dangerous advice

Vicks, Feet, and a whole load of nonsense.

Vicks Vaporub. It's a staple of our medicine cabinet, and we all reach for it at the first sign of sniffles. You may have seen (usually on a poorly made image posted on Facebook) or heard (from a friend who heard from their friend who heard from their aunt's sister's niece's dogsitter) that actually we've all be using it all wrong. 

It's logical to use Vaporub on your chest, pillow, in a steam inhalation. It makes sense, because the vapours will end up in or around your nostrils, which is where it acts. But no- according to this particular internet fraud, it is only by smearing our tootsies with it that we will get the full benefit. 

I'm going to pick apart the standard Facebook post, piece by piece, so you can see my thought processes and logical reasons why I don't believe a word. Even if you do think this works, stick with me and see whether or not you agree with any of my individual points, or if you can come up with a more robust argument for using it on your feet. 

"Some of us have used Vicks Vaporub for years for everything from chapped lips to sore toes and many body parts in between."

 Wait, What? Who uses Vicks Vaporub for chapped lips? I've never heard of anyone do this, ever. Firstly, it would sting lots, and secondly it could be highly toxic, given its essential oil content, and aspiration risk when swallowed due to petroleum. I wouldn't put the stuff anywhere near my mouth.

But I’ve never heard of this. And don’t laugh, it works 100% of the time

100% of the time? Nothing in medicine works 100% of the time, so alarm bells are ringing loudly, unless this is the single most important medical discovery that's ever happened. If a medicine had been truly found to be 100% effective for anything, it would have been ground-breaking, world-changing news- probably not something that's just shared by your cousin on FB. 

 In the interests of research, I actually tried this when I had a troublesome post-infective cough. Needless to say, it did nothing to the frequency of my cough, so we've already disproved that number straight away. Whether or not it works, it most certainly does not work 100% of the time, and if that number isn't true, then why on earth should we believe anything else in this post?

...although the scientists who discovered it aren’t sure why.

 What scientists? What were their names? Where were they working? Where did they receive their funding from? Why aren't their details given? If they aren't sure, do they have any working theories? 

The lack of detail here is really telling. It really suggests that this is a whole load of hokum, especially given that a search (see below) shows no formal records of any "scientists" or research.

To stop night time coughing in a child (or adult as we found out personally), put Vicks Vaporub generously on the bottom of the feet at bedtime, then cover with socks.

Ahh, feet. Feet really are a favourite for peddlers of quackery. I'm not sure why, but from reflexology to detox foot patches, the alt med world seems to be obsessed with them. Any time feet are suggested as therapy for anything going on elsewhere in the body, loud alarm bells start going off. 

The ironic thing is that feet are probably the worst place to apply any medicine. The skin on your feet is miles thicker that elsewhere. Absorption through the skin tends to be low and erratic at the best of times, but if you apply something onto your feet, the chances of absorbing anything useful from it are very low indeed. 

Additionally, your feet, when lying down, are very far away from your airways. The post requests that you put socks on over it. Therefore there is certainly no way that vapour could get to your airways in any clinically relevant amounts.

Even persistent, heavy, deep coughing will stop in about 5 minutes and stay stopped for many, many hours of relief. 

Coughing fits are just that- fits. They're acute- you cough a lot for a little while, then stop, then it all starts again. A more chronic cough will still follow this pattern or stopping and starting. So yes, persistent, heavy deep coughing will usually stop- albeit temporarily- in probably much less than 5 minutes. If you're coughing for longer than that, it's likely you're going to be having severe problems breathing, and you'll need urgent medical care- you wouldn't really be thinking about smearing goo on your feet. You may find that you put Vicks on your feet and your coughing stops shortly after, but the likelihood is that the coughing would have stopped even if you hadn't. This is called regression to the mean, and its one reason why we can't rely on anecdotes for deciding whether a medicine works. We need to scale up and look at robust clinical trials instead.

Works 100% of the time and is more effective in children than even very strong prescription cough medicines. 

That 100% claim raises its improbable head again. To claim that something is more effective than other medicines would suggest the existence of comparative trials, which-spoiler alert- don't actually exist. This is rather a strawman anyway, as there are very few prescription cough medicines on the whole. Even conventional cough medicines don't really work to any great degree, and are based on very shakey evidence. It would be a very, very rare occasion indeed that a doctor would prescribe a cough medicine on prescription for a child. 

 In addition it is extremely soothing and comforting and they will sleep soundly.

I can see how that tingly, cold sort of feeling you get from menthol could be pleasant, though I don't think I'd go as far as to call it soothing. To be honest, you'd have to have perfectly soft skin on your feet to feel anything at all- when I tried it I didn't even feel a tiny tingle, especially since it was covered over with socks. 

Just happened to tune in A.M. Radio and picked up this guy talking about why cough medicines in kids often do more harm than good, due to the chemical makeup of these strong drugs so, I listened.

What guy, and on which radio station? What qualifications does this guy have for making medical recommendations?  Who is even meant to be narrating this post? The only medicines now available for coughs in children in the UK are glycerol and simple linctus paediatric. Both of these essentially work on the basis of being sugary, slightly gloopy water. There's no "strong drugs" here, just some soothing "demulcents" that taste nice and are supposed to leave a soothing lining on the throat, making a cough feel less raw. They're mainly placebos. 

It was a surprise finding and found to be more effective than prescribed medicines for children at bedtime, in addition to have a soothing and calming effect on sick children who then went on to sleep soundly.

 Where is this finding published? What sort of a study was it and how was it designed? How many participants were there? Was there a control group, or a comparator group and if so, what was the comparator? As it happens, all of this is irrelevant really, as no studies exist. These statements come from the head of an internet fraudster, rather than actually being grounded in reality. 

My wife tried it on herself when she had a very deep constant and persistent cough a few weeks ago and it worked 100%! She said that it felt like a warm blanket had enveloped her, coughing stopped in a few minutes and believe me, this was a deep, (incredibly annoying!) every few seconds uncontrollable cough, and she slept cough-free for hours every night that she used it.

 We don't even know who is narrating this thing in the first place, let alone their wife. As I've explained above, this is an anecdote, and we can't derive anything from it. A person, who may or may not be mythical, had a cough, and it went away after they did a thing. It might have gone away anyway, we just can't tell. 

A warm blanket?  far from it. It actually just feels like you have some oily gunk on your feet. At best it might feel a little cold, but for most of us, it'll feel no different at all thanks to our thick skin. 

If you have grandchildren, pass this on. If you end up sick, try it yourself and you will be absolutely amazed at how it works!

Well that's just bizarre. Presumably you don't need to bother if you're simply a parent, only if you're a grandparent? What a load of nonsense. I wasn't left amazed, I was just left feeling a little silly. And I had minty-smelling feet.

So of course I have done a search for the evidence and claims included in the post and have found a grand total of Nothing At All. I will say this though: If I was the manufacturer of Vicks, and someone had done some studies which found my product to be 100% effective, I would sing it loudly from every rooftop I could find. I would be the manufacturer of The Number One Most Effective Medical Product In The World Ever, and I would make sure that I made my millions on the back of that fact, as well as collecting my Nobel prize for Medicine and probably world peace as well. What I probably wouldn't do is ignore the claims, and continue on selling my product and advising that its used in a way which has a less than 100% chance of it working. 

Direct harms from following this advice could include dermatitis and skin reactions. Indirect harms? Well, you've slathered some slippery, oily unguent onto the bottom of your feet. When you take your socks off, you may be slip-sliding all over the place.

The moral of the story is: Very rarely should you believe anything posted on Facebook. Unless its me, posting a link to my blog, of course ;)

Hxxx
 

"I do my own research"

Something that I see a lot in on-line debates about alternative medicine is phrases like “I did my own research” or “people should be allowed to do their own research and make their own decisions”

However, I don’t think that the vast majority of people are able to do their own research. Now, that’s probably a pretty unpopular opinion. It’s patronising, paternalistic, and it flies in the face of patient choice. Who am I to question the intelligence and abilities of other people? Why do I think I'm so clever compared to anyone else out there? Allow me to explain myself.

I've been a pharmacist for a very long time now. From uni, through pre-reg, to my own revision at work, I've been taught critical appraisal skills. Yet to this day, it’s something that I actually find really hard work. It’s a skill that requires continual honing, and every time I use it I feel like I am fighting with my brain. 

Even in the last two weeks, I've been revisiting my critical appraisal skills to make sure they are up to date. I've done some in-house work, three on-line courses, and a one to one training session. Yet I still find myself sat here at my desk for several hours, if not days, looking over the same study with a furrowed brow, desperately trying to make the numbers and statistics tell me their story.  If I find it so hard, then how on earth is someone without any medical background or critical appraisal training supposed to do any of it? 

There’s hazard ratios, odds ratios, confidence intervals, numbers needed to treat, event rates, absolute risks and other confuddling terms to deal with. I naturally struggle with numbers at the best of times; like most people, I much prefer narratives. That means that I have to constantly argue with myself to keep looking at the results page, rather than just flicking to the discussion. Because if I did that, I'd be relying on what the authors, with all of their possible biases and agendas, say their numbers say. Then, when I eventually manage to squeeze the swimming mass of figures into some sort of order in my head, I find out that these numbers aren't the full story, and I need to dig even deeper into other analyses of the same figures to find out what’s really going on.* 

A quick and very simplistic visualisation of all the layers of interpretation that might lead to information found on your common or garden health information website. That's a whole lot of bias.

A quick and very simplistic visualisation of all the layers of interpretation that might lead to information found on your common or garden health information website. That's a whole lot of bias.

It’s not a pleasant task by any stretch of the imagination. It really does feel like a mental marathon. I often question whether I am even up to the task- I can end up feeling stupid, and confused. But in order to really figure out whether or not a drug works I need to strip away all the levels of other peoples’ interpretation and start from scratch, with the cold, hard, impersonal numbers. That way I can build my own narrative, uninfluenced by what the study’s authors or sponsors want me to think, by what newspapers want me to believe, by what campaigners want me to know. The only way to know the truth is to start right at the bottom, in a dark dank pit of statistics, then to slowly start building yourself a ladder until you emerge, blinking, into the pleasant knowledge that you've worked out what on earth is going on.

This sort of raw data is not only extremely hard to deal with once it’s in front of you, but its also pretty difficult to come by. Finding it in the first place includes searching multiple medical databases- and these things aren't just a quick free text search like you would do on Google. Constructing a search can in itself take an hour or so, and then you have to trawl through the results to decide which are relevant to what you are specifically looking for. For me, most of the time, a question is structured like this:

What is the evidence that [drug/ group of drugs] works for [disease] in [patient group

 So, in my poorly drawn Venn diagram below, I need to find those holy grail papers that reside in the pink area:

I am truly terrible at MS paint, but you get the idea.

I am truly terrible at MS paint, but you get the idea.

What a typical EMBASE search looks like. This is for a new drug with few synonyms so its a fairly straightforward one. Others can have forty odd lines of searches.

What a typical EMBASE search looks like. This is for a new drug with few synonyms so its a fairly straightforward one. Others can have forty odd lines of searches.

Some of these papers might be pay-walled, so it’ll take me a week or so to get my hands on them. Some of them might initially look promising, but once you start to dig down into the figures you see that there might actually be problems with how they were undertaken or reported, or they might turn out to not quite fit in some way- perhaps the dose they used in the trial is different to the licensed dose in the UK, or the people enrolled into the trial don’t quite fit the population you want to know about, or perhaps the trial just didn't recruit enough people so any results from it are invalidated.

I've been doing this job for years, and I really do still struggle with all of this stuff. That’s not because I'm poor at my job, or because I'm stupid, or because I haven’t put the effort in to understand it. It’s because, when it comes down to it, this stuff is really bloody hard. It’s time-consuming, boring, and unintuitive.

People might well feel like they've done their own research. They might spend several hours digging about on the internet and feel empowered by any decisions that they make. But what they don’t realise is that what they've been researching isn't just the information- it’s the information with many, many layers of interpretation (and therefore bias) added. For a choice to be truly informed, you need to go right back to the start, to those terrifying tables of numbers and statistics. That’s simply not realistic for the majority of people.

Far better, then, to learn how to decide on whose interpretation you’re going to rely on. Will it be those that take the media reports at face value, or who have an agenda or a product to sell you? Or will you go with those that have years of training in how to pull apart complicated data and disseminate it in understandable ways?

Hxxx

*I thought I’d give you a quick real life example here, but I thought it best to asterisk it because I've probably bored you enough already. I'm currently looking at a drug called edoxaban and its use in reducing the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. It’s the newest in a series of novel oral anticoagulant drug- they’re supposedly like warfarin, but less faffy. So I find and look at the main trial, and spend days unpicking the stats. It looks like both strengths used in the trial are no worse than warfarin, and the higher dose might even be a little better. Great, right?

Well, that’s not quite the end of the story. Because it turns out- and this isn't reported in the trial at all, but instead is contained in the FDA’s briefing document- that in people with fully working kidneys, edoxaban is actually worse than plain old warfarin. In people whose kidney’s aren't quite at full capacity though, it might work better than warfarin. So the overall trial results are kind of skewed, and if we didn't dig deeper, we might have been giving a whole group of people a more expensive drug with worse outcomes than warfarin. Even the FDA findings are borderline- some of what they describe doesn't reach statistical significance.

In memory of Rachel

I didn’t know Rachel at all. But I was told her story last night, and all of today I have been thinking about her. I don’t know how old she was, what her life was like, the colour of her hair, whether she spelt her name with just an 'e' or if there was an 'a' in there too. 

It sounded like Rachel was a nice person. It sounded like she was enthusiastic (I think she met the teller of her story whilst volunteering for something).

Rachel was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She was encouraged to try homeopathic treatment for it, and to stop her conventional medicines.

Several days after stopping her medicines, Rachel took her own life.

Many of you might remember that I blogged about a homeopath’s response to my good friend’s request for help for her own bipolar disorder. At the time, I theorised that, had my friend followed this homeopath’s advice, she would have destabilised and it would have killed her. 

I’m so, so sad that this happened to Rachel. I often get questioned about why I do what I do, why I rant on about homeopathy and alternative medicine so much. If other people want to use it, I’m told, then just leave them be. But how can I sit back and not do anything, when there are other people out there just like Rachel? If I can make any difference at all, even a tiny one, then I will do. If I can make even just a couple of people raise their eyebrows and wonder why homeopathy is still used in this day and age in place of effective treatments, then I’ll keep doing what I’m doing.

Sorry, Rachel. I’m really sorry that this happened to you. I didn’t know you, but I’m sorry that you went through all of that, and I’m sorry that your friends and family and the world lost you.

Hxxx

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

e-cigarettes: accidents waiting to happen

We all know smoking is bad for us, and we all know that giving it up is a good idea. E-cigarettes have been around for a good few years now, and they seem to be the answer to a lot of our prayers to some people: That lovely nicotine hit, without having to traipse outside, and without any of the nasty tar or other chemicals that makes smoking bad for you.

There's currently a bit of a kerfuffle going on about them as the EU look into tighter regulation of them. A quick search on Twitter reveals lots of folk stating that they save thousands of lives, are much safer than other pharmacological smoking cessation methods, and are totally safe, therefore shouldn't be banned by the EU. Others have covered the fact that e-cigarettes are unregulated, that they may actually contain chemicals and ingredients which can be carcinogenic, that they might have adverse safety effects so I'm not going to cover all of those potential issues here. .But there is one aspect of their use which I think is easily forgotten about, but has the potential to be very worrying.

It seems that e-cigarettes come in a variety of forms- none of which are regulated. Some are disposable, some have refillable cartridges, and some require refilling with a liquid. There are even some sites which encourage mixing your own nicotine liquid: a complicated process requiring mixing a nicotine concentrate with a flavouring and a diluent using a dropper.

Now, as a fairly young pharmacist (or so I keep telling myself), it has been a long time since I compounded any medicines myself, but I do remember doing so in university and I have a pretty good idea of how to work out and produce mixtures. I'm a keen baker, so used to following recipes which can be complex at times. And yet a quick glance at some of the mixing guides for nicotine liquids makes me worried. They look complicated enough for a pharmacist like me to follow, never mind anyone else. Milligrams, drops, milliliters, colours, parts etc are all terms used on the same instruction sheet, and the medicines safety part of me is crumpled and crying in a corner, wailing "HIGH RISK COMPOUNDING PROCEDURE!" loudly to anyone who will listen. And yet, because these things aren't considered a medicine, anyone can sell this stuff, and anyone can buy it. There are risks at every step of producing these mixes: not understanding the instructions, not accurately measuring amounts, mixing up the different liquids, storage of the liquids, spillages etc etc. Some sites even suggest using a syringe- complete with needle- to inject the nicotine solution into devices. A little bit of me is dying inside. 

Even the ready made liquids are problematic enough. They come in little eye-dropper type bottles, and are often pleasantly flavoured. In short, they're probably rather attractive to children. 

In my day job, which partly involves advising on poisoning cases, I have come across quite a few cases where nicotine liquid intended for use in e-cigarettes has been accidentally ingested. A lot of people don't know that nicotine itself can be horribly toxic, particularly for children. It only takes a small amount orally to get some pretty nasty, potentially fatal effects. And yet, freely available to buy without any regulation at all, a variety of attractively flavoured and packaged -and really highly concentrated- nicotine liquids are sitting ready to be bought by eager punters. You can even buy multi-packs of large bottles of highly, highly concentrated nicotine liquid. They don't even have child-resistant tops on them- and why should they, as they're not even considered a medicine? The websites selling these things aren't particularly clear about the dangers of them- again, why should they be, when they're trying to sell them as a safe alternative to smoking?

I've had a quick look around the medical literature and as of yet there is very little information published on this aspect of e-cigarette usage. And that's part of the problem: the technology has been widely adopted without a thorough understanding of all the different aspects of its safety. Even if they were tightly regulated and highly safe, this aspect of accidents with refills will still remain, and in my opinion it is only a matter of time until there are some very serious accidents of this nature. 

So, whilst e-cigarettes might be a useful ally in giving up smoking for some people, we really need to put some thought into the safety issues surrounding them, and not just the obvious ones which might affect the person using them.

All of this is without even considering the fact that using them can sometimes make you look a bit daft, especially the ones that light up at the end like a pretend-y cigarette. Others, frankly, look like "discreet" vibrating devices for ladies. You'd be better off with those yummy candy cigarettes from the eighties, if you ask me- they look more like an actual cigarette than most of the e-cigs and they're a whole lot cheaper too. 

Hxxx 
 


Minor Update (2nd May 2015): Some time has passed since I wrote this, and I think my fears have started to be borne out in the evidence. Poisons Centres around the world are starting to report evidence of toxicity. Deaths in both humans and animals are being reported. Its a real shame that it came to this, but hopefully with proper regulation the safety of e-cigarettes can be improved. 

MMR: The blame hot potato

I shouldn't be having to write this blog. We shouldn't still be having to see news stories about measles outbreaks in 2013. We have an effective, relatively safe vaccine which should have massively reduced the incidence of this potentially fatal or life-changing disease. But no, here we are in the midst of an outbreak which is starting to reach scary levels. The first fatality has been reported, in 25 year old man, although it hasn't yet been confirmed that measles is the reason for his death.

So why is it still one of the main topics of conversation at the moment? Well I'm pretty sure you're aware of the truly awful, entirely discredited research by the now-struck-off the register Andrew Wakefield. If anyone is unsure about whether or not its unfair to think of Wakefield as a nasty piece of work, remember that he was struck off because of 4 counts of dishonesty and 12- yes, 12-counts of the abuse of developmentally challenged children. Its been 15 years since the publication of his "elaborately fraudulent" paper which suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism- and yet still to this day a dark cloud of fear surrounds the big scary needle that evil big pharma and nasty doctors want to inject into innocent children.

A quick history of events goes thus: Wakefield's paper is published in The Lancet---> Wakefield's paper is picked up by the media---> all hell breaks loose---> Children aren't vaccinated---> Wakefield's paper is discredited---> media continues panic-mongering--->Children still aren't vaccinated--->Other research says MMR isnt associated with autism---> media continues panic mongering---> Children still aren't vaccinated---> Measles outbreak---> media continues panic mongering ---> Wakefield denies responsibility ---> media denies responsibility. And that pretty much brings us back up to date.

So, are the media right to deny any responsibility? Are they hell, and there's evidence to prove it. Anecdotally, I found myself a few months ago having a lengthy, in-depth conversation with a customer about whether or not his first child should be vaccinated. "I thought it was all sorted out and was rubbish" he said. "But then I read about it in theDaily Mail and they said it was proven." Luckily it was quiet, and I had a chance to spend some time with him, discussing the problems with the Daily Mail report, the original research, and the risks of not being vaccinated. "Oh", he said: "we hadn't thought of the fact that measles might be dangerous." He left hopefully feeling reassured, but concerned that his girlfriend still wouldn't believe him and wouldn't want to vaccinate their child. One of my best friends isn't vaccinated, because his Mum read the seemingly terrifying stories in the press and refused to allow him to have the vaccine. As a result he caught measles, and german measles, (and whooping cough too), bless him. This got me wondering about whether or not there is good, hard evidence that the media is to blame.

In short, the answer is yes, a bit. In a telephone survey of the parents of 177 children who hadn't had the MMR vaccine, fear of side effects was the most common reason given, and the most common source of information was the media. Another study found that parents were more influenced by the fear of harm from the vaccine than fear of harm from measles itself. In another, parents seem to have thought that the information on vaccines given to them by healthcare professionals was poor. A qualitative study again found that parents did not rate science or evidence as important factors when making a decision about whether or not to vaccinate their child.

All of this leaves us with an unfortunate dichotomy. We healthcare professionals usually deal in science and evidence- and so we should, as this provides us with the safest and most objective method of treating patients. But it seems like this is a currency that the general public not only don't often deal in, but on occasion actively reject.

Yes, vaccines have risks associated with them, but these risks are nowhere near as bad as the risks of the disease itself- its a simple case of harm reduction.  If your teenager is going to have a drink, would you rather that they had one glass of wine at the dinner table, in your house where they are safe, or a bottle of vodka on a street corner in an area surrounded by drug dealers and murderers? Wouldn't you rather give a small, highly controlled dose of a disease in a vaccine than take the risk of your child getting the whole, dirty, nasty disease itself? It does seem that the potential for harm of the disease itself can be forgotten in the decision making process.

So how do we go about changing this? I have no idea, to be honest. Its amazing to me, and quite mystifying, that one utterly rubbish- and rather cruel-piece of research can still- 15 years later- hold so much weight over the safety of children. Is it the misguided fear of a poorly understood condition in autism, or the terror of  big pharma, or an unquestioning faith in what the papers say? It seems to me that all we can do, as health care professionals, is continue to attempt as much as we can to give rational, evidence-based advice to our patients. We can improve our communication skills, but i'm not convinced that we will ever be able to truly "win" the good fight if the media continues on with such atrocious health and science reporting. 15 years on and some of the newspapers still insist on calling him "Dr" Andrew Wakefield, when he is very demonstrably no longer a doctor. They use scary photos of massive needles, and continue to give space to the idea that MMR can cause autism, when all of science and rationality disagrees. They reach for emotional language at any opportunity, pitting devastated parents against the picture of a cold, uncaring healthcare profession that they paint. We can try as much as we like to convince our patients on a one-to-one basis, but its like trying to take a drink from a firehose with such irresponsible reporting reaching millions of people every day.

The short answer here is that the blame for the current measles outbreaks lies in all sorts of places. ITs a comedy of errors, but not a very funny one. But, it seems clear to me that the media in particular needs to sit up and realise the harm that it is reaping on a daily basis.

Hxxx

Homeopathic Harms Vol 7: Professional Ethics

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 decided to write a series of blog posts expanding on a number of points we covered in the talk:

"Ethics is the science of morals, or moral philosophy. The principles, written or unwritten, that are accepted in any profession as the basis for proper behaviour are the ethics of the profession" -Dale and Appelbe's Pharmacy Law and Ethics

As you'll know by now, I'm a pharmacist. And as such, I have to be registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) to practice in the UK. I'm therefore governed by the GPhC, and in particular their code of conduct, ethics and performance, which has seven main points:

  1. Make patients your first concern

  2. Use your professional judgement in the interests of patients and the public

  3. Show respect for others

  4. Encourage patients and the public to participate in decisions about their care

  5. Develop your professional knowledge and competence

  6. Be honest and trustworthy

  7. Take responsibility for your working practices.

If I-or any of my colleagues- were to act against this code of ethics, we could be held to account by our regulator and reprimanded accordingly. Other healthcare professionals- Doctors, nurses etc- all have similar codes of conduct produced by their regulatory bodies. They all have one thing in common- that the patient is central to everything you do, and if a member steps outside this code of conduct, there is a clear and organized route through which complaints or concerns can be raised. This is as it should be: healthcare professionals have the lives of patients in their hands, and need to be held to account if anything goes wrong. As I've written before in this series, homeopaths don't have to register with a regulatory body and anyone can set themselves up as a homeopath with no training whatsoever. Whilst some 'professional' bodies exist in the UK, they have no regulatory powers so are unable to reprimand anyone if they receive a complaint.

Health care professionals who also practice homeopathy still have a duty to ensure that they abide by their regulatory body's code of ethics. In my opinion, however, it is very difficult to reconcile some of the clear guidance with homeopathic principles. Let's take a look at what I mean, using some selected points from the  the first two standards of the  GPhC's Code of Ethics July 2012 as a guide. (I'll cover the rest of the points in another post)

1. Make Patients Your First Concern
Under this heading, the GPhC states that we must "Make sure the services you provide are safe and of acceptable quality". Given the lack of high quality information that homeopathy works, we are unable to guarantee that such a service is of acceptable quality. You'll also know if you've read the rest of this series of blog posts that there is a lack of evidence regarding the harms- both direct and indirect- of homeopathy- so how could we guarantee that it is safe?

2. Use Your Professional Judgement In the Interests of Patients and The Public
There are a couple of relevant points here. firstly we are told that we need to make sure that professional judgement is not affected by personal or organizational interests or incentives. If you're going to charge for a homeopathic service on the side of your usual practice, then there is already a clear personal incentive to promote homeopathy.  We can minimize the possibility of such things affecting our professional judgement by making sure that we use evidence to guide treatment decisions wherever we can: evidence-based medicine is not perfect, but its the most objective method we have at the moment. And, as you'll know, there is no good evidence at all that homeopathy works. 

We are also advised to:

 "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"

I myself-and other pharmacists-have done this: I've spoken out about Tony Pinkus, for example, a pharmacist who endangers patients' lives by promoting unlicensed homeopathic vaccines or sugar pills to prevent malaria. In Nancy's latest blog post, she covered some of this, and I know Adam at Dianthus Med has also been discussing this point on twitter and his blog lately. Its clear-from our own professional guidance-that where patient safety is in danger, we do not protect our own- we need to report, speak out, and denounce those amongst our colleagues who let the profession down.

Homeopaths, on the other hand, seem to have no such obligation. We've been struggling to think of one single example of where homeopaths have spoken out against other homeopaths where patient safety has been endangered. In a conversation on twitter, for example, no homeopath would say that it was inappropriate for a homeopath to have said that a homeopathic remedy could have saved someone who died due to injuries sustained in a horrific gang-rape and disembowelment.  I recently asked some homeopaths on Twitter whether they would speak out against a colleague who put patients in danger. The answer I received from one was shocking:

"When its so easy 2 wink at 1's own sins, seems impossible 2 find judge orjury before whom 2arraign the 1st law breaker. KENT" (sic)- @22VenkateshN

Admittedly this particular homeopath that responded (he was the only one) has a reputation for obfuscation, but this reply seems to suggest that no, he wouldn't report, in case someone did similar to him. I tried to clarify : "so to clarify: you wouldn't speak out in case someone else did the same to you? A yes or no would suffice, thank you". The reply:

"some questions can't be replied with a simple 'yes or no'. for example_ 'are you still mad ?'"- @22VenkateshN


I'm not sure what he is trying to imply by asking about being mad, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and ignore any insinuations he might have been trying to make. What is staggering is the reluctance to admit that he would put patient care first and report a fellow homeopath in a situation. As a health care professional-and a good person- the code of ethics  becomes deeply ingrained in your being. Its second nature- and pretty obvious- that you would put the needs of a patient first. I persisted further,  trying to make it easy for him to agree that you would report a colleague: "It's very easy, if you work under clear ethical guidance. homeopaths do have that, right?: patient safety comes first: therefore yes, you would report and denounce a colleague who endangered it." Again, the reply astounds:

"Its not that easy, every one accusing everyone else would result. That's why I tweeted the appropriate observations of Kent"- @22VenkateshN

Wow. So it would seem- on the basis of this sort of conversation and the complete radio silence from any other homeopaths- that no, they wouldn't report or denounce a fellow homeopath because some sort of petty slanging match would ensue. Instead of a clear referral process to deal with complaints, accusations would be flying all over the shop- and one very, very important aspect gets forgotten: patient safety. 

I'd love to be proved wrong here. I'd love to think that medical homeopaths or pharmacists who also practice homeopathy would do otherwise, in accordance with their code of ethics. But I'm currently deafened by their silence. If I were one of the more professional, caring homeopaths who really did want to do the best for their patients, I would be utterly horrified and disgusted by some of the claims and actions of others, and I'd want to-nay I'd feel obliged to- speak out against them for the good of my own practice. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with them.

So here's your chance, homeopaths. Speak up against bad practice and drown out the previous deafening silence. Go right ahead: I'm listening intently. And while you're at it, please do take a few minutes out to respond to Adam's Challenge to the Society of Homeopaths too

 

Amazon sometimes frightens me, if I'm honest.

A while ago @DianthusMed alerted me to the fact that Amazon UK are selling unlicensed medicines imported from the US via its Marketplace. Adam got in touch with Amazon, and the particular brand he bought are no longer available on their website, but of course there are still a whole range of other unlicensed loratadine brands available to buy with just one click.

I dug a little bit deeper and discovered that this could actually be more dangerous than some non-drowsy anti-allergy medicines- along with some problems selling licensed medicines as well.

Some inane browsing brought me to a page selling Syndol. I noticed it because of the price- its being sold at a whopping £39.99 for 30 tablets. I presume this is due to the fact that Syndol are currently on a long term manufacturing problem. Syndol do have a UK product license, and are sold over the counter in pharmacies. They're kept behind the counter for a number of reasons, and require quite a lot of patient counselling for appropriate use: they contain paracetamol, therefore shouldn't be used in conjunction with any other paracetamol products (they're one of those shiny combination products which people might not realize contains paracetamol). They contain codeine, which is very addictive and should be used for no more than 3 days at a time. They contain doxylamine, which causes drowsiness, making them even more abusable and dangerous. I use these occasionally myself if I get horrible, migraine-type headaches. They seem to work, but I also sleep the sleep of the dead for 5 hours, then wake up feeling zombie-like for a good few hours after that. If I sell these over the counter, I check that the patient isn't using them regularly, that they understand about the paracetamol, and that they will make me drowsy. Whilst the sellers do state they might need more information from you before selling them, they seem to me to be pretty inappropriate for an internet sale- sometimes you can tell if a patient is misusing them by their body language etc. the largest pack size it is available in is 30, for all of these reasons. And charging £39.99 for an addictive substance which is out of stock elsewhere just seems manipulative.

And here's the most horrifying thing: Amazon, trying to be helpful, suggest a package that we can buy, based on what other customers have bought together:

Umm, right. So Amazon have been selling Syndol + Syndol+ Sleep Aid, an unlicensed US product (doxylamine) together, and they're suggesting we do the same. This combination, if taken together, could well be deadly. There's the issue of paracetamol toxicity, codeine and doxylamine addiction, and the potential for self-harm to consider here.

This is, of course, just the tip of the Iceberg, Click on the Sleep Aid tablets and you're encouraged to buy Sleep Aid, Sleep Aid and Unisom. Click on Sominex (a UK-licensed product) and you're advised to buy it alongside Sleep Aid and Nytol. Any of these combinations have a huge potential to harm.

I'm going on about licensed and unlicensed products here. So what am I on about? Well, in the simplest terms, a product that is licensed in the UK, and used according to the manufacturer's instructions, is guaranteed to have met certain standards of quality, efficacy and safety. If it hasn't got a license, you haven't got that guarantee. It might be fine, or it might be made of rat poison and brick dust, you just don't know.

I know I get taken in by these packages on Amazon all the time, when I'm buying DVDs or books, or other items. At least none of these are going to have that much of an effect on my health (although I'm sure some would argue that my love for Korean extreme horror must be having some effect).

This sort of multi-product purchase encouragement goes against many of the reasons why products are sold through a pharmacy in the first place.

Amazon have been through the mill lately, what with the Keep Calm and Rape T-shirtsand their selling of unlicensed cancer medicines. Well, I'm going to add my little chirp to all that noise too. I'm sure there are complicated technical reasons behind why they have this frequently bought together sections on medicines, but frankly I don't care.

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 3: Poor Advice

And so begins the third installment in our Homeopathic Harms series, a collaboration between myself and @EBMScientist of the Evidence Based Skepticism blog. For this post, I have my lovely, wonderful friend @shandymarbles to thank for the idea and the action.

Indirect harms due to homeopathy can, as we're trying to cover in these posts, come in various different guises. In my opinion, there is none more dangerous than this: poor advice from homeopathic practitioners. 

To set yourself up as a homeopath in the UK, you don't need any medical background. You also don't need to register with any regulatory bodies or undergo any standardized training. Medical homeopaths, i.e. doctors who practice it on the side, are of course regulated by the GMC, but your common or garden variety homeopaths could basically be anyone.

And yet, they claim to practice medicine and give advice on your health. Scary stuff, in my eyes. And I can give you a specific example of how harmful this can be, because one of my good friends contacted a UK homeopath recently. This homeopath is, as is proudly declared on his website, an engineer by trade.

Under the pseudonym Stacey Slater (which apparently didn't appear to ring any alarm bells with the homeopath in question), my friend asked for help in treating bipolar disorder. She said she had stopped taking the medication prescribed for it because she was getting horrible side effects, and asked if there was anyway that homeopathic treatments could help her stay stable and avoid psychosis. There are a few things to note here: the question was very specifically asking if homeopathy could be used instead of conventional medicines, and was asking about avoiding psychosis- we're talking about serious symptoms here, not a vague sort of "could it help with me feeling a bit down" sort of question. The description of "horrible side effects" would immediately ring alarm bells to me- what sort of side effects, and how is she feeling at that time.

Here's the response I would have liked to have seen in a dream world filled with responsible homeopaths (actually, in my dream world there would be no homeopaths at all, but you know what I mean):

"Dear Stacey,
Thank you for your enquiry. I'm sorry that you've stopped talking your medication for bipolar disorder, and would like to advise you in the first place to speak to your GP first of all about the side effects you have been experiencing. You should also discuss with them your decision to discontinue your medicines, as stopping them suddenly may cause your symptoms to worsen.
Homeopathy may be a useful option to help treat some of your symptoms. However, I wouldn't recommend that it is used instead of your usual medicines, unless this is done with the agreement of your medical team. Once you have spoken to them, please do contact me again and I will be happy to discuss any homeopathic treatment with you then."

This response covers all bases. It makes sure that the primary outcome of patient safety is covered by referring them to their own healthcare provider, however its also helpful and leaves open the possibility of some homeopathic treatment as an adjunctive, complementary treatment. It does not suggest that homeopathy can be used instead of her usual medication.

Here, however, is the real-life response:

"To,
Dear Stacey Slater,
Yes I am happy to help you for your Bipolar Disorder and will try to restore your previous health. 
Recently, my grandmother has been treated for her 15 years long Bipolar disorder with only two weeks of homeopathic treatment. Now, my father-in law (Himself Medical Practishner) says she is 100% okay with homeopathic remedy and need not take any other medications. 
To help you, I need some more information, like; your physical, mental and spiritual condition.
1. Any skin diseases are you suffering from?
2. Do you have problem of thyroid dysfunction? hyper or hypo?
3. Diabetes?
4.High or low blood pressure?
5. Since how long are you suffering from Bipolar disorder?
6. Your family history, if any one in your blood relation have tuberculosis, diabetes, cancer or high blood pressure?
7. Your liking and disliking? Food,Drink, time and weather 
8. Your family life, etc..
Your detail will help me to prescribe best remedy.
Looking forward to your reply,"

There are a few things to note here, as I'm sure you can tell. This homeopath claims that they will "try to restore to previous health"- in other words, he is offering a cure to bipolar disorder. We've got some anecdotes in there, in lieu of actual clinical evidence, and an extraordinary claim that longstanding bipolar disorder can be cured with only two weeks of magic woo water therapy. Now, given that bipolar is, by its very nature (and name!) a relapsing-remitting disease of two extremes, there is no way that an anecdote could be used as evidence of successful treatment. Who’s to say his grandmother wasn't just going through a good period that just happened to coincide with taking a couple of week’s worth of homeopathic medicines. How do we know she wasn't using effective conventional medicines at the same time? Who's to say she even exists? I can't help but wonder about his grandmother's right to confidentiality as well- has she given consent to be used as an anecdote in his consultations with other patients?

Who is this father-in-law mentioned? If he is so happy with the treatment, why isn't he happy to be named, and why is he even commenting on the grandmother's treatment? What relevance does this have to this homeopath's practice? The advice given that she "need not take any other medications" is a clear indication that this homeopath thinks that the homeopathy he advises can be used to "cure" bipolar disorder on its own, as an alternative to conventional medicine. By trying to make it seem like the advice has come from an actual medical practitioner, the homeopath is clearly trying to give this advice more credibility.

Lets have a think about the consequences of this advice: Our Stacey Slater is reassured that she doesn't have to continue on with her conventional medicines. She responds to the email above, goes on to have a consultation with the homeopath online (which costs £50 by the way- we're not talking pennies here. £50 for an email exchange!) She slips into psychosis, or mania, or a deep, deep depression. Eventually, she can't take anymore and she commits suicide. This homeopath has directly contributed to her death by not advising that she sees her medical team before discontinuing her medicines, and by claiming that she can be cured by inert sugar pills instead of continuing on with effective, evidence-based medication

The problem is, we can't gather robust evidence on this sort of thing, as it would be too unethical to do good, clinical studies. Maybe Stacey hasn't mentioned to anyone that she stopped taking her medicines and she was under the "care" of a homeopath- how would anyone know that the death was caused by him? And even if they did know, they're probably too upset and shocked at that point in time to think about raising a complaint. Who would write up a case report to publish in the medical literature? Certainly not the homeopath in question, he's not going to incriminate himself, and her medical team have probably had little contact with her since she's been advised not to bother with them anymore. And so homeopaths can continue to claim that their treatment is "safe", because we just don't know the scale of these sorts of cases. 

The only bright side here is that, of course, my friend will most definitely not be taking this shoddy advice. She's well aware that homeopathy is a whole load of nonsense and just contacted this guy to see what the response would be. However, we have to wonder how many other emails he's getting, from people who are genuinely seeking help. And we have to wonder what's happening to them, and whether they are safe.As an interesting, and rather creepy, aside the homeopath started following my friend on Google plus and Twitter a couple of hours after responding to her. This is at best weird and unprofessional, and at worst, really quite frightening. I can't think of any healthcare professionals who would do such a thing, just randomly looking up a patient on social media and then following them after one consultation- what about confidentiality? 

Hxxx

The General Pharmaceutical Council: Let's hope they do the right thing

Many years ago, just after I qualified, I was working in a new 100 hour pharmacy in a very well known supermarket chain. 

To be honest, the working conditions were pretty terrible in that store. I had brilliant staff, but not enough of them. At the time, the policy of the supermarket for 100 hour pharmacies was to have no support staff there for the first hour and a half of the day, and the last two hours of the day. I argued tooth an nail against this, as we all know that pharmacists should ideally not self-check a prescription, no matter how quiet the pharmacy was between those times. The attitude of the company was that I was in the minority, and that I was complaining unnecessarily. 

At this time I was the only permanent pharmacist working there: the rest of the time we were running on locums. The company policy was to ideally use their locum booking system, but this was notoriously unreliable. I found myself setting my alarm for 6 am every morning, getting up and getting ready to wait for a phone call to tell me I would have to go in because the locum hadn't turned up, even on my days off. I found myself doing 16 hour shifts, occasionally one after the other, and with 3.5 hours of that spent on my own.

Even without the horrendous attitudes from other managers in-store (the daily battles, the snide comments about how much I was getting paid, the total lack of understanding about pharmacy law, and the outright sexism), these conditions were brewing for a dispensing error. 

The day it happened, I was working a 14 hour shift the day after working after a 16 hour shift. I was having to check a prescription whilst also being on the phone, because of the lack of staff. I checked that the drug, strength, directions etc were correct, but I didn't spot that the wrong name was on the label. 

The patient rang up to check that the cream was the right one for them. We apologised profusely, offered to redispense, offered to go through our complaints procedure etc. the patient was happy with the reassurance that it was the right cream and refused the other measures, stating that she was quite happy that the situation was rectified.

Next thing I know, I'm being investigated by the then-regulator, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. You can't even imagine what this did to me. I was an absolute mess, convinced that I was going to lose the career I had worked so hard for. I co-operated entirely with the investigation, just as I had with the patient. I informed the inspector of the working conditions and my fears that it would lead to something more serious. None of this was taken into account in the final report, which gave me a warning, and the fright of my life. 

All this for a minor dispensing error, which caused no harm to anyone. 

You'd think, then, that the current regulator, the General Pharmaceutical Council, would come down hard on any pharmacist who actually endangered patients willingly. You'd think they would take decisive action, particularly where a pharmacist has had similar previous warnings which they have chosen to ignore. You'd think this would especially be the case where the pharmacist in question had been caught out by a BBC journalist posing as a concerned mother wondering about whether her child should be protected against whooping cough, a disease which can - and does- kill people.

See where I'm going with this? I'm hearing reports that the GPhC are suggesting that the Ainsworth's pharmacy case is nothing to do with them, and that as homeopathy is regulated by the MHRA it isnt their area. If that's the case, why is Mr Pinkus and the premises even registered with them?

I'm really hoping that this isn't the case, and that the GPhC are actually going to take decisive action. After all, what sort of a message does it give out to the public if they aren't being protected from harm? What sort of a message does it give out to the pharmacists that do their bet every day, trying their hardest to be as accurate as possible in working conditions that are ill-designed for such a purpose? 

Come on GPhC, be fair to the majority of your pharmacists who work according to your standards and actually do put patients first, and who do ensure that their recommendations are evidence-based and made with the best interests of the patient at heart. .

Hxxx
 

Red Wine as a painkiller... In babies?!

A couple of years ago, I was working a locum shift in a supermarket pharmacy. It was quite late at night, and a man came up to the counter to ask me if I did circumcisions. I assumed I had heard incorrectly, but no. "I thought you would be able to do circumcisions, since you can do healthcare services and you have a private room" he said, pointing at the extremely small and flimsy consulting "room" and the end of the counter. I couldn't help but notice the small boy cowering behind him as I politely explained that no, circumcision certainly wasn't a pharmacy service.

At the time, I remember being amazed that it would occur to someone to take their child to a supermarket for what is a surgical procedure. Whilst it may be considered minor surgery, I'm sure to the young boy himself it didn't seem all that minor, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be wanting a pharmacist to do it in the middle of a supermarket with only some thin plastic walls between him and the vegetable aisle.

Anyway, I shall leave aside the ethics of circumcision for now, and consider a tweet I saw this morning by Andy Lewis. One particular Doctor, on his website, is advising pain relief options for babies who are about to be circumcised. He advises loading the child up on red wine as a preferred option. Now hold on here, this is a GMC registered Dr advising on giving babies alcohol. Whilst he doesn't give any information about how much wine to give, i'm assuming it would have to be enough to get the child at least slightly intoxicated to have any painkilling effect. A quick google search suggests the 8th day after birth is a usual time for the circumcision to take place, e.g:

"To give the baby sweet, red wine prior to the procedure. (Kiddush wine is ideal). This is very effective in calming the baby. Ideally it is given about 15 minutes before the circumcision and I will give it on arrival if you wish. You will need to provide the wine." (http://www.mohel-circumcision.co.uk/1298.html)

At this point, let us consult TOXbase.org, the database of the National Poisons Information Service (NPIS). They advise that any children under the age of 10 who are symptomatic due to an alcohol ingestion (i.e. intoxicated) are taken into hospital for medical assessment.

Why is it dangerous to advise wine as a painkiller in a child of this age? Well, alcohol in children can be very nasty. It can cause hypoglycaemia, particularly in children, and a seemingly well child can sometimes suddenly and quickly go downhill fast- that's why NPIS recommend that they are observed in hospital.

Such advice, coming from a trusted Doctor, is very concerning indeed. It appears from the website that he expects the baby to be "prepared" prior to his arrival, so he is expecting the parents to administer and provide the wine (whilst he says he can give it "if they wish", to me this implies that its more usual for the parents to give it). He gives no directions as to how much wine to give, which could be easily misinterpreted by worried parents. 

I  emailled the GMC to ask what their stance on such advice is. They eventually got back to me to tell me that it wasn't a concern as usually only a tiny amount is given. This doesn't seem like a very satisfying answer, given that either a) the child is given so little that they don't have effective pain relief or b) they're given enough to be toxic.