complementary medicine

Allergy relievers: red light nonsense

Its just about coming into allergy season again, so today I am turning my attention to a product I’ve seen for sale in a few pharmacies I’ve locumed at of late: The Allergy Reliever Device. These things are sold under some pharmacy chain’s own names, or under brand names like Kinetik.

An allergy reliever display spotted on a Tesco pharmacy counter by @TheWholeT00th. 

An allergy reliever display spotted on a Tesco pharmacy counter by @TheWholeT00th. 

It’s yet another medical device. These things seem to be hitting the pharmacy shelves more and more often these days, giving them a level of respectability which personally I don’t think they deserve. At least this device makes it clear that it is a device though, unlike things like Prevalin which pretend to be real medicine.

According to Kinetik, it uses “red light therapy to suppress the cells that release histamine, thereby relieving the symptoms of hayfever and allergic rhinitis.”

So, essentially shoving some Christmas tree lights up your nose then. Well I must admit that’s a new one on me. It’s pretty hard to sniff out (geddit?) the theory behind this one too.  The manufacturers of these things don’t give any explanation as to why red light would suppress mast cells, and several Google searches later I’m none the wiser. I have managed to dig out one published paper in rats, where the authors seem to be suggesting that red light changes the redox state of cells, which might cause some changes within the cell. Even these others say that they’re not quite sure what’s happening though, and that further investigation is required.

Armed with a few unsuccessful Google Searches, I delved into the medical literature. I tried every which way I could think of to search for evidence that this thing works, but ended up drawing a total blank. I think this may well be the least successful search for evidence I’ve done so far, and that’s saying something. Even the manufacturers can’t be bothered with listing any sources instead they go wild with the clipart, giving us a Generic Smiley White Coated Person and Happy Photostock Chef alongside some very random recipes and general lifestyle advice.

And it looks like this thing really isn't very pleasant or practical to use. You're supposed to shove the probes up your schnozz as far as you comfortably can, then keep them there for three minutes. Not the most dignified of poses. And you're supposed to do this three or four times a day. That's a lot of inconvenience. Seems like prime Use Once Then Put In A Dark Cupboard territory for me, especially since taking a one a day antihistamine tablet is no hassle at all. 

In short, I wouldn’t waste your money. There’s no basis to these things, and it saddens me that they are not only being sold in pharmacies, but are being sold under pharmacy brand names. The more we associated our profession with such nonsense, the less trustworthy we become to other healthcare professionals and patients alike.

Hxxx

A comparison between medical and homeopathic information sources

Recently, I’ve been delving back into the world of homeopathy, and all of the nonsense that it entails.

Part of my research and preparation has been consulting homeopathic texts- materia medica and repertories that are still in use by modern homeopaths.

One thing that I have been repeatedly struck by is the stark differences in the quality of these information sources compared to those used in modern medicine. Let’s take a look at some of those differences.

Up To Date?

Part of my day job’s role is resource management. This means that I need to make sure that all of the resources that we use and have access to are present and up to date. Whenever I use a book as part of my work, I document which edition I have used. If I use a website, I make sure to include when it was last updated. When we get a new book in the office, I find the old copy and cover it in stickers saying “Out of date- do not use”.

I don’t do these things because I am weird, or because I enjoy it. I do it to ensure that I give the most accurate, up to date information so that the patient gets the best care. What we know about medicines is constantly evolving- new medicines, new safety information, and new evidence is emerging daily. What might have been correct to the best of our knowledge last year may now have been subsumed by more recent experiments, and so the information sources I use change accordingly. So, for example, I can reach for a copy of the British National Formulary from 2005, and find information that recommends sibutramine as a weight loss aid in certain patients. However, if I look at the current version, I won’t see it in there, as it has since been withdrawn for safety reasons. If I were to have used the 2005 copy to advise a patient, I might have given them the wrong advice, in the context of what we know today.

How up to date is the information used by homeopaths? According to The Homeopathic Pharmacy (Kayne, S. 2nd Edition, published in 2006 by Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, page 192- I did warn you about the documentation): ‘The most well known are Boericke’s Materia Medica with repertory and Kent’s Repertory of the Homeopathic Materia Medica’. Sadly, the author of this book doesn’t see fit to bother telling us when these were published. Neither does the online version of it, although there is a bit of a hint in that the “Preface to the ninth edition” on there is signed off by William Boericke in 1927.

Nineteen Twenty Seven. Medicine and healthcare is a pretty fast-paced industry, with new innovations and information coming out at an overwhelming rate. So much has happened in medicine since 1927 that there is no way that anyone should accept health care advice based on something written from that time. I know I certainly wouldn’t be too happy if my GP gave me health advice from a dusty tome, or if I went to the dentist’s to find them using equipment from the 1920’s.

Maybe Kent’s Repertory will be more up to date? A Quick look at the website gives us no clues. This time, the preface contains no date at all. The closest thing that we have to a publishing date is the fact that the website is copyright 1998, and appears to have been formatted by a default-font loving child in the early nineties.

Political Correctness

Over the years, medical terminology has changed and evolved along with society and scientific discoveries, and rightly so. In some cases, words that used to be considered as perfectly legitimate scientific terminology (such as ‘Mongol’, or ‘Mongoloid Idiocy’, used to describe a person with Down syndrome) are now considered downright offensive. Even whole swathes of what is now considered normal society (such as gay people) were once declared as illnesses- and of course we know better by now, or at least we should do, and if you don’t- grow the hell up, will you. We generally don’t refer to people as “hysterical”, or “insane” anymore, as we know a lot more about such conditions, so are able to categorise people more helpfully and professionally.

As a result, we healthcare professionals are very aware of how crucial the use of clear, concise, professional communication is, including the information in our resources. No self-respecting modern medical text would ever dream of using out-dated, offensive terms, and if it did, there would be an outcry.

Let’s have a look at the sort of thing that Boericke’s Repertory wants to help us to treat. There are things like “Brain-Fag”, “Cretinism”, “Masturbatic dementia”, “Fears of syphilis”, “hysteria”, “insanity”, “weak memory from sexual abuse”, “Haughty”, “Stupid”, and many others. These were just taken from the “Mind” section, but there are many other examples in the other sections too. These terms are just too outdated and are wholly inappropriate to be used in today’s society.

Having looked through various other Materia Medica entries too, I’ve found statements that are sexist, bigoted, and occasionally racist. Nice eh? You don’t find that sort of thing in an up-to-date copy of Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference.

Clarity

Good, modern medical resources are all about clarity. They need to be- after all if someone gives the wrong medical advice because they have interpreted something incorrectly, patients could be at risk.

Jargon is sometimes necessary, but nowadays medical jargon tends to use standardized, accepted terminology which keeps the risks of misinterpretation to a minimum.

Homeopathic repertories and material medica, on the other hand, are full of vague, odd terms which are massively open to interpretation. What, pray tell, is a “voluptuous, tingling female genitalia” when it is at home? (and I wonder whether Ann Summers offers free delivery on such a thing?). What does “expectoration, taste, herbaceous” mean clinically? How is one supposed to diagnose “Taedium vitae”? When would you class a person as “Obscene, amative”, and when would they be considered as merely “gay, frolicsome, hilarious”?

In Conclusion

Our health is arguably the most important asset that we have. Why would we entrust it to sources which are terribly out of date, inaccurate, and in some cases, offensive?

Homeopaths like to paint themselves as a caring, human alternative to the more business-like, clinical world of real health-care professionals. But when this alternative categorises people as being “stupid”, or “cretinous”, and is happy to use criminally out of date resources which can risk peoples’ health, I wonder just how caring and ethical it really can be.  

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: why would you continue to use an abacus when calculators exist, and are proven to have a better record at getting the right answer?

 

Homeopathic Harms 3.1 Addendum: C's Story

Imagine you're twelve years old.

You're on the cusp of adolescence, a time where you start to move away from the comfort and protection of your family and begin to forge your own way in life. Friendships become increasingly important, and you're in a constant process of trying to make new ones, maintaining old ones, and falling out with others. The world seems confusing, terrifying, and wonderful in varying measures, and you spend a lot of your time watching those around you and drinking in how they act, what works and what doesn't, deciding how to act yourself to fit in and be accepted. This is the time when, though the ground is constantly shifting beneath your feet. you start to put down little social foundations and try to make sense of the world. 


There is a wealth of evidence that suggests many benefits of connecting with people of your own age during adolescence. At such a crucial, tumultuous time of life, being socially isolated from your peers can have long lasting and harmful effects. 


What's this got to do with homeopathy?

I've written before about how poor advice from homeopaths can potentially cause a lot of damage, and through our Homeopathic Harms series of blog posts, Nancy (of the Evidence Based Skepticism blog) and I have hopefully managed to convey to you an idea of how it can sometimes be the seemingly innocuous and difficult to quantify harms that can be most worrying.

I received an e-mail the other day that I have since been thinking a lot about and which I wanted to share with you. Its a real-life example of just how much harm poor advice from a homeopath can cause. The chap who sent me the email has very kindly allowed me to share his story with you, but of course I am going to respect his anonymity and refer to him as C.

C's story

C. had delayed puberty. Now this is something that is fairly common, happening in about 3% of cases, and which can be caused by a number of factors, but the most common type is Constitutional delay in growth and puberty (CDGP). This is basically a technical way of saying 'Just one of those things, which might be caused a whole load of stuff or possibly just chance.'

Conventional medicine would manage CDGP by... well, usually just by waiting, really. Monitoring, and reassurance are often all that is required. Otherwise, short courses of sex hormones should be enough to do the trick. If the delay in puberty is caused by something, then ideally the underlying cause would be appropriately treated. You can see some good, reliable guidance on management here

Note, by the way, that the definition of delayed puberty according to patient.co.uk specifies '...in boys beyond 14 years old'.  Now, I have no way of saying what the definition of delayed puberty was at the time that we join C's story, but his experiences began when he was 12- well below the point where we would diagnose delayed puberty nowadays.

C's mother consulted a homeopath. He was given some homeopathic pills, which on account of just being made out of sugar, had no beneficial effects, but also no harmful effects. However, the homeopath also appears to have given C's mum some advice, the goal of which seems to have been isolating him from his peers between the ages 

C was:

  • not allowed to stay at school for lunchtime, but instead had to go home.

  • not allowed to stay at school after the school day had finished.

  • not allowed to cross the local footbridge over the motorway, which cut him off from the majority of his peers.

  • not allowed to go down the street of the one classmate who lived on his side of the motorway.

  • allowed and encouraged to socialise with one boy who was two years his junior.

The first question is why. Why on earth would a homeopath give such advice? We can only speculate that the homeopath in question thought- apropos of nothing- that since C was a late developer he should be kept away from people his own age and instead only socialise with younger children. I've had a look around some homeopathic websites on the internet, and found nothing that looks similar to this sort of advice. [I did, however, find this website, which amused me no end due to its impressive reference list. No, really, go and look at the link and scroll to the bottom, if you want a good laugh]. In fact, I couldn't find anything at all suggesting that enforced social isolation is good for anyone or for treating anything, really. 

C's case would appear to be one of a homeopath acting outside of their competence and providing bizarre and very harmful advice. In C's case, homeopathic treatment was certainly not safe, although this had nothing to do with the sugar pills themselves.

The result of this set of rules on C were, in his own words:

"a boy who was immature, shy and lacking in self-confidence. When it came to puberty I had significant mental health problems (starting with OCD due to high levels of anxiety) which have had an impact throughout my life....I didn't regain a sense of normality (in terms of socialising properly) until the age of 25-26."

Limitations

C's story is, of course, merely one anecdote, and as good skeptics we of course have to realise the limitations of it. There's nothing to say that, if C hadn't have followed these rules, he wouldn't have gone on to develop any mental health problems, and indeed delayed puberty itself is not without an increased risk of psychological problems.

Given our very human need to fit in, it may be the case that children with delayed puberty have a preference for younger friends, as they stand out less. This is entirely understandable, but in C's case it is clear that his situation was enforced upon him.

 But given the established link between social isolation in adolescence with mental health issues, I think we can pretty safely say that this is a case where at the very least homeopathy worsened his situation. His quality of life was undoubtedly affected when he had to obey the rules.


Thankyou to C
 

Many, many thanks to C for sharing his story with me. I think its so important to hear these stories, as they might help to raise awareness of the less obvious, nebulous harms that can arise from treatment by unregulated, alternative practitioners. Unfortunately, its really difficult to quantify these sorts of harms into cold hard evidence, and that's why I, and many others like me, keep banging on as loudly as we can about them. If you have any examples of potential harm caused by homeopathy, it goes without saying that I would love to hear from you. 


H xxx

Nelson's: Suggesting that your kids need mood stabilisers from two years old.

You know of Rescue Remedy, right? You probably had an aunt who would constantly swig a drop for her nerves, or might have even taken some before a driving test or exam.

Rescue Remedy has become a pretty well known brand- so well known, in fact, that most people don't bother finding out whats in it, or what principles its based on. You wouldn't want to know the recipe of Coca-Cola before you take a refreshing swig- you'd just assume that because its a well known brand, its probably going to work.

Rescue Remedy is, however, a whole load of woo nonsense. Sorry, but there's no other way of putting it. Some dude called Edward Bach decided- apropos of nothing- a good few years ago that some flowers, if left out in the sun and dissolved in alcohol,  will be able to balance physical and emotional distress. This is interesting, really, given that its taken the entire fields of neuroscience, psychiatry, and psychology many, many years to get to a point where there are still a vast amount of unknowns regarding mood disorders.

Science is getting there- slowly- when it comes to understanding things like depression. It's a vastly complicated subject. There's no perfect cure-all drug out there for treating such things- mainly because we don't yet understand it that well yet. So forgive me if I am skeptical that some random guy years ago has just randomly (without any basis in science) decided that, for example, mustard flower:

 "is the remedy for deep gloom and depression that descends for no apparent reason out of a clear blue sky. People in this state often list all the reasons they have to feel happy and contented, but still everything looks black and hopeless to them. The remedy helps to dispel the clouds so that we can once again appreciate the joy and peace in our lives."

Rescue Remedy is a blend of some of Dr Bach's made up flower remedies, diluted in brandy. You're supposed to reach for it in times of anxiety, as a soother. Funnily enough, brandy, being alcohol and all, it might make you feel a little bit better, but similarly to homeopathic remedies, they are dilutes such that very little or no levels of active ingredient are likely to remain. So even if Dr Bach were right about the flowers (despite evidence and science suggesting otherwise), there wouldnt be enough flower-stuff in a drop of it anyway to make a difference.

I can't quite get away from the fact that this is a cynical product which Dr Bach made up in an attempt to target wealthy women ("ooh! pretty flowers!") in the days where women were considered "hysterical" and many were labelled as having "problems with their nerves" based entirely on their sex.

Anyway, why am I on about Nelsons, and why am I on about children? Well, because the Bach Rescue Remedy brand- in all of its many, varying, and just-as-cynically money-grabbing-as-Big-Pharma- forms- is sold via Nelson's homeopathic brand. That's Nelson's who the FDA discovered weren't putting magic woo water in all of their magic woo water pills, but were happy enough to put particles of glass in there. That's Nelson's who are all "ooh, we care about you and your healthcare unlike those big meanie pharmaceutical companies who only care about money" all the time.

Well, I happened to stumble across this product of theirs today. Rescue Remedy Gummy Stars- aimed at children from 2 years and onwards. According to Nelsons:


"The first day back at school is a big day so parents should have a secret weapon against tiny tears on standby in the school run bag. RESCUE® Gummy stars - The latest addition to the RESCUE brand come in fun star shapes to help turn a frown upside down at the school gates and each Gummy Star contains four drops of RESCUE, the famous soothing combination of five flower essences."

What's wrong with that? The fact the Nelsons are attempting to medicalise a perfectly normal part of childhood purely for their profit, that's what. Being nervous on your first day of school is entirely normal, especially for a little one. What they need to do is to develop normal coping mechanisms to deal with their anxiety. What they don't need to feel is that their anxiety is abnormal and something which only a medicine can fix.

When encountering the world of complementary or alternative medicine, I often like to stop for a moment and replace the names of the companies with those of Big Pharma. It gives a good indication of whether or not there really is a difference in practices between the two camps, and whether people's reactions would be different

"The first day back at school is a big day so parents should have a secret weapon against tiny tears on standby in the school run bag. PROZAC® Gummy stars - The latest addition to the PROZAC brand come in fun star shapes to help turn a frown upside down at the school gates and each Gummy Star contains 10mg of PROZAC, the famous soothing antidepressant fluoxetine."

Icky, right?

Hxxx

The Society of Homeopaths and what they pass off as evidence

So today has seen some great news for rationality, science, and above all patients. The ASA has announced this ruling, leading to the Society of Homepaths taking down a rather large chunk of their website- the bit about what homeopathy can be used for.

However, using their search function, you can still find some of the nonsense they are promoting. I stumbled across this article, for example, entitled "Homeopathy Offers Alternative Relief for hay fever sufferers". I'd be very surprised if this article doesn't get taken down soon also, to be honest. It really should, given part of the ASA's ruling relates to their claims over the efficacy of homeopathy for hay fever. 

That use of the word alternative (as opposed to complementary) is interesting. That in itself suggests that the Society of Homeopaths are advocating patients not using conventional medicines in favour of their homeopathic products.

One thing that I have learnt about homeopaths is that, despite the fact that they often claim that randomised controlled trials (and indeed science in general) can't explain their wondrous treatment because of its individualised nature and quantum nanoparticles blah blah all the other words that they're clinging onto, they like to cite trials. A lot.

Homeopaths will often spout names of trials and provide links to PubMed abstracts with abandon, even when the trials say little about the clinical use of homeopathy in humans. In vitro or animal trials are favourites, and on the odd occasion where I have been sent a human trial, the result usually show that homeopathy is no better than placebo, and in some cases actually worse than placebo. At best, I'm guessing this is just ignorance- maybe they have misread the results of the trial? At worst (and more realistically), its a pretty obvious and petty method of obfuscation, and a pretty rubbish one at that. Presumably they think I will be so vowed by the fact that a trial exists that I wont bother to check the actual results of what the trial is saying.

This hayfever page overs a great example of this:

"A number of research trials have shown that homeopathic treatment can produce a significant improvement in hay fever symptoms,(4-7) but what does this involve?"

 Let's have a look at the "number of research trials", shall we?  

  • Reilly DT, Taylor MA, McSharry C, Aitchison T. Is homeopathy a placebo response?  Controlled trial of homeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as a model. Lancet,1986;2: 881-6.

This is a trial from 1986. Really, that's the best they can do, in 2013? The abstract of this trial appears impressive: "The homoeopathically treated patients showed a significant reduction in patient and doctor assessed symptom scores", but neglects to mention the most important part of a study like this: blinding. How can we assess the placebo effect in a study that isn't blinded? especially when the results rely on only reported outcomes. We can tick this one off the list as being a pretty rubbish effort at a trial. Must try harder. 

  •  Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of Homeopathy. Br Med J, 1991; 302:316-22.

Ahh, the early nineties. We're getting thoroughly modern and hip now, eh? This is a meta-analysis. hay fever isn't mentioned in the abstract at all, and the conclusion of the paper is that studies performed in homeopathy are rubbish, and better ones need to be done. Hardly a conclusive statement that homeopathy works for hay fever. We can tick this one off the list too.

We're now left with two trials to back up that statement above. To me, two trials is not "a number" of trials, even at this point. Even if these two trials were massive, robust, good quality randomised controlled trials, I still wouldn't be entirely convinced: I'd want to see the result replicated in as many different trials as possible. Anyway, we shalll soldier on, in the hopes of being dazzled by the brilliance of these two references. 

  • Launsø L, Kimby CK, Henningsen I, Fønnebø V. An exploratory retrospective study of people suffering from hypersensitivity illness who attend medical or classical homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy, 2006; 95: 73-80.

Oh dear. A retrospective study. So not a controlled trial at all then? The results? "The two groups of patients were similar in respect of their health at the start of the treatment, 57% of the patients who consulted a CH experienced an improvement of their state of health compared to 24% of the GP patients." well, that's all very well and good, but there is no blinding here whatsoever, and only 88 patients completed the study. means nothing at all, except for- as even the authors put it- as an exploratory study, maybe to try to find ways of how to conduct as more robust actual trial in the future.

That's it, down to the final trial. I'm expecting great things.  

  • Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA, Waters RF. Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Using Homeopathic Preparation of Common Allergens in the Southwest Region of the US: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Ann Pharmacother, 2005; 39(4): 617-24.

HURRAH!!! It's double-blind! We've gotten there! We've gotten some good, robust evidence tha- oh hang on, its only got 40 participants in it. It's just a wee ickle study that's far too small to draw any conclusions from.

So there you have it. This page is still up there on their website, using crappy references that don't back up their claims. The Society of Homeopaths- and quacks in general- need to realise that, no matter how hard they try, just trying to shoehorn poor excuses for studies in wherever they like isn't good enough.

Here's how it should go: you look at the evidence, you evaluate the evidence, and you make your claim on the basis of that evidence. Not: "I shall claim this, then try desperately to find something that vaguely looks like it backs me up, and I'll just hope for the best that no-one else bothers reading it. It seems the Society of Homeopaths are going in for the latter, and good on the ASA for pulling them up on it.

"We told the Society of Homeopaths not to discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, including offering specific advice on or treatment for such conditions. We also told them not to make health claims for homeopathy unless they held sufficiently robust evidence of efficacy." -ASA ruling


Hxxx

Making Clinical Trials Sexy

If you're buying a new TV, how do you go about it? My guess is that you probably have a look around the shops or internet, find a model you like, then get online to find some reviews of it and decide whether or not to buy based on what you've read. You may well scroll down to the reviews if you're buying something on Amazon, before you click the "Buy" button. If you book a holiday, you're probably straight on Trip Advisor to see what other people- humans just like yourself- have got to say about the hotel.

It is perfectly reasonable behaviour. We understand and respond to the personal experiences of other people- its part of our nature, stitched into our being. Each review is a little story, and humans love stories, especially when they are about other humans.

Its therefore a hugely unfortunate problem that, when it comes to healthcare, stories just aren't good enough. When peoples' lives are hanging in the balance, reviews and testimonials just aren't up to scratch. Here's why:

I have guttate psoriasis. Imagine I go on holiday (alas this is merely a pipedream this year, thanks to what feels like millions of large unexpected bills that seem to keep turning up in my life) and lo and behold, when I return, my psoriasis has cleared up. I conclude that it is definitely the sunshine that has cured it, and proceed to proclaim that I have found the ultimate 100% effective cure for psoriasis.

Is it reasonable that I have come to that conclusion, based only on my own experience? No, not at all. Why have I focused on the sunshine aspect alone? Maybe a week spent relaxing is what has actually cured it. Maybe its because I've changed my diet on holiday and have been eating lots of lovely fresh fruit and vegetables and fish?  Maybe it is because there is a magic ingredient in Sangria which miraculously beats rogue skin cells into submission. What if chlorine in swimming pool water is my skin superhero? Maybe-just maybe- its because guttate psoriasis can be self-limiting, and it has just faded away of its own accord. With just my experience to go on, there is no way I will ever be able to know what it is that has made my condition improve.

What I would need to do to be able to decide is to scale things up. Get as many people as possible with guttate psoriasis, and divide them into at least two groups- one exposed to sunlight, one not. I'd have to try to control the peoples' behaviour as best as I could for the other factors like diet, chlorine exposure, sangria intake, stress etc. Whilst I could never completely control for everything, if the group exposed to sunshine experience a significantly better improvement in their psoriasis, then I could say with more certainty that it is the sunshine that did it rather than anything else.

This is the beauty and elegance of a clinical trial. They are simply the best, slickest, most reliable way we have of teasing out whether a treatment actually does make a difference. They're like an anthology of stories, carefully selected and analysed by researchers in a bid to start finding an answer to a treatment question. Whilst they're not 100% perfect, they're certainly the best sort of information we have at the moment on which to base any decisions about which treatment to choose for which disease, and for which patient.

This is, however, very easy to forget when you actually have to read one. I do not have a mathematically inclined brain, and when faced with tables full of numbers, p values, confidence intervals, hazard ratios, relative and absolute risks etc, my grey matter is usually to be found quivering and wimpering in the corner of my skull. I have to really try hard to focus on the stats and results when reading a clinical trial- its a constant fight to wrench my thoughts back onto the page, when they keep merrily skipping away to think about kittens or bunnies or *that* picture of a minipig wearing red wellies. And I say this as a geeky pharmacist who has undertaken a decent amount of training in how to read a clinical trial. What hope then, does an individual patient or regular joe have of understanding trial data?

A quick glance at pretty much any website selling an 'alternative medicine' and you'll notice there is usually a "Testimonials" page on there. Many other types of healthcare sites also use testimonials to prove their treatment works. They're easy to read, often full of personality, and can really seem to speak to you as a reader. They may seem convincing, but as you've (hopefully) seen from my example above, they simply can't be used to decide if a product works or not. A glossy celebrity story endorsing a product in a magazine is infinitely more sexy than ten pages full of stats and graphs in a medical journal.

Testimonials and reviews are, at first glance, more attractive and more seductive than the more dowdy clinical trial. So what can we do to help the clinical trial apply a bit of lippy, spray some perfume on itself, and don its heels to get out on the town and make people weak at the knees? My short answer is I don't know. Campaigns like International Clinical Trials Day help of course, but at the moment it feels like we're swimming against the tide somewhat. My ultimate dream would be a primetime TV series, fronted by a hunky Brian Cox type. If he can make physics sexy enough to be at the forefront of our entertainment, surely there is some way that we can do the same for one of the best inventions in healthcare? I'd like to get to a place were it's second nature for everyone, whether they be a patients, pharmacist, healthcare professional or general geek, instinctively bypasses testimonials to look for clinical trial evidence instead.

Do you have any ideas? Have you had any really good experiences of explaining clinical trials to patients? Are there any techniques we can use to simplify the stats and make trials more accessible to all? My friend Nancy had a great idea of including a Plain English summary as part of an abstract for every trial. Is there anything else we could do? Let me know, however outlandish your idea, either by commenting, tweeting me (@SparkleWildfire), or dropping me an e-mail at my new shiny sparkly e-mail address healthydoseofskepticism@gmail.com

Hxxx

The Magic Blankie

When its cold and dark outside, I like nothing more than snuggling on the sofa under my blanket with a good book or a film. Some would even say its medicinal. No, really, they would. They'd go on to claim that its excellent for treating chronic diseases and that everyone should have a Magic Blankie of their very own at home.

Enter the healing blanket TMB-01, which stands for Treatment Multilayer Blanket. I prefer The Magic Blankie, though to be honest. Or Truly Mad Bollocks, that would also work. I love how they think also assigning it a number will make it more scientific sounding. Mind you, coming from SCENAR (Self-Controlled Energo Neuro Adaptive Regulation), we can be fairly confident that they have a robust, experienced Department Of Shoehorning Random And Sceince-y Words Into Acronyms (DoSRASWIA) on the case.

NO Kermit! Don't you know that by saying bye bye blankie you are denying yourself the health benefits of Magic Russian Technology?!

NO Kermit! Don't you know that by saying bye bye blankie you are denying yourself the health benefits of Magic Russian Technology?!

They're all the rage in Russia apparently. And I suppose, given how cold their winters are, it's only natural that every household would have a cosy blanket lying around. At only $325 a pop, why wouldn't you?

So what can the healing blanket actually heal? Lets see what Scenar have to say about it:

"The healing blanket TMB-01 can be combined with other therapies for a treatment of a wide range of diseases as well as stand alone independent treatment for psycho-emotional regulation, insomnia, stress and reduction of muscular spasm. The TMB blanket also helps to regulate psychosomatic conditions, relieves constant tiredness, and improves feelings of well being."

Insomnia, stress, tiredness, psycho-emotional stuff. Well we all have problems with those, don't we. Lets have a look at how we should use the blanket: 

"Maximum effects are achieved when the patient is wrapped completely and sleeps... One procedure takes around 40 minutes and could be repeated 2 – 3 times a day. The course of treatment is between 15 – 20 days 9 up to 1 – 3 procedures a day)".

Right, so to make yourself feel less sleepy, or to stop insomnia, what you should do is get cosy in your Blankie and sleep. Yep, seems perfectly plausible to me that the effects on conditions caused by lack of sleep are purely down to the blanket itself and nothing to do with sleeping, or just having a bit of a relax. Although frankly, having a 40 minute nap three times a day for 20 days is unlikely to help my stress levels as I'd have time to get sod all done in the rest of the day. 

How is The Magic Blankie supposed to work? Similarly to a tin foil hat, it would seem. It's made of layers of metal, which apparently shields the body from all external electromagnetic fields and radiation. Except, presumably, your head, which you'd probably not be covering with the blanket to avoid the minor inconvenience of suffocating. Its a reverse tin foil hat, I suppose.

"No, no its fine. We don't care if any electromagnetic evil rays of death  get into their angelic little heads,. It's not like there's any useful organs in there that might need protection. What's a brain ever done for us?"- SCENAR Department of Making Excuses (DoME) Spokesperson. Probably.

"No, no its fine. We don't care if any electromagnetic evil rays of death  get into their angelic little heads,. It's not like there's any useful organs in there that might need protection. What's a brain ever done for us?"- SCENAR Department of Making Excuses (DoME) Spokesperson. Probably.

Physicists, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but aren't there some forms of electromagnetic radiation that even several feet of lead won't stop? But those clever Russians have found a way to stop all of it. Makes you wonder why X-ray departments aren't simply tents made of these blankets held up with curtain poles. They could be renamed X-ray dens.  

Anyway, what about evidence? There is some, of course. It's just been blown away by the electromagnetic fields of reality.

Hxxx

P.S.I hope the sarcasm is clear enough in this post. Don't want to end up with quotes being used as testimonials or anything. "AT $325 A POP, WHY WOULDN'T YOU?"- Sparkle Wildfire, Skeptic Pharmacist 

Wake up and smell the (green) coffee

The media is raving about it. Waif-like celebrities like Demi Moore are swallowing it like there's no tomorrow. Any internet search results in a tidal wave of websites and blogposts screaming that its the new "100% safe and natural!" weight-loss secret. In short, the world seems to be falling over itself to get its soon-to-be-no-longer-chubby hands on a green coffee extract supplement. We'll all be size zeros in a matter of days.

Just one of the many hyperbolic stories appearing in the media. 

Just one of the many hyperbolic stories appearing in the media. 

Green coffee beans are normal, every day coffee beans before they have been roasted. The roasting process decreases the amounts of chlorogenic acid contained in the products. Chlorogenic acid is thought to moderate effects of glucose metabolism and inhibit fat accumulation- sounds brilliant, right? Well, before I go off, burger in hand, to eat lots of cake safe in the knowledge that I'll be shopping in the size 8 section in no time thanks to green coffee, lets have a look at the evidence.

Green coffee beans. Just like brown coffee beans, only, well... green. 

Green coffee beans. Just like brown coffee beans, only, well... green. 

First things first: does it work?

The short answer is it might do, a little bit, but we don't really know yet. There are a couple of little trials here and there, but they're limited by their size and trial design, so the results could just be fluke. There's one systematic review, which found that overall the data from the better quality trials suggested that green coffee extract could lead to modest weight loss differences (about 2.47kg (95% CI -4.23 to -0.072kg) over about 12 weeks. That's hardly enough to transform my size 16 lumpen frame into a lithe size 8 overnight, or indeed over a year, despite what all the before and after pictures on the manufacturer's websites say.

And what of its safety?

Well, in short we have no idea. I've done loads of research into this and have been unable to find any good, reliable information on its safety. Green coffee contains a similar amount of caffeine as normal coffee beans, so we can assume that all of the nasty side effects from drinking too much coffee could also happen with a green coffee extract. Palpitations, anxiety, insomnia, diarrhoea, and heart problems may result, and even anaphylaxis in the worst cases. Some products claim to be decaffeinated, but as none of these products are regulated, there is no guarantee. 

There is nothing out there on the safety of chlorogenic acid. It seems to have been used in chinese medicine injections, and seemed to be thought to cause allergies. However it seems that there is some debate about this. One study in dogs seems to suggest that it could have an effect on the liver and kidneys, but whether it could damage human kidneys or livers is unknown.

So there we have it.

We basically know very little about green coffee extracts, despite what the websites that are selling it will tell you. It might work a bit, but its certainly not a miracle cure, and we don't really know whether or not its safe yet. It may well be safe, but we just can't say for certain yet. Instead of waiting until more evidence is known, however, it seems that manufacturers are gleefully happy to sell it far and wide.

What's particularly uncomfortable is that the sellers of green coffee extracts are taking the more and more common approach of marketing their products. Google "Green coffee extract safety" and instead of finding reliable sites or those actually looking at the safety of the product, the search is flooded with marketing sites masquerading as genuine safety sites. This sort of marketing feels really icky, and I don't like it at all.

Its yet another opportunity for unscrupulous people to make money from our insecurities. I'm overweight myself, and I know that I have to struggle against the urge to throw my skepticism to the wind and throw money at anything that claims it will help. The simple fact is that there wont be a miracle cure, and losing weight takes time, effort, patience and willpower, not to mention the fact that the desperation to be unhealthily skinny is dangerous in itself.

Hxxx

Some thoughts on quality and quantity

The sad news about Iain Banks has gotten me thinking today. 

I'll be honest here and say I've never read any of his books (so many books in the world, so little time!). I know nothing at all about him. Yet when I read his statement at work this afternoon, I had tears in my eyes. His words were so dignified, so stoical, and so noble that they really touched my heart. The ability to have humour at such a time is something I admire hugely.

I'm sure his words are the tip of the iceberg. I really can't even begin to understand what a lengthy, horrific process it must be to come to terms with such news. But what struck me most of all was his plans to spend his remaining time with his family, friends and loved ones. Isn't that, when it comes down to it, what we would all want? And yet it seems to me that cases such as his appear to be in the minority of those that are reported in the media. 

Many moons ago, at university, I went to a lecture by Sir Michael Rawlins. He discussed the thorny issue of how NICE assess drugs, and he touched upon quality of life measures. I remember being utterly shocked when he said that the majority of terminal patients choose longevity over quality of life. That's always stuck with me, as it seems so starkly counter-intuitive to me that I genuinely can't get my head around it. I also know that's very easy for me to say, and that I have absolutely no idea what it must be like to have to face such decisions. A few years ago I did my Diploma in Therapeutics, and we had to try out some of the quality of life rating scales that are used at NICE. Believe me, this really gets you thinking about how difficult these sorts of choices are. I also remember a really brilliant workshop with Claud Regnard, a palliative care consultant and author of some highly-esteemed books in the field. I remember being bowled over by how positive and creative such a potentially depressing subject could be.

We're a nation (and potentially a planet) that are very medicalised. We hunt for a cure for everything, and a miracle pill to make us cleverer, slimmer, healthier. When given the choice between taking a tablet and changing our lifestyles, I think it's safe to say that most of us would rather opt for the former. This is fuelled by any number of things, but I think the media has a lot to do with it: there's always a story about how some new drug is going to cure Alzheimer's, or obesity, or heart disease, and there's story after story of families desperately searching for a cure or treatment that can cure their love ones.

And here's what I've been thinking about: when all the options have been explored, and there is no cure, practitioners of conventional medicine (by which I mean medicine which is proven to work) will usually tell you so. 

At this point, the quest for something else, perfectly understandably, kicks in. Of course you would grasp at any straws, any vestige of hope. And so, right at the time where people should be spending their days doing what they love with the people they love, as Iain Banks is doing, some of them turn to alternatives. 

It could be weird diets, it could be homeopathy, it could be a certain well-known quack's clinic in Texas, it doesn't matter. What all of these things do is sell hope when all else has failed. They're a very seductive prospect, and it may well seem perfectly logical that you'd spend every penny in trying them, and you'd leave no stone unturned trying to find the perfect treatment for you, or your loved one. 

Just at the time when you should be kicking back and enjoying your time as much as you can, you end up on a plane across the world, which is stressful enough for anyone at the best of times. Or you might end up on a strict diet regime, having to deprive yourself of the foods you love just when you should be enjoying them more than ever. You might end up a slave to a complex regime of megadose vitamins, enemas, pills and injections when you should be being made as comfortable as possible with palliative care. 

These people who sell false hope rob patients not only of their money, but of their precious time as well. And that, in my opinion, is the most evil and unforgivable of sins. 

I hope that, eventually, we get to a place where a quality life and death become the most important thing to anyone with a terminal illness. 

This is yet another blogpost where I feel the need to write "hope this all makes sense" at the end. I probably should just plan posts better, but I've always found I'm usually better at just writing as I think at times. My humble apologies also for any typos... I'm absolutely rubbish at touch screen typing


Hxxx

Homeopathic Harms Vol 5: Interactions

In February 2013, my friend @EBMScientist and I delivered a Newcastle Skeptics in the Pub talk entitled Homeopathy: Where's The Harm? As a follow up to this, we've decided to write a series of blog posts expanding on a number of points we covered in the talk.

In the next instalment of our series on the harms of homeopathy, I want to talk about interactions. I've covered this a bit in the past, but let's have a look at this area in a bit more detail.

We all hopefully know by now that homeopathic medicines pretty much have no trace of active ingredient in them by now. Do we need to worry about drug interactions with homeopathic remedies?
 

Can homeopathic medicines interact with conventional medicines?

The obvious answer is no. Magic Sugar Water Pills are highly unlikely to affect any conventional medicines. There's a lack of actual evidence to prove this, but I think it's pretty safe to rely on a theoretical basis here. So that's great, right, blog post over and see you later. If only it were that simple. 
 

Can homeopathic practitioners interact with conventional medicines?

Unfortunately, yes. very much so. It's pretty well known that homeopathic practitioners step over (and in some cases stomp over, then jump up and down repeatedly on) the boundaries between conventional and homeopathic medicines, just by the advice they give. One example would be vaccines- many homeopathic practitioners are against vaccines and therefore advise their patients to avoid them- Just look at the emails sent by pharmacist (and embarrassment to the profession) Tony Pinkus to an undercover BBC reporter. Little offhand remarks about the toxicity of conventional medicines, or big pharma conspiracies, or how conventional medicines might not work, all add up to the effect of harming the patient's relationship with their actual doctor. And how about the spectacular example of inappropriate advice in my previous post? 

Can conventional medicines interact with homeopathic medicines?


I'd like to say no here, because of course homeopathic medicines are inert and don't actually contain any medicine. It is the case, however, that homeopathic practitioners unfortunately think otherwise, which can lead to a huge amount of harm as patients discontinue their conventional medicine in favour of homeopathy.

I have in front of me a book called "Homeopathic Pharmacy", by Stephen Kayne. This is a book aimed at healthcare professionals, and indeed is a  recommended resource for medicines information pharmacists in the UK. (EDIT: This book no longer appears as a recommended source.) And yet, even this source, which we could consider to be one of the more balanced tomes (despite the ominous mention of Dana Ullman in the acknowledgements), contains a wealth of dangerous nonsense. This book tells me that, for example, "potent topical steroids are thought to negate the use of  homeopathy in the treatment of eczema and psoriasis" Now I know more than some that skin conditions such as this can be horrifically uncomfortable, not to mention their effects on your self-esteem. Stopping treatment that works in favour of a placebo is not, in my opinion, acceptable in any shape or form, especially given how vulnerable and desperate people can be because of skin conditions- don't forget that in some cases, dermatological conditions are terminal, as they can drive sufferers to suicide.  

There can, apparently, be interactions between oral steroids and homeopathy too. "the patient's symptoms tend to be masked, however, making an accurate choice of remedy much more difficult", we are told on page 205 of Homeopathic Pharmacy. Well, you could call it a masking of symptoms, or you could- as I prefer, refer to it as "working". So what is the average homeopath to do then, when presented with a patient who is taking steroids but seeking their help? It would seem that the obvious (but sadly not the ethical) solution would be to ask them to discontinue their steroids so that that the symptoms are "unmasked". This will obviously lead to an increase in symptoms for the patient, and lead to unnecessary suffering, but it can also precipitate acute adrenocortical insufficiency, which can in the worst case scenario be fatal. Patients should "ideally" discontinue their steroids for 6 weeks prior to initiating a homeopathic remedy- this is more than enough time to result in loss of control in their condition.  

It's not just drugs themselves that can be a problem, but the excipients (inactive ingredients used in the formulation of a medicine) too. Strong flavours used in syrups, for example. This could potentially discourage patients to take- or to give their child- antibiotic syrups, with the potential to worsen or prolong a patient's condition. 
 

Can foodstuffs interact with homeopathic medicines?

  
Yes, apparently so, though again there is no hard study evidence for this- why would there be, when there's no good hard study evidence that homeopathy works in the first place? Coffee, tea, cocoa, chocolate, and spicy foods are all to be avoided. Aside from being unnecessarily restrictive, and potentially causing a patient anxiety, this idea fills me with horror. Imagine a life without tea, chocolate, or spicy foods. I rely on all of these three things to get me through my daily life, and would inevitably become depressed if I had to avoid any of them.
 

Can homeopathy interact with homeopathy? 


I know, right? What a bizarre question, given that homeopathic remedies are sugar with specially shaken water sprinkled on. Can sugar interact with sugar? Well it seems that someone has decided that they can, based on a grand total of no evidence. Aromatic preparations, such as camphor, menthol, and peppermint, are supposed to inactivate other homeopathic medicines. Remember, though, that homeopathic camphor, menthol  or peppermint is highly unlikely to actually contain any molecules of camphor, menthol or peppermint, and we're left in a bit of a ridiculous situation based on nothing at all. 

It would seem that homeopaths utilize certain foods or remedies as "antidotes". Apparently, if a remedy isn't working, and they want to try something else, they might ask a patient to drink a cup of coffee, or take a remedy like camphor to "wash out" the previous remedy so that they can start again. I'll refer you again to "Homopathic Pharmacy"- with a reminder that this is one of the more reasonable texts:

"It is certainly not dangerous in life-threatening terms, but used injudiciously will interfere with the vibrational pattern of the vital force."

Vital force, vibrational energy, sugar as an antidote to sugar, and none of it- not a scrap- based on science, evidence, or even basic logic.

See you again soon for the next episode :)

Hxxx

Homeopathic Harms Vol 2. Where's the Evidence?

Here's the next in our series of blog posts following on from our SITP talk about the harms of homeopathy. This is a guest post written by the marvellous @EBMScientist of Evidence-Based Skepticism fame. Now, I'm going to be a bit bossy here and insist that, if you haven't already bookmarked her blog, you do so right this minute. Future blog posts in this series will just be posted on our respective blogs, but we'll be sure to post links to all of them so you don't miss any instalments. so, without further ado, I shall hand you over to @EBMScientist:

We often harp on about the evidence for homeopathy working or otherwise, and I’m not going to touch on that here, because it’s been covered beautifully by many more eloquent writers than me.  What you don’t often see though, is comment on the evidence for homeopathy doing harm.  In the last post in this series the lovely @SparkleWildfire touched on medicalisation, an indirect harm that’s very real but tough to quantify; but what about direct harms?  I’m glad you asked…

In conventional medicine, randomised controlled trials are the best kind of study we can do of a drug to see if it works and if it it’s safe.  What maybe doesn’t mentioned quite so often is that there’s an even *better* form of evidence – the systematic review.  These are produced when someone sits down to do the very tough but remarkably important job of finding every single scrap of evidence they can on a given topic, and pooling it all together to try and get closer to the definitive answer.  The result is a document that represents the best evidence possible for how well a drug (or anything else, for that matter) works, and how safe it is.

One of the biggest and most respected sources of these systematic reviews is theCochrane Collaboration, who cover all areas of medicine.  Happily, they also have a few reviews related to homeopathy, and that seems as good a place to start as any.  The most recently published is:

Homeopathic Oscillococcinum® for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like illness

The authors searched multiple databases of medical literature, covering a time period dating back to the mid-60s and all the way up until August 2012.  That’s a lot of literature.  Out of all the results they found six randomised, placebo-controlled trials of Oscillococcinum that were similar enough to be directly compared.  Since we’re not really interested in efficacy in this review, I’ll skip straight to the safety part: out of these six trials, including a total 1,523 people, there was one reported adverse event.  One. It happened to be a headache. Let’s stop and think about that for a moment.

A good quality randomised controlled trial collects every single adverse event that happens to every single patient.  And the use of the term “adverse event” is very deliberate, because it includes absolutely everything unexpected and unwelcome that happens (and here’s the key part) whether or not it’s likely to be related to taking the drug.  That might sound counter-intuitive, but the reason is simple – we want to pick up every possible side effect of drugs, and sometimes side effects are…weird.  So it might sound odd to include as an adverse event that someone got hit by a bus, but what if the drug they were taking made them dizzy, or confused, or clumsy?  It’s not unreasonable to suggest that any one of those things could end up in getting you involved in a traffic accident.  So every single little thing is recorded, and once the trials is over you do some sums to work out the key question – are these things *more likely to happen in the people who took the drug*? If 20 people broke a leg but they were equally spread out among the trial groups then nothing further needs to be said; if 19 of them were on the drug being studied then there might be something to worry about.  The flip side of that of course is that if 19 were in the placebo group, you might want to wonder if the drug is (perhaps unintentionally) promoting better balance and co-ordination, for example (or if everyone in the placebo group was a keen but inept snowboarder).

Is that one single adverse event out of over 1,500 people taking Oscillococcinum starting to look fishy yet?  What about if I drop in the snippet that some of the people involved (327, to be precise) took the remedy every day for four weeks, to see if it stopped them from getting flu in the first place?  How many times in four weeks would an average, healthy person experience something that you could call an adverse event – a headache, a tummy upset, indigestion, a strained ankle, a touch of insomnia?  I’ve had three of those things in the last 24 hours, and I wouldn’t say I’m a particularly remarkable individual.


So hopefully you can see from this that there’s simply a huge, yawning hole in the evidence about safety in homeopathy.  There are ways and means to address this (though they’re far from perfect), and I’ll address one of those in my next post in this series.

Homeopathic Harms Vol 1: Medicalisation

In February 2013, my friend Nancy and I delivered a Newcastle Skeptics in the Pub talk entitled Homeopathy: Where's The Harm? As a follow up to this, we've decided to write a series of blog posts about a number of points we covered in the talk. Here is the first:   

Doctor's appointments: often you feel like you're in and out before you know it, and they can't get you out the door quick enough. They have a target number of minutes to spend with each patient, and sometimes you can feel like they don't have as much time as you'd like to discuss all the things you want to with them.

There is, then, one aspect of homeopathic practice which can be superior to that of conventional medicine: the consultation. A homeopath might spend an hour or more assessing each individual, not just asking about particular symptoms but about their personality as well, how they think and feel about the world. I've never been to see a homeopath, but I'd imagine this is really valuable to a patient, particularly those with minor mental health complaints. I know myself that when I've been to see a good GP who I feel has really listened to me, I leave feeling a bit better already. 

I suspect that the consultation itself may be part of what provides benefit to patients, rather than the sugar pills that are given out at the end of it. I'm not aware of any evidence that compared individualised homeopathic treatment to the OTC stuff though, which would be the only way to tease out and quantify any benefit from the consultation.

So what's the problem here? If a consultation with someone who appears to listen to you and care makes you feel better, where's the harm in that? The sort of subtle, indirect harms that we'll be discussing in this series of posts are often theoretical and would be very, very difficult to assess via hard, clinical evidence, so you'll have to bear with me while I discuss them with you and see if they make sense at the end of it. Consider the following story: 

Imagine I'm quite an anxious person (in actual fact I am, so it doesn't take that much imagining to those who know me). Imagine I'm particularly anxious at the moment because I maybe have a public speaking event (something like Skeptics In The Pub, say!) to deliver in a few week's time. I might be finding it hard to sleep, I find I'm worrying about it quite often, and getting some physical symptoms- my heart is beating quite fast at times, say, and my stomach hurts at times, but it's nothing too serious.

I go to visit a homeopath (admittedly, this would be an unlikely thing to do if I was actually talking about myself) who takes time to discuss with me my problems. I get on well with them, and feel like they are really listening to me. During the discussion, I find that vocalising my anxieties helps me to rationalise them and my fears are allayed somewhat. Just the act of talking about it makes me feel better- in other words, the homeopath is delivering a talking therapy service to me. By the end of the consultation, I'm already feeling more in control of my anxieties, yet I'm still given some tablets to take home, and I dutifully follow the instructions I'm given.

As I've discussed elsewhere, there is a stigma about mental health issues. This also, unfortunately, extends to talking therapies too. Its quite likely that some people would be happier to declare "I'm seeing a homeopath" than "I'm seeing a counsellor" in front of their friends or acquaintances. The handing over of the sugar pills at the end of the consultation will no doubt suggest the talking bit is more "justified", and they can convince themselves that they're not mad, or the sort of weak person who would have to resort to a talking therapy. And thus, the stigma is reinforced. Talking therapies shouldn't be something to be ashamed of. You don't need some inert sugar pills to justify and hide the fact that, now and then, you just need to be able to talk to someone about your problems or feelings.

There are wider issues with this kind of thing too. The visit to the homeopath has made me feel better. I've been to see someone, left with some pills in my hand, and I've improved, reinforcing the fact that I feel better when given something to take. Let's say that in the next few months, I feel a bit rubbish because I've had a bit of a cold and I'm left with a cough that's been there for a couple of weeks. I go to see my Dr, who tells me that my chest is clear, and the cough should clear up of its own accord. However, I've expected to get something out of the visit- I don't want to leave the surgery with no pills in my hand, as I know that last time I left a consultation about my health I was given pills at the end of it and I felt better. It's left to the Dr to explain to me that I don't need antibiotics, and this can be a notoriously difficult thing to do. Some Drs might relent and give me a prescription for an antibiotic, contributing to the catastrophic situation we're in now with antibiotic resistance. If the Dr doesn't give me a prescription, I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth and a bit of mistrust in the conventional health care system. 'Next time I'm feeling ill', I think, 'I'll go back to that homeopath. They take me seriously because they gave me pills'.

And so the cycle goes on.... 

Hxxx

 

Cherry picking the evidence

A good friend of mine is really into running, and has many half-marathons, kilomathons, and marathons under his belt (at least one of which was in a very hungover state). He is taking a sour cherry supplement, which has led to some heated debate about whether or not it works.

He eagerly googled, to bring up some small studies of the effects of sour cherry juice on pain after a marathon. More animated discussion took place. He seemed to think that the very existence of some studies meant that the stuff would definitely work:  So I thought this would be the perfect place to assess what evidence there is for sour cherry.

It would seem that there are several different types of cherry, sweet and sour. It is the sour, tart varieties which appear to be of interest in exercise products such as this. And these things are pretty expensive. 

My first point: the evidence appears to be looking at juice, not tablets. There is nothing to say that any benefits you might get from a juice will also be present in a tablet- think of garlic, for example, where allicin, the active ingredient, is mainly lost during the processing required to make a garlic supplement. 

My search strategy begins with my old friend Embase. eagerly, I find sour cherry in the database and search it, only to get 9 results. When I limit it to humans, I get 1 result, and that is assessing its effects on sleep quality, so is nothing to do with exercising.

And so, I move onto Medline, in which I find a grand total of 2 studies looking at the effects of sour cherry juice in recovery following exercise. 

The first study has 20 recreational marathon runners in it, so its tiny, and far too small to be able to draw any reliable conclusions from. Whilst it seems to show some positive results, with significant reductions in isometric stress, inflammation, and oxidative stress, there is no indication of how relevant this is clinically.1. Would I actually feel better after a marathon as a result of this? Is this increase in recovery of muscle function actually going to make a difference?

The second study has a grand total of 14 male students in it. It's randomised and placebo controlled, but again, to small to be of any interest. This study found that strength loss and pain were reduced in the cherry group, but relaxed elbow angle and muscle tenderness were no different. 2

There are a couple of other little trials dotted here and there are well. But they're all too small to suggest that there is any definite effect. Moreover, there is no information on the safety of such products. Any trials only apply to cherry juice, and can't as yet be extrapolated to cherry supplements such as tablets or capsules.

Whilst the preliminary evidence looks juicy, it's certainly not enticing enough to tempt me to pop my marathon cherry. 
 

I'll stick to my favourite types of cherries, if you don't mind, namely those that are steeped in sugar and  encased in pastry.

Search strategy: Embase:*sour cherry [Limit to: humans] Medline: (sour AND cherry).af OR (tart AND cherry).af [limit to: humans]

References: 1. Howatson G et al. Influence of tart cherry juice on indices of recovery following marathon running. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 12 2010, vol./is. 20/6(843-52), 0905-7188;1600-0838 2. Connolly D et al. Efficacy of a tart cherry juice blend in preventing the symptoms of muscle damage. Br J Sports Med 2006; 40: 679-683

Big Pharma & Big Homeo: Titans will clash, and ducks will die.

There has been much talk of homeopathy in the media in the past few days. I want to pick up on one point that is being brought up by homeopathy believers everywhere at the moment in response to any criticism.
 

"But Big Pharma has many problems! Just read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre!"

There are a few reasons why this is an utterly terrible argument.

The Logical Fallacy

This is not a two option scenario, so this is a false dilemma. homeopathic supporters are attempting to suggest that because Big Pharma has its problems, homeopathy is a better alternative. But here's the problem: These are not the only options in the world. Big Pharma does have massive, endemic problems, but that bears no resemblance to whether or not homeopathy works. Even if there were no evidence that any conventional medicine works ever, there still wouldn't be any evidence that homeopathy works either.

There's definitely an element of a "You too!" fallacy here as well. Big Pharma has its problems, but this is no reason to expect anything less than impeccable ethics from any other sector. 

The Misleading Rustic Image

Homeopathic manufacturers would very much like us to have a fluffy, warm, reassuring image in our heads of some nice, compassionate people making a tincture from plants, shaking it in a special way, and making a nice, safe medicine from it. In actual fact, the image is rather more grubby, with diseased body parts, conventional medicines, and limbs being used in the manufacture. Oscillococciinum, supposedly the most popular homeopathic remedy for flu, involves killling a muscovy duck and using its heart and liver to produce a mother tincture. I wonder if folks who are against animal testing and the likes in the pharmaceutical industry are aware of this fact? For the purposes of this blog post, lets call our duck Dave

A Muscovy Duck Named Dave

A Muscovy Duck Named Dave

Homeopathy is not usually made by ethical practitioners in their kitchens. And frankly, if it were, i'd be pretty concerned about hygeine etc and would be wanting inspectors to go round to check it. Its mainly made by large companies who are ultimately concerned with profits. In fact, until very recently, New Era homeopathic products (ooh, sounds all new age-y and nice and hopeful, doesn't it?) were made by Merck (Sounds-and indeed is- a pretty damn large corporate pharmaceutical company).

We also know from the FDA that homeopathic manufacturers can be less than meticulous to say the least in their standards. Broken glass? That's not a problem, just leave it there on the production line, no one will mind. More info on this story can be found at The Quackometer
 

The Massive Mark Up Margins

Pharmaceutical companies spend a HUGE amount on research and development of new drugs. First they have to employ people to find a new chemical entity, whether that be in the rainforest or in the lab. Then they have to find out if it works, which involves a huge amount of lab work. If that seems postive, they then have to do trials, which is hugely expensive. At any of these stages, there is a huge likelihood of failure and it is a very, very small minority of new chemical entities that actually get through to a stage where they can be marketed. At that point, price margins can be pretty damn high, which is in part to cover all of those R&D costs. Yes, there are also huge profits that are made in the pharmaceutical industry, and there are all the associated problems covered in Bad Pharma. This is certainly not an ideal scenario, but at least at the end of the day we are left with some drugs that work.

Big Homeo, on the other hand, puts little-if any- funds into research and development. If it did, we would have a load more trials than we do now. The work in drug discovery has been done for them, by Hahnemann et al who have written Materia Medica and the likes. So not many outgoings there then.

What about the costs of the ingredients? Well sugar is cheap, as is water. And even if your mother tincture comes from a valuable substance, you can make a hell of a lot of homeopathic medicine from it. Here is the recipe for Boiron's Oscillococcinum (according to Wikipedia)

  • Active ingredient: Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum (extract ofMuscovy Duck liver and heart) 200CK HPUS 1×10−400 g[9]

  • Inactive ingredient: 0.85 g sucrose0.15 g lactose (100% sugar.[10])

So to make 1 gram of oscillococcinum, you only need 1×10−400g of extract of poor Dave's heart and liver. This is a ridiculously tiny amount, and as you will hopefully now know, there will be VERY VERY VERY little chance of any of Dave's molecules remaining in the resulting solution. 

I have no idea how much the heart and liver of Wor Duckie Dave would weigh. I also have no idea how much an extract made from him would cost. I'm guessing, however, that the number of packs of homeopathic pills I could make from his unfortunate organs would mean it is very, very lucrative, and I would be laughing all the way to the bank with my profits were I a company with few scruples about selling nonsense to vulnerable people. 
 

The Pointlessness Of It All

Poor Dave. Dave has been killed to make a medicine. However, none of Dave's molecules actually make it into that medicine in the end, because it has been diluted to such extremes. There's no memory of Dave in the water or sugar left in the medicine, only in the minds of his little duckie friends and his family who miss him dearly. There are huge outcries about bear bile being collected for use in chinese traditional medicines- why is no one speaking out for Dave?

At the end of the day, evidence suggests that after all the sacrificing, succussing, potentization, and all the other fancy words they use for magic rituals, what we are left with is an inert sugar pill.We could have saved ourselves all the bother, and saved Dave's life, if we just made an inert sugar pill in the first place and didn't bother with all the pretending. 

Won't anyone think of the ducks?

Homeopathic Vaccines: An impassioned challenge

Its been a hard week for us pharmacists. To be honest, I'm sort of at a loss as to where to start, but the most obvious place is in London, at a pharmacy called Ainsworths, where a man called Tony Pinkus works.

Ainsworths is a real life, registered pharmacy, and Mr Pinkus is a real life, registered pharmacist. The main problem with this story, however, is that Mr Pinkus is not selling real life medicines to his real-life patients, and in doing so he is putting peoples' lives at risk.

In an expose by BBC News, Mr Pinkus has been caught recommending by email that homeopathic whooping cough "vaccines" are used instead of getting a proper, real-life vaccine. In the email exchange, Mr Pinkus is careful to express his recommendations as personal choice, and this will presumably form his defence. However in my eyes this is absolutely no defence at all. For years, the pharmacy profession has been slowly but surely promoting ourselves as the trusted healthcare professionals that we are, therefore we have a responsibility to be aware of the position of high esteem we may be held in by the public. We have a duty to know that any 'personal recommendations' we make will constitute medical advice in the eyes of many patients.

Mr Pinkus also states that the patients' GP "will undoubtedly throw a lot of fear in your direction". Now, I remember having it very firmly drummed into me that we need to be careful in our role as a pharmacist not to break the trust a patient has in their GP. Obviously, this doesn't mean that we should cover up any mistakes or errors from them, but it does mean some quite careful wording as enquiries arise. Mr Pinkus is clearly and flagrantly attempting to reduce the trust this patient would have had in their GP's advice and showing a shocking lack of respect to the GP in question, despite knowing absolutely nothing about their practice. I wonder if he has ever considered the longer term implications of such wording. "oh, the GP has told me I should be worried about this lump in my breast, but of course they'll just throw a lot of fear in my direction", for example.

Mr Pinkus has also been investigated by pharmacy's governing body before. In 2006 he was caught selling homeopathic travel vaccines. In 2009 he was investigated by the PRSGB for selling homeopathic swine flu vaccines. In 2011 he was investigated for marketing homeopathic travel vaccines again and malaria prophylaxis. In each case the regulator has let the public down by not taking decisive action over a pharmacist who is regularly and routinely endangering lives, all in the name of "free choice". I don't think i actually need to point out the serious indirect harms that could happen if a patient were to use a sugar pills to prevent malaria, or yellow fever etc. 

Free patient choice is not a defence when patient's lives are at risk.

I've been asking for a response to the case from the GPhC on twitter for a few days now and have heard nothing. I'm also wondering why the story hasn't appeared in some of the major pharmacy news publications (Chemist and Druggist, I'm looking at you).  

This story has really angered me, and i can pinpoint exactly why. I've written before about the constant fear I and many other pharmacists feel whilst at work- the fear that one little throwaway mistake could have huge implications for a patient's life. And there's an added, secondary fear that, if something goes wrong, a regulator could step in and your whole livelihood and career could be at stake. This is a fear that all good pharmacists carry to some degree, and it  can weigh heavily on your life. And yet here strides Tony Pinkus, who waves away any notion of patient safety, and flagrantly (I know it's the second time I've used this word, but it seems to fit the situation rather well) ignores the standards of the regulatory body without, apparently, a care in the world.

Well, I'm taking to heart the GPhC standards for conduct, ethics and performance, one of which is:

"Be prepared to challenge the judgement of your colleagues and other professionals if you have reason to believe that their decisions could affect the safety or care of others"

So this, Mr Pinkus (and any other homeopathic pharmacists who would recommend a homeopathic vaccine) is me challenging your decision, because I believe it most definitely could affect the safety and care of others.

UPDATE: Chemist and Druggist have now covered the story (registration required). The comments section is interesting, with a couple of folk showing a staggering lack of knowledge about homeopathic products.
The Pharmaceutical Journal have also covered the story (registration required). This includes some interesting tidbits, like the fact the MHRA have been investigating 20, yes TWENTY unlicensed medicines being sold on the Ainsworth's website. And the post script is particularly interesting:

'Some of you have noticed that the pertussin products highlighted in the BBC investigation are still on sale. We've clarified this with the MHRA - a spokeswoman confirmed that the MHRA asction (sic) was against products labelled as vaccines. 
"Substances and products labelled with the names of serious diseases such as pertussis are part of a wider, ongoing investigation," she said. So it's watch this space for the outcome of that branch of the investigation."'

This wider, ongoing investigation sounds very interesting indeed. 
 

Malik's Mesothelioma Magic

I'm still pretty new to this skepticism thing, but I'm starting to become immune to the bog-standard nonsense claims that I see homeopaths constantly making. There are still the odd ones, however, that knock me for six and leave me feeling rather staggered at the sheer dangerous nature of the claims.

It'll come as no surprise to some of you that the culprit of the most recent of these claims is "Dr" Nancy Malik, who yesterday posted the following on twitter:

That's right, people, apparently mesothelioma is curable with "alternative and natural treatments". And so, with bated breath and already-slightly-higher blood pressure, I followed the link provided by I'm Not Really A Dr Malik. What I was faced with was, to say the least, rather misleading and made my blood boil. Take this paragraph for instance:

"If mesothelioma patients have the desire to maintain quality of life, often they will choose alternative and natural treatments for the disease. The survival rates for those having success with natural treatments greatly enhance quality of life during treatment due to the fact that they forego poisoning their systems using toxic chemicals that hamper the body's immune system."

In other words: if you choose conventional medicine, you're an idiot who is essentially killing themselves by choosing poison. So what would they recommend instead, this website which has no references at all to back up their claims, and who appear to be desperately trying to sell me various nonsense books? 

There is one thing I can say in defense of this website is at least it appears to be peddling herbal medicines rather than homeopathy. I wonder if "Dr" Malik has realised this, as she seems to have been furiously retweeting and promoting things from this website. 

They recommend Nigella sativa, celandine, mistletoe, and cat's claw. Oh really? let's check that, shall we, by having a lookie at the evidence for these products in mesothelioma, brb....
...
Nigella sativa: no evidence. 
...
Celandine: insufficient evidence to rate effectiveness for cancer. 
No evidence in mesothelioma

...
Mistletoe: insufficient evidence to rate effectiveness for cancer. No evidence in mesothelioma
...
Cat's claw: no evidence.

Well, that was quick then. For transparency, I checked the evidence using the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, a gold standard resource for information on herbal medicines. 

This website does of course close with the obligatory "It's all a big conspiracy and big pharma and the medical profession just want everyone to die horribly" statement, so any teensy tiny miniscule scrap of plausability has gone out the window even without the total lack of evidence to back up their claims.

Do these people really not realise the danger they put people in by encouraging them not to use conventional medicine (which we have evidence to say it works at least some of the time) and to use alternative medicines (which there is zero evidence to say if it works or not) So where is the conspiracy here, folks? Is it really from the people who know about physiology and pharmacology, and who are primarily motivated to help people? Or does it come from the "alternative" camp, who seem hell bent on selling various books and expensive remedies and are happily peddling misinformation like there is no tomorrow?

H xxx

Why St John's Wort scares me, even though it does probably work.

Hi all,

It's lovely for once to be able to write about something that works, instead of something which has little to no evidence of it working. However, I wanted to share with you some reasons why I would tend to steer people away from a "natural" remedy, despite the evidence being positive. Why St John's Wort today? Well, my RSS feed today popped up with:

31/12/2012
Daily Telegraph
By: Presswatch
GPs prefer herbal remedies to Prozac, says survey
A survey by Schwabe Pharma found that GPs are increasingly likely to prescribe herbal remedies such as St John's wort for depression rather than Prozac.(
(http://www.presswatch.com/health/index.php?d=2012-12-31#3)

I haven't been able to find the actual story, or the press release from Schwabe Pharma (who, incidentally, produce St John's Wort, so wouldn't be without bias), but it got me thinking anyway. 

Is it because of a big pharma conspiracy? Is it because I'm in cahoots with the evil drug companies and all I want is money? Is it because I'm just too close-minded to be able to accept anything other than conventional medicines? Is it because I love seeing patients suffer? Well, in short no.

I find herbal medicines really interesting. Unlike homeopathy, which has no theoretical possibility of working, herbal medicines contain plant material with high enough levels of chemical constituents to cause a pharmacological effect. There's something quite beautiful about the concept of using plants for medicinal purposes. The problem with them lies in the fact that there just aren't enough studies done for us to be able to say whether they work, or more importantly, whether they harm. Whilst herbal remedies have enough "medicine" in them to make them work, this also means they have enough in them to cause adverse reactions, to interact with other herbs, medication, illnesses and so on. Without Big Pharma funding, though, its not that likely that large, well designed trials will be undertaken on them, so using herbal medicines can be a bit like shooting in the dark. Even if we don't find any documented issues with a herb, this doesn't mean none exist, it may just mean that nobody has looked at (or published) any issues yet.

St John's Wort is different. There is now a pretty large body of evidence to suggest that it works, and that it works better than placebo and as well as conventional antidepressants like the SSRIs. We also know a fair bit about its interactions and its adverse drug reactions... So that's great then, yes? That means healthcare professionals should all consider it as a better choice than the conventional medicines, with all their nasty side effects etc, right? 

Well, in my opinion: not always. Whilst we know a fair amount about it, the problem here lies with production, and the inherent variability in herbal medicines. Because they're made from plant materials, there can be a huge amount of variability in what each tablet contains.. Even if you're using a product licensed under the Traditional Herbal Registration scheme, there can still be variability between each batch, depending on where the plant was grown, the time of year/ day it was harvested, and what it was treated after it was harvested. So, if you get stabilised on one batch of medicine, the next batch may contain differing amounts of active ingredients, which could mean a whole host of things might happen: it might work better, it might start interacting with your other meds, it might trigger a side effect etc. Then, just when you're getting used to that batch, the next one is different too, etc etc.

I've come across a few enquiries where a patient wants to use St John's Wort as add-on therapy along with their antidepressants. It maybe doesn't occur to the patient or their GP/pharmacist etc that it actually works in a very similar way to a conventional antidepressant. Combinations of antidepressants are usually only done under specialist care (with a few exceptions) because combining them increases the risk of some very severe side effects such as serotonin syndrome- the same applies to St John's Wort. The fact it's "natural" seems to blindside people into forgetting the usual principles of how medicines work. 

This is before we even get into the territory of risks associated with self-treatment of what can be a very, very serious disease. Would I exclude use of St John's Wort entirely, for everyone? No, because it does appear to work. But do I treat it with as much (if not more) caution than I would an SSRI? Yes, because there's still not that much information about its safety in the grand scheme of things. So this sort of negates the point of it, to be honest.

Hopefully that explains a bit about why I'm cautious about herbal medicines.

Have a lovely New Year's Eve folks, see you again in 2013.

Hxxx

Alternative medicines and brain tumours- Some ramblings.

There's been a lot of press attention in recent days about the case of  Neon Roberts,whose mother had apparently ran away with him in order to avoid him being given post-surgery radiotherapy.

I will admit at this point that I haven't looked too closely into the case. I'm writing this on my lunch break so don't have time to go into all the details, but it appears that after being found, Neon has been taken into foster care and has been given the treatment he requires.

If the press reports are to be relied upon (and bear in mind my main source is the Daily Fail), this seems like a striking case of the sort of harm misinformation about alternative medicines can cause. Reportedly, the mother only wanted him to receive "natural remedies" as he recovers from his surgery. The implication is that natural remedies would be safer for the child, whereas conventional treatments like radiotherapy and chemotherapy are evil, toxic poisons.

And yet this distinction between "natural" and conventional medicines is highly blurred, particularly when it comes to chemotherapy. Some of our most powerful (and potentially toxic) chemotherapeutic agents are derived from plants- the taxols for example. Ultimately, the main difference between these agents and alternative medicines is that they have been tested and have been proven to work. If other natural, alternative medicines went through the same testing processes and also had positive results, they too would cease to be alternative and would become conventional medicines. Radiation, similarly, is an ultimately natural process. So how do the public at large decide what constitutes a "natural" remedy? We can see from this case the potential consequences of such misinformation.

Another thought that occurs to me is the distinction between complementary and alternative medicines. I think we can all agree that there is a potential benefit from somenatural remedies for some cancer-associated symptoms or problems. So as an example I have no problem with a patient who decides to try a herbal remedy to treat say anxietyalongside their conventional treatment, providing they are doing so with a knowledge of the pros and cons of the treatment, and with their healthcare provider's knowledge. Complementary therapy, in other words. What's infinitely more worrying is the concept of alternative therapy, e.g. where a patient makes a decision to not use conventional medicine but to use a herbal remedy(or homeopathy, or acupuncture etc) instead. The evidence base for alternative medicines is absolutely nowhere near the level required to justify a patient using them instead of conventional medicines for something as serious as cancer.

And this brings me on to homeopathy. Yes, homeopathy again. I'm not going to cover how homeopathy works, as its been done much better at this site:http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ . What is particularly worrying about this modality is the advice given that conventional medicines need to be avoided to allow the homeopathy to work. This is bandied about in an inocuous sort of a way by websites such as this. So, by recommending a homeopathic treatment for a serious condition, homeopaths are directly harming their patient by encouraging them to not take conventional medicines (which may have a chance of working at least) and to replace them with Magic Woo Memory Water Sugar Pills (which have zero chance of working). One of the most heart-breaking things i have ever read on the internet are the letters of Penelope Dingle to her homeopath, who treated her pancreatic cancer. If you haven't seen this already, I highly recommend that you have a look, but warn you that it is likely to induce tears, then rage. 

I've noticed that a few homeopaths on twitter have already picked up on the story of Neon Roberts, and are gleefully tweeting things like "UK Boy to Be Forced Into Chemotherapy" (forgetting the fact that it's actually radiotherapy that he will be receiving). Of course I'm Not Actually A Doctor Nancy Malik is involved. So I thought I'd have a look at what evidence there is that homeopathy can treat brain tumours, before they all start claiming that it can. So I've checked Medline and Embase, the leading medical literature databases in the world. My search stratedy was: Search for homeopathy. Search for brain tumours, and limit to therapy or treatment. Add the two together. See what comes out.  Makes sense, right? 

The answer, of course, is a big fat zero. 

I'm Not Really A Dr Nancy Malik, however, has other ideas, and has helpfully sent me links to 4 sources that she claims are evidence that homeopathy can work in brian cancer treatment. Three of which are studies looking at  tissue cell culture, and one of which is for treatment of side effects (ergo as complementary, rather than alternative therapy, and which bears no resemblance to whether or not it could actually treat a brain cancer). The in vitro studies are very interesting i'm sure, but to use them as evidence that homeopathy can treat brain cancers in humans is an enormous stretch. With something so serious, would you really be willing to base a treatment decision on what happens to a couple of cells in a lab? Or would you rather base it on what happens to thousands, if not millions of other people in real-life? I know which one I would go with.

One other footnote to this news story is one which I fear may have been forgotten about. Imagine being a child, who has just undergone surgery for a brain tumour. Imagine the fear this poor boy feels on a daily basis, not to mention how physically ill he may be. Now imagine being taken by your mother on a trip elsewhere, then being taken into foster care and having to be given radiotherapy, whilst a court case battles on around you. I can't even begin to imagine what this child is feeling. This time would have been bad enough for him as it was, without any of this being added onto his trauma. 

Hxxx

Quick Thought on Ancient Medicines

Hi folks,

I'm working on a little project about complementary and alternative medicines- a quick reference guide to the most common modalities, and how they differ in effectiveness, safety, theories etc. I've been using the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database- a great (but unfortunately rather expensive) site for balanced, evidence-based information on alternative medicines- for information on different modalities, and I came across a statement that I hadn't considered so far, but one which I think may actually be quite persuasive to some when it comes to alternative medicine. It's quite simple, but the thought just simply hadn't occurred to me before. 

This is the fact that  a lot of modalities were developed prior to any sort of scientific knowledge about how the body works, or pharmacology. For example, homeopathy was developed at a time where it was thought "humours" were to blame for illness- a time where blood-letting was treatment of choice for much sickness. And as for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), developed over 2000 years ago:

"At that time there was no scientific concept of disease or pharmacology in terms that can be related to our modern understanding of medicine. Therefore, the principles of TCM were formed based more on philosophy than on science"

The same goes for Ayurvedic medicine as well as anything that claims to be ancient. 

So, on this basis, why should we believe that any of these modalities are scientific, or likely to work? How can homeopaths, for example, claim that it is "science-based medicine" when it fact it predates the science of medicine? Why on earth do we think this is a good thing?

Why, in days where calculators are easily available, should we be expected to believe that using an abacus will be more effective and safer?

H xxx