Homeopathy, placebos, and the protests of Bruce Barwell

I'd like to thank Bruce Barwell, President of the Homeopathic Society of New Zealand, for inspiring me to return to a favorite topic for quackbusters and examiners of claims of the paranormal - homeopathy - the ultimate fake.

He has protested a comment of mine in the following blog entry:

Lancet research labelled biased
http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/08/lancet-research-labelled-biased.html


After quoting from published excerpt from a broadcast:

"Homeopathic Society President Bruce Barwell says the researchers used a very small sample, probably too small to base a sound judgement on, and there was also bias in the selection of homeopathic remedies they researched." http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=79005

I wrote:

"Not only does Bruce Barwell speak for the Homeopathic Society of New Zealand as its President, he doesn't hesitate to misrepresent the facts (dare I say "lie"?). I'll let readers make their own decision. Denial is a personal attitude, where one lies to oneself, but he goes further.....hmmph!"


His reponse to my blog entry

He chose to comment on the blog entry in question:

Bruce Barwell (brubar@ihug.co.nz) wrote the following:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/fyslee/112515402359439136/

"I have the distiction of being described as a liar in your blog on the subject of the Lancet and homoeopathy. You err in saying the assesssment was of 110 trials, it was in fact 8, of poor quality. It would have helped your case if you had actually read the Lancet piece. If you give me a postal address I can send you evidence supporting my claim.
Best wishes for your pursuit of truth,
Bruce Barwell"


An apology

As always, if I am mistaken, I appreciate being notified of my error, and will apologize if I am convinced of my error.

In this case I did not intend to actually call Barwell a liar, but to leave that decision up to readers. Now that I have read my remarks with new spectacles, I can see that my remarks could still be interpreted otherwise, for which I am sorry.

From the available press reports it appeared that he was claiming that only eight reports were studied, rather than 110. Since 110 studies were included, and only the best were chosen for the final evaluation, it ended up being eight homeopathic and six traditional medicine studies that ended up being compared to each other and to placebos.

If that's really what he was referring to, then I owe him an apology.

It certainly appeared that he was being deceptive by denying that it was 110 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. It also appeared that he was claiming that the authors of the study actually did original research themselves, where "the researchers used a very small sample,..... and there was also bias in the selection of homeopathic remedies they researched."

Well, it wasn't original research by the authors, nor of any specific remedies, but a meta-analysis of existing studies of all levels of quality. There is a big difference between researching "remedies" and analyzing "studies." That distinction is definitely not clear in Barwell's statement. He actually did use the word "researched."

To avoid confusion, Barwell should have said "studies" instead of "remedies," if that is what he really meant, for example:

"... there was also bias in the selection of homeopathic *studies* they researched."

Now if the written notice on the website has misquoted Barwell, then he should take that up with the editors who wrote it, because they have then done him a misservice, leading to misunderstanding.


Sorting of studies in meta-analyses

I certainly hope the authors used some bias in their selection of studies to include in the final phase!

Naturally the authors excluded studies of poor methodological quality in the final phase of their study. That's the way such studies are normally done. Studies are analyzed for methodological quality - not by results - and poor quality studies (without blinding, few participants, clearly prejudiced, one-sided, sales arguments, etc.) aren't used in the final analysis. Only those of high methodological quality - regardless of results - are included in the final analysis.


Serious allegations of research fraud

It's interesting that he claims the eight studies were "of poor quality."

If he can prove that the authors of the Lancet study actually had the audacity to compare homeopathic studies of "low quality" with traditional medicine studies of high quality, then we have a clear case of research fraud being perpetrated by the authors of the study. I haven't heard of any such allegations as yet (merely charges of "bias"). This would be enough to hit the front page of the New York Times, the Indian Express, and Times of India. The study was widely referred in media all over the world, and any serious charges against it would likewise be spread far and wide, especially in the homeopathic literature.


A challenge for Barwell

I challenge Bruce Barwell to:

1. Prove his allegations that the eight homeopathic studies were "of poor quality."

2. Prove that homeopathy has any significant effect above the placebo effect.

3. Prove that there is any *properly blinded* method of establishing the difference between
a. a homeopathically diluted and potentiated solution (water or alcohol) with an active ingredient, and
b. an identical solution that is likewise diluted and potentiated, but without the original active ingredient.

(I'm referring to truly homeopathic dilutions, not merely slightly diluted preparations which still have measurable quantities of molecules from the original "active" substance. Homeopathic "active ingredients" are oxymorons, since they must be diluted to the point of non existence, before they are truly "homeopathic".....;-)

I'd really like to see what he comes up with! I'm certainly willing to learn.

James Randi would certainly like to see his answer as well, considering he has put up one million dollars in his Million Dollar Challenge:
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.3


"Quality" research?

I'll let readers come to their own conclusions about the depth of Barwell's understanding of what constitutes "quality" studies and research.

If he's representative at all of typical homeopathic thinking - after all, he's the President of the Homeopathic Society of New Zealand - then his idea of quality homeopathic research is likely based on the final (favorable) results, not the methodological quality of the process leading to those results.

By this "reasoning" (not!), homeopaths automatically assume and claim that if research doesn't conclude that homeopathy "works", it must be of poor quality.

I contest that it is their "reasoning" that is of poor quality!

History has shown that homeopaths and legitimate scientists have very different understandings regarding research "quality," with the progress of scientific knowledge being conditioned on the use of research that seeks to distinguish the difference between *real* effects and *placebo* effects.


Homeopathy and placebo effects

In stark contrast, homeopathy continues its stagnation (and stubborn refusal to accept irrefutable evidence in large quantities and of high quality) by refusing to accept that mere placebo effects aren't good enough, especially since they produce no long-lasting physiologic effects of real worth on real biological illnesses, and only temporarily fool the mind with subjective feelings of improvement. Using them can thus have potentially dangerous consequences. The current methods of promoting and selling them is seriously unethical and should be illegal. One should not be allowed to deceive the public in this way.

Wikipedia's article on the Placebo Effect contains the following, to which I have contributed:

Objective or subjective effects?

An alternate opinion attributes the false perception of a placebo effect to the fact that patients who have been given a placebo report improvement earlier and more eagerly in order to please and thank the care giver. These patients may even do this when there is no real physical improvement attained. One quoted figure is that about one third of patients improve on a placebo, but a recent study has called that number into question (A. Hróbjartsson & P. C. Götzsche, 2001), claiming that the effect is much smaller, if it exists at all. The 30 percent figure derives from a paper by Henry Beecher, published in 1955 (H. Beecher, 1955). Beecher was one of the leading advocates of the need to evaluate treatments by means of double-blind trials and this helps to explain why it has been so widely quoted.

The Hróbjartsson & Götzsche study demonstrated that in many studies where a control group was used that did not get any treatment at all, the effects in the no-treatment group were almost equal to the effects in the placebo group for studies with binary outcomes (e.g. well treated or poorly treated). The authors concluded that the placebo effect does not have "powerful clinical effects," and conceded that placebos have "possible small benefits in studies with continuous subjective outcomes and for the treatment of pain." They therefore concluded that there was no justification for its use outside of clinical trials. [1]

In a follow-up study in 2004, the same authors were able to confirm their previous results and concluded: "We found no evidence of a generally large effect of placebo interventions. A possible small effect on patient-reported continuous outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias". [2]

If their conclusions are correct, the placebo effect is reduced to a subjective placebo illusion, while retaining its importance as a statistical research tool. As such it is imperative to use it in research, but unethical to use it in normal clinical treatment of patients.

These conclusions contradict what some would now consider to be a great deal of folklore that has evolved around the whole idea of the placebo effect. That folklore has evolved in a "research vacuum" of ignorance about the true nature of the placebo effect.

What is new about these conclusions is an emphasis on the key words "subjective" and "pain". This explains the well-established fact that the placebo effect is most "effective" in conditions where subjective factors are very prominent or significant parts of the problem. Some of these conditions are: headache, stomach ache, asthma, allergy, tension, and especially the most subjective of them all - pain, which is a significant part of most serious (and many mild) illnesses.

It also explains why there is no conclusive documentation for placebos causing significant healing effects in serious biological pathologies.

Practical implications and consequences

According to these findings, a placebo can make you think you are better, and even temporarily feel that you are better, but it can't actually make you any better. It will not cause any significant physiological change in a serious disease. In short, it will fool you (which is its intended function in double blind experiments).

To most scientists, these conclusions aren't revolutionary, since they have been using placebos in research for years, based on assumptions that this was the case. If they had believed otherwise, they would have been acting against better knowledge.

Much quackery achieves temporary "success" by a conscious or unconscious misuse of this placebo illusion. To the patient, such misuse of placebos can be expensive and ultimately fatal. To the quack, it will fool the patient long enough to keep the scam rolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect

********************** Subscribe to this blog ********************** Enter your email address below to subscribe to Confessions of a Quackbuster! powered by Bloglet ********** Reciprocal Links: An Invitation

A review of Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis - by Harriet Hall, MD

Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 11, Nr. 3, 2005


Energy Medicine

A review of Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis
by James L. Oschman. London: Churchill Livingstone,
an imprint of Harcourt Publishers Limited, 2000. 274 pp.
ISBN 0-443-06261-7

by Harriet Hall, MD


"ENERGY MEDICINE" INCLUDES therapeutic touch, craniosacral therapy, homeopathy, acupuncture, and numerous other alternative medicine practices. It usually implies a vitalistic philosophy-something immaterial produces life and health in a material body. James Oschman believes that the phenomena of energy medicine can be studied, measured, and explained by science without invoking any mysterious life forces or unmeasurable subtle energies. He marshals a large body of experimental evidence and argument to try to support his thesis.

In the foreword, Candace Pert sets a strange tone for a scientific book by describing how Dr. Oschman "pulled" some energy away from her "stagnant" liver. She tells us the body is "a liquid crystal under tension capable of vibrating at a number of frequencies, some in the range of visible light," with "different emotional states, each with a predominant peptide ligand-induced 'tone' as an energetic pattern which propagates throughout the bodymind.." If you are hoping the book will explain what this means, you will be disappointed.

Historical Background
According to Oschman, "In the past, the most remarkable success stories of complementary therapists (as well as healings in the religious context) were often dismissed because there was no logical explanation." Here he makes two unsupported assumptions: (1) that complementary therapists have had a greater success rate than can be explained by placebo, natural course of disease, and chance; and (2) that dismissal is not simply due to inadequate evidence. He accepts kinds of evidence that most scientists would not. He believes that Mesmer's "animal magnetism" was unjustly maligned, because in the scientific paradigm, "if a phenomenon is difficult to measure or does not fit into any of the emerging disciplines, it is excluded from investigation." This is not true. No phenomenon that is shown to exist is ever excluded from scientific investigation. In the case of Mesmer, no documented phenomenon was there to exclude.

In 1873, Edwin Babbitt spent weeks in a darkened room to heighten his visual sensitivity; when he emerged, he said he could see energy fields around human bodies. Oschman believes him. Why? Because the pictures he drew were consistent with the pattern of neurocurrents in the corpus callosum. He also believes that the many quack electrotherapy devices of the early 1900s may have been effective, saying there was no evidence for or against them. The FDA officials who banned those devices would disagree.

Oschman believes that Harold Saxton Burr could detect ovulation by monitoring voltage changes. Others couldn't replicate his findings, but Oschman attributes this to confounding signals from other organs. In 1974, an ovulation detector was patented; it supposedly filtered out the rhythms of other organs so that only the oscillating electrical field of the ovaries remained. Of course, a device doesn't have to be effective to be patented, and no one uses this device today.

Burr also found electrical field changes that predicted subsequent development of cancer. Attempts to replicate his findings failed. Oschman thinks Burr's theories of cancer detection were validated by the research of Reinhold Voll, who invented EAV (Electro Acupuncture of Voll). Most scientists would disagree. On the Quackwatch website Dr. Stephen Barrett says, in red warning letters, "I believe that EAV devices should be confiscated and that practitioners who use them should be delicensed because they are either delusional, dishonest, or both." [1]

Core Argument
Electromagnetism can be detected for all body functions. The heart generates a signal that can be recorded by an electrocardiograph (EKG) and by magnetocardiography (MCG). Brain function can be monitored on an electroencephalograph (EEG). Magnetomyograms detect magnetic pulses when muscles contract. These are all well-established scientific facts.

We know that alternating magnetic fields (applied for 8-10 hours a day) help heal broken bones. From this fact, Oschman leaps to the assumption that brief application of healing hands can heal anything. Interaction of the patient's and therapist's biomagnetic fields could explain polarity therapy, therapeutic touch, and other types of energy healing. He firmly believes that energy healers can perceive electromagnetic fields and can adjust them to optimize health. His hard evidence for this boils down to two experiments.

1. A Japanese team [2] measured magnetic fields from the palms of 37 subjects who supposedly could emit External Qi. In three subjects only, they detected magnetic fields of 2-4mGauss in the frequency range of 4-10 Hz. This is 1000 times greater than had been previously measured in humans. In one subject, they attempted to measure the corresponding bioelectric current and found that this was not detectable. Oschman accepts this as solid evidence, without considering the obvious flaws:

-Generation of magnetic fields that strong would imply strong loop currents that would probably be enough to vaporize tissue. [3]

-They were not able to measure any current whatsoever, which would seem to indicate that the electromagnetic field was not really present.

-There is no evidence that Qi exists at all.

-It's far more likely that inadequate controls or measurement errors caused these 3/37 positive results in three of the 37 subjects.

-The experiment was done in 1992 and has never been replicated.

2. Dr. John Zimmerman used a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) to detect a large biomagnetic field emanating from the hands of a practitioner during therapeutic touch-so large it could not be quantified by the SQUID device. [4] It pulsed at a variable frequency, from 0.3 to 30 Hz, with most of the activity in the 7-8 Hz range. The study was published in 1990 in the journal of the Bio-Electro-Magnetics Institute, whose founder and president just happens to be... John Zimmerman! The findings have not been replicated elsewhere.

Oschman suggests that further experiments should be done to find out how this force affects healing; he doesn't suggest that the original experiments should be repeated to confirm whether the force really exists: "If the phenomenon is as robust and repeatable as it seems," this discovery will go down in history. At the same time, he admits the finding is "tenuous in that it has not been widely replicated." Well, which is it? If it's tenuous, it can't very well be robust. "Unbelievable" might be a better word.

Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) in the Environment
Oschman thinks we are sensitive to a variety of electromagnetic influences: the magnetic field of the earth (which is constantly changing), the Schumann resonance (standing waves from lightning that resonate between the earth and ionosphere), extraterrestrial sources of X-rays and cosmic rays, geopathic stress (at pathogenic sites detectable by dowsing), and pollution by manmade devices. He cites carefully selected positive studies, but does not mention any of the many negative studies. For instance, he quotes a 1981 study that found a correlation between suicide locations and 50 Hz power lines in the West Midlands, England. [5] He fails to mention a 1986 follow up study that found no correlation with suicide or any of several other conditions, and, in fact, found the overall mortality lower than expected. [6] One of the researchers he cites was found guilty of scientific misconduct, but he feels that the verdict was unfair, and that the study results are inconsistent because different people have positive, negative, or neutral responses. In other words, there is no way to disprove the hypothesis.

Physicists have calculated fields, conductivity, noise from random thermal agitation, etc. to show that the signal/noise ratio prevents environmental EMF from having significant biologic effects. Oschman rejects this, saying weak fields can have stronger effects than strong fields because of frequency-intensity "windows" of response. He believes that electromagnetic "allergies" are widespread and under diagnosed. Simply standing next to a toaster can cause dizziness, nausea, or migraines in sensitive patients, because normal household electricity disrupts their body's information systems. Multiple allergies can develop: if you are having a reaction to 60-cycle electricity and are simultaneously exposed to a chemical, you can automatically become allergic to that chemical. Sensitive patients can react to just being in the same room with a sealed glass tube containing a homeopathic dilution of an allergen. Reacting patients emit signals that can produce allergic reactions in other sensitive people.

Oschman says, "Virtually every disease and disorder has been linked by one investigator or another to electromagnetic pollution." He recommends you buy a magnetic detector to find hot spots in your home. Key information about the effects of EMF is unknown to the public, Oschman explains, because: (1) it sounds like astrology, (2) people don't want to be influenced by far-away events, (3) the idea that the body radiates and is sensitive to invisible energy fields is menacing, and (4) public knowledge would lead to economic and legal consequences. (Yes, conspiracy theories are alive and well!)

Information Flow
The cell is not just a sack of fluid; it has a structure-a cytoplasmic matrix-that we are just beginning to understand. Cells are interconnected through molecules in the cell membrane called integrins that regulate most functions of the body and play a role in arthritis, heart disease, stroke, osteoporosis and cancer. Oschman sees the entire body as one interconnected organism, a living matrix of communication analogous to the nervous system. "Each fiber of the living matrix, both outside and inside cells and nuclei, is surrounded by an organized layer of water that can serve as a separate channel of communication and energy flow."

Communication also occurs, he claims, through solid-state biochemistry, crystalline arrays, piezoelectricity, and a living tensegrity network that forms a mechanical and vibratory continuum, absorbs healing energies, and converts them into acoustic signals. "Each molecule, cell, tissue, and organ has an ideal resonant frequency that coordinates its activities." The perineural tissue forms a distinct communication system that regulates nerve function; acupuncture accesses this network. Energetic bodywork somehow opens and balances the information channels to prevent disease and maintain health. Acupuncture, acupressure, Shiatsu, massage, and structural integration all activate tissue repair processes, possibly by simulating injury.

Heart rate variability (HRV) relates to emotions. With training, you can achieve a state of internal coherence with a HRV of almost zero. This is a calm state where you are aware of your electrical body. It promotes health. DNA acts as a resonant antenna to receive and transmit information coded in the heart's electrical rhythms and in the oscillations of the DNA molecules themselves. "A sensitive individual can begin to tune in to these phenomena by focusing on any body rhythm" such as heart rate or cerebrospinal fluid pulsations or breathing.

Another kind of communication occurs when changes in collagen density form somatic "memories." Application of therapeutic pressure can release a vivid recollection of trauma, as well as releasing toxins that have accumulated in connective tissues. Physical and personality structure are related, and structural integration can be achieved through Rolfing, osteopathy, chiropractic, Feldenkrais, yoga, Alexander, craniosacral, myofascial release, and similar methods. Body shape and patterns of movement tell (1) our evolutionary history, (2) the history of our personal traumas, and (3) the story of our present emotional state. There are seemingly no limits to the claims of energy medicine.

Benveniste and Homeopathy
Chemistry was once described in terms of "billiard-ball" reactions; today it is better understood as electromagnetic interactions. Oschman believes that the electromagnetic signature of a drug works as well as the drug itself, or better; homeopathy, colorpuncture, sight and sound therapies, healers' hands, aromatherapy, flower essences, and crystals can all supply this signature. Homeopathic succussion makes the molecules continue to vibrate coherently for a long time. "Current thinking is that 'water memory' does not violate any laws of physics or nature. It simply means that our understanding of water is incomplete."

Oschman's take on the late Jacques Benveniste's experiments is revealing. Benveniste published a paper in Nature in 1988 [7] purporting to show that a homeopathic remedy retained biological activity after a dilution process sufficient to remove all molecules of the original substance. Water could "remember." When a team from Nature, including James Randi, observed his lab procedures and enforced proper blind methodology, he was unable to reproduce his original results. (Benveniste has been a figure of ridicule to many scientists, and had won two "Ig Nobel" prizes, [8] the most recent one for digitally recording the biological activity of a homeopathic solution, sending it over the Internet as an attached document, and transferring it to another water sample at the destination!) Oschman feels Benveniste has been unjustly maligned:

James Randi, a magician with no scientific credibility or credentials, does not like Benveniste's work, and his disparaging remarks have been published in Nature. Now, Nature is usually regarded as a respectable and discriminating scientific journal. Unfortunately the magazine has published Randi's comments even though they contain no logical arguments or evidence of any kind for rejecting Benveniste's discoveries. [9]

The experiment did not work when others were watching-isn't that evidence for rejecting it? Whether Randi "likes" Benveniste's work is irrelevant, even to Randi himself. Randi has offered a million dollar prize to anyone (liked or not liked) who can demonstrate biological effects from a homeopathic dilution; a British team tried it recently and failed, on BBC television, no less. [10]

Energy Circles
In a chapter on "Energy Circles" the author claims to demonstrate the flow of energy in groups of people. After a series of preparatory exercises ("smiling vigorously and ridiculously," deep breathing, Tibetan bells, visualization of happy times, etc.) participants form a circle between an energy practitioner and subject, the hands of each person almost but not quite touching the back of the next. Strange things happen. People feel energy, resolve emotional traumas and are cured of physical symptoms. One even gave up his hearing aid, sure that these effects cannot be due to suggestion, because when a branch of hawthorn was brought into the circle, a woman who had lost her sense of smell to an injury 20 years before said she sensed the smell of hawthorn.

Quantum Theory Strikes Again
Pseudoscience and new age philosophies frequently invoke quantum theory out of context. Oschman's book is no exception. If there is a God of Quantum Physics, he ought to smite those who take his name in vain. Physicists such as Victor Stenger [11] assure us that quantum theory does not apply to large objects or to human consciousness. But quantum theory says strange things can happen, so it provides a convenient excuse for believing ideas that don't make sense to science. For example, Oschman borrows the concept of scalar potentials from quantum theory-the idea that when two waves cancel each other out, residual information is still available. He then argues that physics allows for spooky action at a distance and instantaneous propagation of scalar waves (not bound by the limit of light velocity), proposes that this has biological effects, and claims the only way to study this is to observe electromagnetically sensitive individuals. He discusses microgenesis, "a unified theory that brings together language, perception, learning, action (movement), feeling, time awareness, and the nature of the self." This isn't recognized by neuroscientists "because it is based on a wealth of clinical detail that few are familiar with," but it has something to do with quantum units of consciousness with a bottom-up unfoldment, and storage of traumatic patterns that can be released in a lifechanging instant of clarity. Yeah, right.

The author believes in subtle actions at a distance, Jung's synchronicity, transference of evoked brainwaves to another subject in an EMF shielded room, and telepathic experiences correlated with calm periods of global geomagnetic activity. He also believes in dowsing and in the "bone-out-of-place" theory of chiropractic, which even chiropractors themselves have given up because it doesn't show up on X-rays. Come to think of it, he never mentions anything he doesn't believe. He has a very open mind. Too open by half.

Conclusion
Oschman concludes that energy medicine was discovered before its time, but now the time has come to integrate it into scientific knowledge. There is probably no single "life force" or "healing energy." Instead, there is an interaction of many electrical, magnetic, elastic, acoustic, thermal, gravitational, and photonic energies, and possibly other subtle energies that remain to be discovered. He claims that there is a growing body of evidence for energy healing, but that even carefully controlled studies have been dismissed, simply because science does not recognize their rationale. This is not true; the positive evidence is of poor quality and is outweighed by the negative evidence that this book consistently refuses to acknowledge.

Science is not a matter of cherry picking whatever supports your hypothesis. Rather it is a self correcting methodology where all the evidence is considered and critiqued, and competing hypothesis are tested. This book masquerades as science, but it amounts to little more than speculation and polemic in support of a preconceived belief. The tragedy is that energy medicine believers now have a book whose very title may lead them to think there is "proof" that their experiences have a scientific basis. Many scientifically naïve readers will be convinced. Critical thinkers will not.


[1] http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/electro.html. Accessed May 17, 2004.

[2] Seto A, Kusaka C, Nakazato S, Huang WR, Sato T, Hismitsu T, Takeshige C. Detection of extraordinary large bio-magnetic field strength from human hand during external Qi emission. Acupunct Electrother Res. 1992;17(2):75-94.

[3] http://www.physic.ut.ee/~kkannike/current.JPG. Accessed May 20, 2004.

[4] Zimmerman, J. Laying-on-of-hands healing and therapeutic touch: a testable theory. Newsletter of the Bio-Electro-Magnetics Institute 1990, 2(1), 8-17.

[5] Perry FS, Reichmanis M, Marino A, Becker RO. Environmental power-frequency magnetic fields and suicide. Health Physics 1981; 41:267-277

[6] McDowall ME. Mortality of persons resident in the vicinity of electricity transmission facilities. Br J Cancer; 1986 Feb; 53(2):271-9.

[7] Davenas F, et al. Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. Nature 1998; 333:816-818.

[8] http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.15/IgNobelsLaughat.html. Accessed May 20, 2004.

[9] Oschman, JL. Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis. London: Churchill Livingstone, an imprint of Harcourt Publishers Limited, London, 2000. Page 254.

[10] http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml#top. Accessed May 17, 2004.

[11] Stenger, V. The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology.. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1995.

Reprinted here by permission.

********************** Subscribe to this blog ********************** Enter your email address below to subscribe to Confessions of a Quackbuster! powered by Bloglet ********** Reciprocal Links: An Invitation

Chiro book: What Chiropractors Don't Want You to Know About Chiropractic

Although the following is probably a self-serving piece of chiropractic marketing, it's still interesting...;-):

Want to feel better
and
save thousands on medical bills?

You Should Know ™
What Chiropractors Don't Want You
to Know About Chiropractic

This eBook can help you save money and improve your health!


Read this letter from Dr. Gelber, D.C., to find out why he felt driven to reveal the "insider" secrets of the chiropractic profession!

From the Desk of Dr. Paul Gelber, D.C.

-----------------

I became a chiropractor 25 years ago because I sincerely believed in its philosophy of natural healing, and I wanted save people from the abuse of the medical profession's drugs-and-surgery treadmill!

Chiropractic looked like the profession of the future and, for a while, it was. But then some unexpected things started to happen— chiropractic schools became hungry for money and started graduating incompetent doctors.

Patients began to see these chiropractors with no results, and started bad-mouthing the profession. Many people even became afraid of chiropractors.

Then things got worse! Chiropractic seminars began teaching how to make more money by swindling patients! Ethics became secondary to income. As if that wasn't enough, in the 1990's huge chiropractic fraud cases hit the media.

Now many patients who could completely eliminate their pain, save thousands of dollars every year, and avoid the horrible side-effects of drugs and surgery are not getting the care they need! There are many great chiropractors out there— under their care, the pain epidemic in this country could be significantly reduced!

That's why I feel compelled to give the public this information.
I know what goes on behind the scenes, and I want to expose it!

I also want everyone to find an excellent chiropractor who is more interested in the patient's health than their money.

It is in this hope I wrote this book for you.

(signed) Dr. Paul Gelber, D.C.


*****

Read on, but be on guard: http://www.youshouldknowchiro.com/

********************** Subscribe to this blog ********************** Enter your email address below to subscribe to Confessions of a Quackbuster! powered by Bloglet ********** Reciprocal Links: An Invitation