The emperor’s new gym

I have recently returned from an excellent holiday in sunny Spain.  Predictably, my first Monday back at work was a bit of a trial.  It was a training day to support the implementation of a new performance management system.  Not the most enjoyable part of my working life, but fair enough.

However, after an excellent introduction from our CEO, the trial began in earnest when the following two words were projected onto a screen at the front of the auditorium:

“BRAIN GYM”

A homeopathic refutation – part three

In the third part of my series examining an attempted refutation of the critics of homeopathy (Milgrom, 2009) I look at the claim that homeopathy has a serious scientific foundation.

Dilute Science

This part of the essay starts by outlining a common criticism levelled at the most common form of homeopathy practised in the US and UK.  This calls homeopathy unscientific because:

“[…] in many homeopathic remedies, the original substance has been diluted out of molecular existence, detractors claim belief in homeopathy has no basis in science as ‘nothing cannot do something’.”

So, can apologists for homeopathy point to serious scientific work which shows that nothing can do something? 

A homeopathic refutation – part two

This post is the second in a series examining the claims made in a recent essay that seeks, in part, to refute common criticisms of homeopathy (Milgrom, 2009).  I have already examined the empty assertions about evidence for clinically useful specific effects.  Now, I would like to move on to examine an attempted refutation of claims that, “Homeopathy is deadly”. 

How deadly is homeopathy?

Milgrom starts with a bit of distraction: “The claim that homeopathy is deadly has never been substantiated, primarily because it cannot be proved anyone has died as a direct result of taking a homeopathic remedy.” 

This is entirely irrelevant; no critical discourse that I have come across has made the claim that the remedies themselves are toxic^*.  As I pointed out in my last post: the problem is not in the pills, but in their uselessness; and the attitudes of some homeopaths.  He then moves to the actual concerns of sensible critics: 

“The claim arises over concerns that those taking homeopathic remedies might forgo ‘life-saving’ drugs. This is a false perception: many who come to homeopathy do so only after conventional treatments have failed.”

A homeopathic refutation – part one

Lionel Milgrom recently had an essay published defending homeopathy (Milgrom, 2009).  It’s available on the Homeopathy World Community website.  In it, he notes the current parlous state of homeopathy as a mainstream medical intervention in the UK and seeks to do two things: (1) refute what he identifies as the main criticisms of homeopathy and (2) explore the context for what he views as unjustified attacks. 

In this post I shall examine Milgrom’s opening and his comments on the evidence for homeopathy.  I will be examining his arguments around: the scientific nature of homeopathy, its risks, the role of the profit motive and the influence of philosophy, in subsequent posts. 

Sitting comfortably? 

The summary starts with a familiar defence: “homeopathy has been in successful and continuous use for well over 200 years”.  This makes the usual mistake of conflating two different arguments: efficacy and popularity.  It is a common mistake to assume that the two go hand in hand.  History tells a different story. 

Homeopath says what ….

A while ago^* I came across the British Homeopathic Dental Association (BHDA).  Their website makes some amazing claims.  I decided to see what they would offer to substantiate just one of them: the claim that, “Homeopathy will give you […] Remedies that will cure ulcers cold sores etc” 

I asked, 

“You claim that homeopathy provides, “Remedies that will cure ulcers cold sores etc”.  Do you actually have any proper evidence to support this claim?  To be quite frank I don’t [believe] that you do, but I’m always happy to be surprised.”

I quickly received two replies from their Secretary:

“Dear Doubting Thomas,  sorry Adrian

The best evidence you will ever find is from the patients treated with homeopathic remedies.  Next time you have a patient, or better, yourself, with a mouth ulcer, you know they usually last 3 days. Buy some Feverfew and chew a harmless useless tablet and repeat two hourly. There will be your evidence.

Some unfortunate patients get bouts of mouth ulcers at regular intervals. Do as I say and the intervals between bouts gets longer until they no longer have any.

Be brave and try. You can do no harm and you might even surprise yourself. Do chew or suck as they do not work if just swallowed

Cheers

[…] ( Do keep in touch. You might even want to join BHDA)”

Tell ‘em about the honey …

According to Annelie Whitfield, the presenter of Channel 4’s ‘The Kitchen Pharmacy” honey is hydrating.  In an episode featuring what she calls “anti-aging” treatments, she makes an “Avocado Face Mask” with avocado and probiotic yoghurt.  Finally she adds honey, saying:

“Honey […] is deeply hydrating and it really helps to get rid of any spots that you might have […]“

The video is available here.  Lots of things that Whitfield says strike me as odd.  This is just another small example.  So, is it strange but true, or just untrue?

For something to be hydrating it needs to contain water, and that water needs to be ‘free’; not bound up with other chemicals.  Now honey does contain water, around 17% by weight.  So, at face value, it might seem that honey could be hydrating.  However, if honey had a significant proportion of its water content available for hydrating human skin, it would also allow micro-organisms to grow in it.  Clearly, honey has a long shelf life, so this would suggest that the water in honey is not ‘free’.

Naturopaths angry up the blood

You might have thought that the oxygen in your blood came from taking air into the lungs, which extract oxygen and deliver it into the blood pumped into the lungs by the heart.  I certainly did.

Then again, I don’t have a Bachelor of Science (BSc.) degree in Naturopathy.   Annelie Whitfield does, and on an episode of The Kitchen Pharmacy I saw her demonstrating how to concoct something she called ‘Anti-Age Green Juice’^*.  You can see the video here.  During this segment she claimed, in part: 

“Interestingly the chlorophyll molecule, which is why all these vegetables are green, is almost identical to haemin which is a protein found in haemoglobin and haemoglobin carries oxygen around our body so when you look at dark green leafy vegetable you have to think that’s instant oxygen, therefore instant energy which makes you feel more youthful.” 

Chiropractic care and treatment for scoliosis

Oh the joys of spam!  It’s usually very annoying, but just occasionally it provides a useful stimulus for a bit of investigation.  This turned out to be the case when a link to an article (oddly) on the Weight Loss Health Ways … Healthy Ways to Loose Weight website advocating Chiropractic care and treatment for Scoliosis popped into my spam filter.

According to the UK NHS Choices website: 

“Scoliosis is an abnormal curvature of the spine to one side. In those who have the condition, the spine bends either to the left or to the right. 

The bend can occur at any point along the spine from the top to the bottom. The curvature also varies from slight to severe. However, the chest area (thoracic scoliosis) and the lower part of the back (lumbar scoliosis) are the most common regions to be affected. 

[…]Scoliosis affects three to four children out of every 1,000 in the UK. In 90% of cases of scoliosis, treatment is not required because the condition corrects itself as the child grows. 

Most of the remaining 10% of cases can be successfully treated by using a back brace to prevent further curvature. Three out of every 1,000 children with scoliosis will need surgical treatment.” 

Now, what does the chiropractic promoting article have to say?  First, it describes the condition and two conventional approaches – bracing and Spinal Fusion Surgery  – before launching into a wholly unjustified promotion of Chiropractic.

Cooking up arthritis treatments

One of the things about the complimentary and alternative medicine industry I like least is spurious claims to be able to treat arthritis.  Several of my nearest and dearest are severely afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).  I have seen them exasperated by people who, usually with the best of intentions, tell them that their problems would be a thing of the past if only they would take Comfrey (or some other herb) or wear a copper bracelet. 

It’s not so much the intrusion that’s annoying: it’s the often not-so-subtle sub-text.  The implication is usually that they have access to some wisdom that is beyond the ken of the humble local GP or consultant rheumatologist.  You see, for all their years of training, medics have somehow managed to remain ignorant of herbal cures and magic jewellery.  In more extreme cases there is the distinct implication that such powerful, natural and kindly measures are being deliberately withheld by evil medical professionals in thrall to the robber barons of ‘Big Pharma’. 

In praise of chiropractic?

The Journal of Health Services Research and Policy has just published a ‘perspective’ piece by Professor Alan Breen of the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic in which he, unsurprisingly, praises Chiropractic (Breen, 2009). 

The concluding paragraph is quite amazing: 

“To portray only part of the relevant information in a critique is itself pseudoscience, yet strong ontological commitment to only part of the knowledge base seems often to be the stance taken to contest the scientific basis of Chiropractic. Rather like psychiatry, debates about musculoskeletal practice need to go beyond positivist science and recognize that we have entered a more democratic and inclusive, post-normal age.” (Breen, 2009) 

In this he seems to be committing himself to evaluate Chiropractic in the light of all the relevant information.   Let’s see if he does.