NEW!
Updated Edition!
We all know, I think, what homeopaths say about homeopathy. We also know what everyone else says about it. And the two set of opinions could not be more different. In this context, it might be interesting to learn what writers have to say about the subject. Here is a list of quotes from the non-medical, non-scientific literature (I am sure there are many more; if you know some, please let me know):
Boyd, W. (Restless, 2006)
“She had a small leather case of homeopathy remedies, Nux Vomica, Pulsatilla, Arnica, that she treated like a traveling reliquary.”
Coetzee, J.M. (Elizabeth Costello, 2003)
“He is a believer in homeopathy, in the healing power of water, in the memory of water. He is a man of the eighteenth century, really.”
Cunningham, M. (The Hours, 1998)
“She has tried everything: homeopathy, psychotherapy, prayer. She is a woman who lives in the hope of a miraculous adjustment.”
Enright, A. (The Gathering, 2007)
“My mother had a great belief in homeopathy, which is just a way of saying she had a great belief in nothing at all, provided it came in a very small bottle.”
Franzen, J. (The Corrections, 2001)
“Enid was deep into a phase of homeopathy, convinced that a decillionth of a gram of honeybee sting would cure her husband’s tremors.”
Márquez G.G. (“Serenade: How My Father Won My Mother”, 2001)
“…devoted his talent as an autodidact to a science on the decline: homeopathy.”
Hustvedt, S. (The Blazing World, 2014)
“He was the kind of man who treated his neuroses with homeopathy and his physical ailments with intense, silent resentment.”
McEwan, I. (Solar, 2010)
“He had no time for homeopathy, which he considered a form of witchcraft for people who were too polite to carry crystal wands.”
O’Farrell, M. (Instructions for a Heatwave, 2013)
“She kept a kit of homeopathy in her bag, tiny glass vials of white pills that looked like the breath of ghosts.”
Self, W. (How the Dead Live, 2000)
“Lily’s faith in homeopathy was such that she believed if she diluted her own death enough, she might eventually become immortal.”
St. Aubyn, E. (At Last, 2011)
“He had reached that stage of desperation where even homeopathy seemed like a robust and evidence-based option.”
H.G. Wells (Tono-Bungay, 1909)
“By the time my uncle had taken to homeopathy, I realized that his faith in science was of a very elastic kind.”
George Bernard Shaw (Preface to The Doctor’s Dilemma, 1906)
“I have a faith in homeopathy that would make a Harley Street physician shudder, though I suspect it rests less on evidence than on temperament.”
Thomas Mann (The Magic Mountain, 1924)
“He spoke of homeopathy with a curious mixture of irony and conviction, as though the less there was of it, the more there must be.”
Aldous Huxley (Eyeless in Gaza, 1936)
“She placed her trust in homeopathy, preferring infinitesimal certainties to the gross invasions of modern medicine.”
Doris Lessing (The Golden Notebook, 1962)
“She was experimenting with diets and homeopathy, as if the body might be coaxed into sanity by gentler means.”
Margaret Atwood (Cat’s Eye, 1988)
“My mother believed in homeopathy, in small doses and invisible forces, which seemed to me another way of saying she believed in hope.”
Zadie Smith (White Teeth, 2000)
“He dabbled in homeopathy, convinced that the less substance there was, the more profound the cure.”
David Lodge (Therapy, 1995)
“I tried homeopathy for a while, but it seemed to require a belief in something so small it might not exist at all.”
Hilary Mantel (Giving Up the Ghost, 2003)
“Homeopathy offered the promise of healing without intrusion, a whisper of cure rather than a command.”
Martin Amis (The Information, 1995)
“He regarded homeopathy as a joke that had somehow outlived the punchline.”
______________________
It seems to me that, when it comes to homeopathy, the writers tend to agree with the scientists.
Most scientists are not Trump-fans [to put it mildly]; this is a trend that is likely not to be reversed by Trumps recent appointment of the first 13 members to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Historically, it has served as a bridge between the White House and the broader scientific community, however, the 2026 iteration represents a Silicon Valley mockery of science. Nearly the entire roster consists of high-profile technology executives and venture capitalists, leaving academia with just a single representative: John Martinis, a 2025 Nobel Laureate in Physics from UC Santa Barbara.
The council’s composition is notable not just for its corporate focus, but for the sheer concentrated wealth of its members. At least 9 of the 13 appointees are billionaires, including some of the most influential figures in the global economy:
- Jensen Huang (NVIDIA) and Lisa Su (AMD): Representing the hardware backbone of the AI revolution.
- Mark Zuckerberg (Meta) and Sergey Brin (Google/Alphabet): Representing the titans of software and data.
- Larry Ellison and Safra Catz (Oracle): Longtime industrial allies with deep ties to federal infrastructure.
- Michael Dell (Dell Technologies) and Marc Andreessen (Andreessen Horowitz): Providing a mix of legacy hardware expertise and modern venture capital strategy.
Under the co-leadership of David Sacks (White House AI and Crypto Czar) and Michael Kratsios (OSTP Director), this council has a mandate that differs fundamentally from its predecessors. Previous administrations typically used PCAST to tackle broad issues like public health, climate science, and fundamental research. In contrast, the 2026 council is focused on “The Golden Age of Innovation,” with a specific emphasis on:
- AI Dominance: Ensuring the U.S. wins the global race for artificial intelligence.
- Energy Infrastructure: Accelerated deployment of advanced nuclear and fusion energy, represented by members like Jacob DeWitte (Oklo) and Bob Mumgaard (Commonwealth Fusion).
- Deregulation: Streamlining the “bureaucratic barriers” that the administration argues hinder technological speed.
This roster therefore marks a striking departure from the tradition established by FDR in 1933. While President Biden’s council was majority-academic and diverse in scientific disciplines, Trump’s PCAST is largely devoid of scientists. With up to 11 seats still vacant, the scientific community is now watching nervously to see if the second wave of appointments will continue to herald a boardroom for the billionairs and architects of the digital age.
As I said, scientists don’t like Trump. The reason is clear: he seems to value science mainly as a means to make money for himself or his cronies.
Aaron Siri is an American lawyer and anti‑vaccine activist. He has become a key figure in contemporary US vaccine‑policy debates, largely through his legal challenges and close ties to health‑policy critics such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His following five central claims about vaccines are a mix of selective quoting, misrepresentation of studies, and appeal to legal‑style rhetoric:
- Vaccines cause chronic illness
Siri’s central “smoking‑gun” claim rests on an unpublished Henry Ford Health‑system analysis allegedly showing that vaccinated children have far higher rates of chronic illness than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated children in this dataset had far more health‑care visits than unvaccinated children, so more conditions were diagnosed in them regardless of whether vaccines caused them. This is a textbook example of detection bias, but not evidence of causation. Moreover, the study has not passed peer review; its reported disease prevalences are inconsistent with known epidemiology. It is therefore widely seen as methodologically unsound.
- Vaccines were never properly tested against proper controls
Siri argues that many childhood vaccines have not been tested in inadequately-powered, placebo‑controlled trials. When an effective vaccine exists, medical ethics oppose using placebos in new trials, as that would deny protection to a control group. Moreover, his claim that older vaccines (e.g., tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis) “lack adequate controlled trials” is misleading because earlier trials were designed for different standards and later observational data, post‑licensure surveillance, and large‑scale cohort studies have filled the gaps. In other words, he exploits technical‑sounding language to imply a hiatus of evidence, when in reality the evidence base is broader and more heterogeneous than he portrays.
- The CDC/WHO inflates how many lives vaccines have saved
Siri has attacked the WHO’s estimate that vaccines have saved around 154 million lives, calling it “corruption of science”. The 154‑million figure comes from a modelling exercise [like most “lives‑saved” statements in public health]. It depends on assumptions but is based on vaccine‑coverage and mortality‑trend data, but it is not fabricated. Siri’s rebuttals focus on rhetorically dismissing the exercise as “advertising” rather than engaging its assumptions or proposing alternative, better‑validated models. His claim that this number is “corrupt” thus rests polemic than but not on a coherent technical critique of the underlying epidemiological models.
- Exploiting the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act and “lack of liability”
Siri blames the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for reducing oversight and downplaying risk, arguing that liability protection “corrupts” safety monitoring. Yet the law was designed to protect manufacturers from financially ruinous litigation and to create a dedicated federal compensation program for proven injuries, not to forbid safety monitoring. The US has multiple surveillance systems (VAERS, VSD, CISA) and expert advisory bodies (ACIP, NVAC) that continuously review vaccine safety. Siri’s critique thus conflates legal strategy with scientific oversight, implying that the absence of mass torts proves lax monitoring.
In conclusion, Siri’s vaccine claims are mostly built on:
- one deeply flawed, unpublished observational study,
- selective readings of older vaccine‑trial designs,
- unwarranted dismissal of WHO‑level modelling, and
- a legal framing that conflates liability shields with absence of safety science.
Epidemiologists, infectious‑disease specialists and other experts rightly regard Siri’s arguments as misrepresenting or misapplying biostatistics and failing to meet standards for causal inference. It would be a serious mistake to follow them!
Dr. Dean Patterson, a consultant cardiologist in Guernsey, has been dismissed from his partnership at the Medical Specialist Group (MSG) following his public concerns about potential links between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. Patterson had described as a notable rise in myocarditis. He claimed local figures of 5 cases in 2020 (pre-vaccine rollout), 25 in 2021, and 22 in 2022. Moreover, numbers declined as vaccinations tapered, he stated emphasizing that he was not anti-vaccine but sought open scientific debate and that other healthcare professionals feared reprisal for raising safety signals.
Speaking to ITV Channel in 2024, he said: “People think I must have come to this conclusion just like that, but I haven’t. It’s been running on guts, instinct at first, not being quite happy, trying to speak to people, then hoping to prove myself wrong. I think the scientific debate has been stifled. People and doctors have been threatened and lost their jobs, I’ve had nursing staff at the hospital contact me and say they can’t speak out because of disciplinaries.”
Eventually,Guernsey authorities commissioned an independent review by the Royal College of Physicians in late 2024 to check Patterson’s patient data for vaccine-related cardiac risks. The review found no substantiation for the scale of concerns Patterson had voiced. However, it uncovered unspecified “issues” that prompted MSG’s internal probe on patient safety grounds. Patterson had not treated MSG patients since February 2025, yet remained a partner until March 2026, when MSG ended his tenure after parallel internal processes concluded, separate from but informed by a still ongoing UK General Medical Council (GMC) investigation. The GMC had imposed a 12-month interim suspension of his license in February 2026, which Patterson is appealing, barring him from UK or Guernsey practice in the interim.
The MSG’s dismissal announcement on March 19, 2026, centred on patient safety and the review’s lack of support for his claims, without detailing specific allegations amid the GMC fitness-to-practise case. Local media framed it as a sacking tied to his vaccine critique, highlighting tensions over suppressed debate. MSG assured continuity via other cardiologists, reassigning patients, while the full review, precise issues, and the GMC outcomes all remain undisclosed.
The way I see it, this story might be a textbook example of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency to listen more often to information that confirms our existing beliefs. Through this bias, people tend to favor information that reinforces the things they already think or believe.
It happens to us all: you drive your car through town and have to stop twice at a red light; subsequently you get the feeling that most trafic lights see you coming and turn red to annoy you. In fact, you only notice the red lights and forget about the many green ones that you passed.
Patterson seemed to have noticed one or two unusual cases which sensitised him to find more that seemed similar. Clinicians’ judgements are often biased in this way. In other words, the story could serve as a reminder that we need proper science rather than huntches to guide our decisions.
Tons of research (mostly surveys) exist on the reasons why some people – between 20 and 60% – use so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But these people are often the minority, and few of us ask why the majority do NOT employ SCAM. The research that does exist suggests that people decline SCAM for a variety of inter‑related reasons. It also suggests that non‑use is often a rational, deliberated position grounded in both experience and reason.
Satisfaction with conventional medicine
Across different conditions and populations, the most frequently cited reason for not using SCAM is that conventional treatment is perceived as sufficient. In an oncology sample, for example, 76% of non‑users reported that they saw “no need” for SCAM because standard therapy was considered adequate. Similar findings emerged in gastroenterology and primary‑care cohorts, in which effective conventional treatment was the single most common reason for non‑use, and many non‑users stated that they would only consider SCAM if standard treatments turned out to be ineffective.
Good health
Good self‑rated health also predicts SCAM non‑use. Population surveys consistently show that SCAM use is higher among those with chronic conditions, poorer functional status, or unresolved symptoms, whereas people who feel generally healthy are less likely to seek any additional, especially out‑of‑pocket, interventions. In that sense, non‑use is often an epiphenomenon of a relatively positive health trajectory: people tend to look beyond biomedicine only when they experience persistent suffering, side‑effects, or perceived medical failure.
Lack of good evidence of effectiveness
For many non‑users of SCAM, the absence of convincing scientific evidence is central. They perceive SCAM modalities as “unproven” or “insufficiently tested” and prefer interventions that have been evaluated in rigorous randomized trials, meta‑analyses, and regulatory assessment. A recent scoping review of SCAM identified “insufficient scientific evidence” as one of the most frequently reported barriers to use across multiple settings. In an Egyptian survey, almost 80% of non‑users reported “insufficient information and evidence to prove effectiveness” as a main reason for avoiding SCAM, and nearly three‑quarters stated that they were “not convinced” by it.
Safety concerns
Safety concerns are closely tied to this evidence gap. Non‑users often highlight the lack of robust regulation of SCAM products and practitioners, worries about adulteration or contamination of herbal preparations, and the risk of interactions with prescription medicines. In cancer cohorts, substantial proportions of non‑users explicitly mention fears of fraud and of harmful interactions between SCAM and chemotherapy or other oncological treatments. These concerns are reinforced by data documenting variable product quality and under‑reporting of adverse events in the SCAM sector, which for some patients strengthens the perception that, in the absence of solid evidence and oversight, the safest option is non‑use.
Money
Even among people who are in principle open to SCAM, structural barriers can make uptake impractical. Economic factors are salient: in most healthcare systems, SCAM services are not reimbursed or are only partially covered and therefore require substantial out‑of‑pocket payments. US survey data have shown that SCAM users incur meaningful additional financial burden, and that out‑of‑pocket spending on SCAM can be associated with self‑reported financial distress. For those on lower incomes, this cost gradient effectively acts as a barrier to ever starting SCAM.
Time
Time and access constraints constitute further deterrents. Many SCAM modalities require repeated sessions, travel, and scheduling flexibility, which can be difficult for people in full‑time employment or with caregiving responsibilities. A scoping review identified limited availability of services, a shortage of qualified professionals, logistical difficulties in reaching SCAM practitioners, and lack of public provision as recurrent obstacles to use, particularly in rural or underserved regions. When an intervention demands substantial time investment and travel, while its efficacy is uncertain and it is not covered by insurance, non‑use becomes a straightforward opportunity‑cost calculation.
Physician stance
Physician stance plays a powerful role in shaping decisions. Patients often look to their primary care physicians or specialists as gatekeepers of legitimate treatment options; when doctors do not recommend SCAM, or express doubts about it, patients tend to refrain from using it. Reviews of physician attitudes suggest that many are cautious about SCAM because of concerns about evidence, safety, and the risk that some patients might replace effective conventional treatment with unproven SCAMs. This caution, whether expressed explicitly or implicitly, contributes to the social norm that poorly evidenced therapies lie outside the mainstream of responsible care.
Lack of knowledge
Lack of knowledge about specific SCAM modalities is another consistent reason for non‑use. The National Health Interview Survey showed that “not knowing enough” about practices such as acupuncture, chiropractic, natural products, and yoga was commonly endorsed as a reason for never having tried them, even among individuals with back pain that might otherwise motivate experimentation. Meta‑analyses and scoping reviews corroborate “insufficient knowledge” and “inadequate information” as personal barriers across diverse settings.
Worldview
Finally, the decision not to use SCAM is also shaped by broader worldviews. Studies mapping attitudes underlying SCAM use and non‑use suggest that commitment to a scientific, reductionist understanding of illness, trust in biomedicine, and low levels of “holistic” or spiritual health beliefs predict lower SCAM uptake. Non‑use of SCAM thus reflects an active alignment with the epistemic norms of evidence‑based medicine and a preference for treatments that are conceptually compatible with biomedical explanations of disease.
Conclusions
Users of SCAM tend to score relatively high in intuitive thinking, while non-users of SCAM tend to score higher in analytical thinking. People who do not use SCAM are often employing a cautious, risk‑averse strategy. They prefer treatments that have demonstrable effectiveness beyond placebo and safety within regulated systems, particularly when their health is reasonably good, and they see little to gain from investing scarce time and resources in therapies they regard as weakly evidenced, commercially driven, or ideologically suspect. Non‑use, then, is a principled stance grounded in satisfaction with conventional care, skepticism about unproven claims, and a desire to minimise both medical and financial risk. In a word: non-use of SCAM seems to be a sign of prudence, common sense and an ability to think critically.
References
Astin, J. A. (1998). Why patients use alternative medicine: Results of a national study. JAMA, 279(19), 1548–1553.
Li, J., Verhoef, M. J., Best, A., Otley, A., & Hilsden, R. J. (2005). Why patients use or do not use complementary and alternative medicine: A qualitative study exploring beliefs about conventional medicine and CAM in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology, 19(9), 567–572.
Lindeman, M. (2011). Biases in intuitive reasoning and belief in complementary and alternative medicine. Psychology & Health, 26(3), 371–382.
Najibi, S. M., Sarikhani, Y., Hajimonfarednejad, M., Nimrouzi, M., & Hashempur, M. H. (2025). A scoping review of the barriers and facilitators in the use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine: Insights for health policy development. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 44(1), 188
Paepke, D., et al. (2020). Prevalence and predictors for nonuse of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 146 (8), 2157–2166.
Rosenberg, E. I., et al. (1998). A review of the incorporation of complementary and alternative medicine by mainstream physicians. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(21), 2303–2310.
Some papers on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are such that I am almost lost for words. Here is the abstract of such an article:
Background: Autism Spectrum Disorder is a complex neurodevelopmental condition with characteristic
challenges like persistent deficits in social communication, restricted and repetitive behaviors, sensory
processing anomalies. Defined by DSM-5criteria, it affects about 1in 100 children globally and 1in 36 in
united states and poses a significant burden for families and healthcare systems. Research on homoeopathy
and Bach flower Remedies as adjunctive or primary therapies has often explored by families and clinical
interest in complementary and alternative medicine for additional support.
Materials and Methods: A comprehensive study of related review articles, related different components
of Autism spectrum disorder treated with homeopathy treatment, Bach Flower Remedies and
complementary medicine in children were search out. Databases search is PubMed, Google Scholar,
ResearchGate and Web of Science, Scopus and Homoeopathic journal.
Result: Reviewed evidence indicates that no systematic studies have been done to manage autism
spectrum disorder with Bach flower Remedies as an adjuvant or primary treatment along with
homoeopathy. Although individualized homoeopathic treatment has promising results in reducing core
and associated symptoms in children including improvement in social interaction, hyperactivity,
communication and behavioral regulation. Although there is less data available thorough trails, Bach
Flower Remedies especially Rescue remedy that have help in treating the emotional dysregulations and
anxiety that are frequently connected with autism spectrum condition.
Conclusion: The available clinical data on autism spectrum with homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies
is not enough to provide new and sufficient evidence. To overcome this more well-designed study of RCT
and larger sample with standardized procedures will be able to help to this rising burden of autism
spectrum disorder.
In the article itself, the authors state the following: “This review article indicates that both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing. Based on the reviewed data from case series, controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews it can be state that individualized homeopathic treatment leads to clinically relevant improvement in core and associated symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.
Studies on Bach flower remedies specifically in autism spectrum disorder are very less but it suggests that Bach flower remedies offer practically accessible intervention for emotional and behavioural dimension mostly in anxiety, emotional dysregulation, sensory hyperactivity and resistance to change. Evidence from controlled trials and clinical studies shows a statistical and significant in symptom.
Homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies should not replace evidence-based behavioural and development intervention for autism spectrum disorder, but rather be investigation as complementary modalities within an integrative care framework. Despite of growing clinical observations, the field of homoeopathy and Batch Flower remedies in autism spectrum disorder is characterised by substantial and identifiable research gaps that limit the formulation of evidence-based clinical guidelines and urgent research priorities include the multicentric, double-blind RCTs with standardised diagnostic criteria and validated core outcome sets; longitudinal follow-up.”
Bearing in mind that this comes from the “Head of the Department, Department of Practice of Medicine, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to beUniversity), Homoeopathic Medical College”, this is remarkably embarrassing!
Why?
The review is badly written and poorly done. More importantly, according to the data provided by the authors, there is only one rigorous RCT. Here is its abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Bach flower remedies in the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in a double blind prospective controlled study.
Methods: Fourty Children with ADHD, aged 7-11 years, diagnosed according to the DSM criteria, were randomised to Bach flower remedies or placebo treatments for a period of 3 months. Children’s performance was evaluated by the teacher before commencement of treatment and subsequently each month during the study period.
Results: Bach flower remedies have no statistically significant effect when compared to placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD. There was a significant correlation between treatment duration’s and improvement of performance, with no difference between the treatment group compared to the placebo.
Conclusions: There is no statistically significant difference between the effects of Bach flower remedies compared with placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD.
If a head of department nonetheless concludes that “both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing”, it is, I fear, high time to replace him.
I am sure that many of my readers have no idea what ‘Slinding Cupping Therapy’ is. It is a TCM therapy that, according to the authors of this paper, receives much appreciation for treating plaque psoriasis. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that sliding cupping therapy is non-inferior to narrowband ultraviolet B (NBUVB) therapy in improving disease severity in patients with plaque psoriasis.
This prospective trial recruited 60 patients with plaque psoriasis who were randomized to receive either sliding cupping intervention or NBUVB treatment. The cup was moved 30 times for each skin lesion until the target skin area turned purple. The initial dose (mJ/cm2) of ultraviolet radiation b (UVB) was determined based on sun-reactive skin types I through VI, which ranged from 300 mJ/cm2 to 800 mJ/cm2. Both treatments were performed 3 times per week for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at week 8, with secondary endpoints, including Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA), body surface area, visual analogue scale scores, and quality of life measures.
The total response rates were 69% (18/26) and 79% (19/24) for patients receiving sliding cupping intervention and those receiving NBUVB treatment, respectively, which showed no significant difference (P = .526). The PASI scores, body surface area, and PGA were reduced in patients with plaque psoriasis at W0, W4 and W8 after either sliding cupping intervention or NBUVB treatment (P <.001), and these reductions were not significantly different between the patients receiving sliding cupping intervention and those receiving NBUVB treatment at W0, W4, W8, and W12. At W8, the mean percentage reduction in PASI was 62.4% (95% CI, 54.9–69.8) in the sliding cupping group and 66.9% (95% CI, 59.6–74.2) in the NBUVB group, with no significant difference between groups. The total response rates were 69.23% (18/26) and 79.17% (19/24), respectively (P = .526). Patients receiving sliding cupping intervention and those receiving NBUVB treatment did not show statistically significant differences in these outcomes at W0, W4, W8, and W12 (P >.05).
The authors concluded that the overall results suggest that sliding cupping therapy exhibits statistically similar efficacy and safety profiles as NBUVB treatment, especially at 8 weeks after treatment.
Sliding cupping therapy is a form of cupping in which cups producing mild suction are placed on oiled skin and then moved along the body surface, generating a “reverse massage” that lifts rather than compresses the subcutaneous tissues. The negative pressure is thought to increase local blood flow and lymphatic drainage, reduce perceived muscle tension, and temporarily improve range of motion, though high‑quality clinical evidence for most claimed benefits remains limited.
The treatment is used mainly by massage therapists, physiotherapists, and TCM practitioners in musculoskeletal and sports‑rehab settings, as well as in wellness and spa‑oriented clinics; it is commonly applied to the back, shoulders, neck, limbs, and along fascial lines or acupuncture meridians, often for pain, stiffness, “trigger‑point”‑type tension, and post‑exercise recovery. The popularity of this therapy is best characterised as a niche within broader cupping and fascial‑release practice rather than a mainstream standard treatment.
The new study is a text-book example of how to mislead people with seemingly reliable research. The fact that it was grossly under-powered – and not the effectiveness of the sliding cupping therapy – is obviously the cause of the lack of a difference between the effective therapy (NBUVB) and the sliding quackery.
Let me give you an example: say, we compare antibiotics (A) to homeopathy (H) as treatments for bacterial pneumonia. We treat 10 patientsin each group, and 8 of them recover in group A within a week, while in the H-group the amount is 6 (many patients recover even without an effective treatment). We run statistical tests which tell us that the difference is not significant. Thus we falsely conclude that homeopathy is as effective as antibiotics in the treatment of pneumonia. The 2 treatments were, in fact, not equal but the lack of power of the small study failed to detect the existing difference.
It seems rather obvious to me that a similar thing has happened with the above study. Its authors are to be congratulated for cheating so slyly that neither the editors nor the reviewers of the journal ‘Medicine’ managed to see through their simple litte trick.
I recently came across an aricle entitled “Reiki for Stress Relief” which I thought was excptional even for the often surprising literature on Reiki. Here is the abstract:
Reiki is Holistic. It isn’t just about the mental, or just about the physical, but both, and an overall restoration and improvement to you. And as we know, often the mental and physical are linked.
While the scientific understanding of Reiki’s effects on emotional blocks is still evolving, many individuals report subjective benefits, such as emotional release, relaxation, and a greater sense of inner peace, following Reiki sessions.
As the philosophy of Reiki is grounded in holistic medicine and thought, it is imperative to continue that tradition and also integrate other scientific -backed therapies such as the ones your doctor may suggest if you have a serious medical or mental condition. A balanced approach is key, and Reiki is possibly a powerful tool and philosophy that can be the missing key or complement to your current care regimen.
This is impressive! Don’t you just love how it’s ‘grounded in holistic thought’ while the scientific understanding is ‘still evolving’ ? That’s a very elegant way of admitting ‘we’re still waiting for the first piece of evidence’. And we all appreciate the disclaimer to actually see a real doctor as soon as we are truly ill.
The Canadian comedian Mayce Galoni had perhaps the best measure of Reiki when he did his stand-up bit about his nephew “becoming a Reiki master” at the age of 21: “My 21-year-old nephew is now a Reiki master. I didn’t even know you could be a master of anything at 21… Reiki is the only career where you can get paid for doing exactly what I do when I can’t find the TV remote.”
Some homeopathy-fans claim that tiny “nanoparticles” survive even in remedies diluted a trillion trillion times (i.e. the process of manufacturing a high-potency homeopathic remedy). They furthermore assume that this phenomenon can explain how homeopathy works. This argument sounds ever so modern and sciency but – unless you are a bit of a dim-wit – it falls apart for several fairly straightforward reasons that almost anyone should be able to grasp.
Too Dilute
Imagine starting with a single drop of medicine and diluting it by adding 99 drops of water, shaking it up, then repeating that hundreds of times. By the 12C stage (about 1 part in 10^24), there’s statistically zero original molecules left – way before most remedies hit 30C or higher. Even if some nanoparticles somehow cling on from the mixing process or glass vials, they’d be so rare (fewer than one per bottle) that they couldn’t reliably affect your body like a real drug.
Breaks the Main Rule
Homeopathy’s main axiom is “like cures like” assumption: a substance that causes a headache in a healthy person should cure headaches when you’re sick. But nanoparticles would just deliver a tiny dose of the ingredient itself, acting like an extremely weak remedy – not following homeopathy’s main axiom. This would turn homeopathy back into normal medicine and miss the basis of its own theory.
Not Based on Materials
Not all homeopathic remedies start with physical ingredients. Some are “imponderables” like “X-ray” (sugar pills exposed to X-ray radiation, then diluted), “vacuum” (made by evacuating air from water), or even “moonlight.” There’s no material at all to leave nanoparticles behind, so this explanation can’t cover those products.
Useless Ingredients
Most homeopathic remedies are based on mother tinctures that have no heath effects, like sepia (ink from cuttlefish), cantharis (Spanish fly blister beetle), or even bits of the Berlin Wall. These aren’t bioactive – they don’t fight infections or reduce pain or do anything else in normal doses. Nanoparticles from such useless junk wouldn’t magically gain healing powers; they’d still do nothing useful for health.
Lack of Convincing Clinical Evidence
As discussed ad nauseam on my blog, there simply is no sound evidence to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Any benefits people feel are thus likely from expectation, natural recovery, or doctor attention – and not from nanoparticles. If homeopathy had any real effects to explain, nanoparticles might be worth debating; without them, it’s a dead end.
I do sympathise with the desperation of homeopaths. They feel they must identify a plausible mode of action for their remedies. Their 200 year old struggle to find anything at all is in many ways remarkable. Here are some of the main explanatory ideas homeopaths (or homeopathy-friendly authors) have previously proposed for how homeopathy might work:
- Vital force / life energy – the remedy is said to act on a non-physical “vital force” or life energy that supposedly governs health and disease.
- Water memory – water is claimed to “remember” substances once dissolved in it, even after dilution beyond any remaining molecules, via changes in water structure or hydrogen bonds.
- Electromagnetic signatures – remedies are said to carry subtle electromagnetic patterns or “information” of the original substance, sometimes claimed to be recordable, transmitted electronically, and imprinted on new water.
- Quantum coherence domains – models suggest water forms coherent quantum domains storing drug “information” as electromagnetic frequencies, inspired by Del Giudice and Preparata’s ideas, though lacking solid experimental support.
- Stable water clusters / clathrates – hypotheses that long-lived clusters or cage-like structures (clathrates) in water somehow encode the properties of the starting substance.
- Nanobubbles and interfaces – suggestions that gas nanobubbles or interfaces in the solution store and transmit information about the starting material.
- Hormesis-based explanations – the idea that ultra-low doses act via hormesis (beneficial effects of mild stress or toxins), extended to the extreme dilutions used in homeopathy.
- Resonance with the body – proposals that remedies resonate with biological systems (cells, tissues, or “vital force”) through frequency matching or electric resonance, rather than via chemistry.
- Quantum entanglement / non-locality – claims that patient, practitioner, and remedy become “entangled,” so healing occurs via non-local quantum effects rather than molecules or doses.
- Information medicine / encoding – framing remedies as carriers of abstract “information” rather than substance, supposedly acting like a software signal on the body’s “hardware.”
Is it not time for homeopaths to accept the only well-proven, plausible explanations as to why their patients feel better after taking their remedies?
- The empathetic therapeutic encounter.
- The natural history of the condition.
- Regression towards the mean.
- Concommittant conventional treatments.
- The placebo effect.
Sufficient evidence concerning the impact of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) on clinical outcomes for breast cancer patients in Taiwan is not available. This study sought to examine the association between TCM integration and post-operative outcomes among women undergoing mastectomies.
Utilizing a large insurance database, the Taiwanese researchers identified a cohort of adult women who underwent breast cancer surgery during the 2010–2019 period. They compared sociodemographic profiles and comorbidities between TCM users and non-users. Multiple logistic regression models were employed to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both mortality and postoperative complications.
Among 91,298 eligible patients, the one-year pre-operative prevalence of TCM utilization was 40%. Compared to the control group, TCM users demonstrated:
- a significantly lower likelihood of postoperative stroke (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62–0.93),
- and a reduced requirement for intensive care (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59–0.91).
Moreover, the cumulative exposure of more than 4 TCM consultations within the year preceding surgery was linked to a decreased risk of stroke (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.95).
The authors concluded that “our findings indicate that integrating TCM during the year preceding breast cancer surgery is correlated with lower risks of postoperative stroke and a reduced requirement for intensive care. Nevertheless, these observed benefits warrant further verification through prospective and large-scale clinical investigations. Based on these results, we suggest that both Western medical practitioners and public health administrators should be mindful of TCM’s role in the comprehensive care of patients with breast cancer.”
In the paper itelf, the authors “hypothesize that pre-operative TCM integration contributes to the observed reduction in stroke risk and intensive care requirements following mastectomy. These prior insights provide a plausible biological foundation for the favorable outcomes observed in our study”. In other words, they believe that the associations is causal.
I beg to differ!
Much research has demonstrated that people who use so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in addition to conventional therapies differ from those who don’t. In general, they tend to be more health concious – if not, they would not go to the trouble of using and paying for SCAM. This difference alone suffices to bring about the observed outcomes – even if TCM has no or perhaps a slightly negative overall health effect.
But let’s be generous!
Let’s assume the authors are correct in assuming that the association is causal and that TCM brought about the observed outcomes.
What does that actually mean?
TCM consists of many different modalities. If we just focus on oral medications and assume that there are 1000 different ones [in fact, the number is about 6 times higher], which one do we take to experience the observed outcome? Perhaps all of them?
What I am trying to point out that such research is meaningless; it has zero practical consequences, even if its results were real – which they probably are not.
In the end, it boils down to one main thing: the promotion of unproven (and occasionally dangerous) TCM.
