loop where misinformation fuels distrust, which in turn amplifies the effectiveness of false narratives.
Far-right populists have incorporated misinformation into a strategy that serves multiple purposes:
- Undermining trust in mainstream media.
- Strengthening their base by reinforcing fears and grievances.
- Distracting from policy scrutiny by dominating the media agenda with provocative content.
Radical-right populists bypass gatekeepers, create and disseminate their own narratives. The authors go one step further: they see far-right populism and misinformation as two sides of the same coin. “Misinformation and radical-right populism must hence be understood as inextricable and synergistic—two expressions of the same political moment.”
Unlike other groups, far-right populists rely heavily on falsehoods to exploit our fears and galvanize their base. Understanding this phenomenon seems crucial for addressing the causes of the problem and dealing with it effectively.
