One site that I believe falls into this category is ‘Wellness Homeopathy‘, (based in London) run by Saqib Rashid.

On visiting the Wellness Homeopathy site we find a site that tries to combine a polished, professional looking web presence with the usual homeopathic mix of holistic and natural healing statements.  There is an introduction to homeopathy that tells us that  ’Homeopathy is a holistic science‘ and other similar information that is so typical of the majority of alternative medicine sites.

There is a link to an associated site on  micro-DNAtherapy.  The site is so full of junk-science that it is difficult to know where to start, however there is a claim that

“highly diluted DNA molecules, approximately 5-6C, have the capacity to emit electromagnetic signals, especially when they have been mechanically agitated (succussed).”

Talk of the Human Genome Project and DNA are presented in a pseudo-scientific mix along with ‘Homeovitality‘ and  ’Hybrid Vigour’ , all with an aim of selling 4 homeopathic products they claim will interact at a genetic level to improve your health.  Whilst this is certainly quackery it is not really the subject of this Dangerous Homeopathy post.

Back on the Wellness Homeopathy main site and dangerous quackery is only a mouse click away.  An info box called  ’Homeoprophylaxis’ (also referred to as HP on the site) tells us that no system of immunisation guarantees 100% safety and there is at least some truth in that statement – nothing is 100% guaranteed.   Clicking for more information we are redirected to another Wellness Homeopathy site on ‘Safe Immunisation – Homeoprophylaxis‘.  Here the polished professional look has been replaced by images of children with cartoon teddy bears and fluttering butterflies.  This site is clearly targeting those with children and concerns over vaccinations.

We see statements like:

“Two centuries of medical literature reveals that the homeopathic remedies are effective in epidemic infectious diseases.”

“Homeopathic immunisation – also known as Homeoprophylaxis, is an alternative way to protect you and your family against childhood and other epidemic diseases. The prophylactics (remedies) do not have to be given by a practitioner; they are safe for you to use yourself.”

Lets be clear, homeopathic remedies are NOT an ‘effective‘ protection against infectious diseases and should most definitely NOT be used as an ‘Alternative‘ way to protect against any form of infection.

If we look at their Homeoprophylaxis Program page it starts by giving details of  NHS immunisations before moving on to list the diseases for which Wellness Homeopathy offer homeopathic prophylaxis ……  to children!

By now it should be abundantly clear to everybody that we are way past supplying tiny ineffective sugar pills for seasonal sniffles.  This is Dangerous Homeopathy, for serious diseases and with serious consequences.

But we are not quite done with Dangerous Homeopathy just yet.  The same page tells us that Wellness Homeopathy also offer homeopathic immunisations for pregnant women and travellers.

As you may already have guessed, travellers are not being offered a remedy for travel sickness!  No, Wellness Homeopathy offer homeopathic protection against a number of potentially fatal diseases.

During a holiday or working visit to a country, HP advice and remedies are available for diseases like Cholera, Dysentery, Malaria, Smallpox, Tuberculosis, Typhoid/Typhus, Yellow Fever, Hepatitis (A, B, C), Meningitis, and Jap. B Encephalitis.

And for pregnant women we are told that:

 “If protection against rubella is required during pregnancy. The specific homeopathic nosode will provide protection without the risk of the side effects.“

The information on this page alone puts pregnant women, babies, young children and those travelling abroad at risk of contracting diseases where a lack of proper protection can have serious or potentially fatal consequences.

The disclaimer at the bottom of the page is does nothing to reduce the potential for serious harm to anybody following this immunisation program.

The FAQ page contains a wealth of misleading information.  There are statements that depending on the potency of the remedy, HP protection may last from a few weeks (30C) right up to 10 years (8M).  And for those seeking assurances that this method actually works, we are told:

“it has been proved through world’s largest long term study of parents using this method, that level of protection is either equal or in some cases greater than conventional vaccination, and above all there is no reported damage with the use of HP programme as is the case with conventional vaccination.”

The rest of the site is little better.  There are sections on Vaccine Damage and Post-Vaccine Syndrome (PVS) with a long list of symptoms of PVS along with claims that these symptoms can be treated and reversed with homeopathic remedies.

A WHOIS search shows that Wellness Homeopathy have chosen to use the services of PrivacyProtect.org in Australia to hide their personal details.  However, Saqib Rashid is on Twitter as @wellnesshp and I have asked him how he can justify making these claims any intention of  ensuring his website(s) comply with the CAP codes.  Saqib Rashid claims to be a member of the Complementary Therapists Association CThA and his websites certainly carry their logo.  If that is so then he is in breach of the CThA Code of Practice (Item 26), however I doubt if Mr Rashid or the CThA really care!

I would hope that a site with the potential for this much harm is high on the ASA’s list of sites that need to be challenged, although perhaps Trading Standards might find this interesting.

These course are being run by UK registered osteopath Geoffrey Montague-Smith.  I couldn’t resist having a closer look at what was behind this ‘healing power of sound‘.

First stop was a visit to The Atman Academy (Principle: Geoffrey Montague-Smith DO) where there is a full pdf copy of the course advert: Vibrational Medicine: The Healing Power of Sound.  These 3 day workshop courses are described  as follows:

“For the modern day practitioner the use of musical tuning forks on and off the body offers a diagnostic and therapeutic modality which is safe, reliable and very effective. “

OK so call me skeptical but this guy is talking about musical tuning forks offering a very effective diagnostic method  ….   I wanted to know more!

I soon found myself on the Atman Academy Sound Therapy web page.   Here we find a video of Geoffrey Montague-Smith DO speaking on the subject of Vibrational Medicine at the Royal Society of Medicine in 2009.  The Royal Society of Medicine has a long and impressive history and has had some very distinguished members.  So just maybe there is something worth while in this video, surely it has to be worth a look.  [although I'm guessing that he just hired a room through their venue hire service!]

[The video is over 26 mins long and I've watched it so that you don't have too.   I don't intend to give a full running commentary, but I will highlight a few of the points he covers and that should be enough to give you an idea of what it is all about.  You may, or may not, want to watch the full video for yourself, but if you choose to do so, then it is entirely at your own risk! ]

I try to suppress my initial scepticism a little and and press the play button!

Oh Dear!   The video opens with the words “Our good friend Edgar Cacey quite wisely said that sound is the medicine of the future“.   This isn’t an encouraging start, Edgar Cacey is described as a“Twentieth Century Psychic and Medical Clairvoyant” and immediately any attempts to restrain my scepticism are being put to the test.

Conventional Medicine in 30 seconds.

00:24 – 00:54  These few seconds are all that are used to cover the use of sound in conventional medicine.  It amounts to little more that a brief mention of sound being used to break down (gall) stones and its use in modern physiotherapy departments.  Also the use of sound waves in ultra-sound scans during pregnancy, although he’s not sure that it is ‘such a cool thing to do‘  and questions the effects it has on the foetus.  And then with the words “…so there’s that!” we are done with conventional medicine.

The Ancients, Mozart and Dyslexia.

00:55 – 02:55  Conventional medicine is now well and truly forgotten as the talk moves on to discus  The Ancients, medical & spiritual ‘arts’,  Shamanic rituals and a Powerpoint slide listing Tibetan bowls the Aboriginal didgeridoo and the resonances in the kings chamber in ‘the pyramid’.  I am almost relieved when he says we don’t need to go into that in too much detail.

There is mention of the  ’Mozart effect‘ – and how listening to Mozart helps with dyslexia.  Accompanied by a new slide that says it helps the ear and promotes healing and brain development.

Bible Stories and Holosonic Pseudoscience.

02:55 – 07:25  Now the talk moves on to the subject of ‘Holosonics’ and how there is a bio-resonance into different tissues in the body.  The slide states that every bone, organ and tissue has it’s own frequency.  There is even  a list of frequencies, given in Hz, that the different organs resonate at. [Although the slide is difficult to see the actual frequencies].

The nonsense continues with more talk of resonant frequencies, including a mention of using sound to bring down the walls of Jericho –  [Really, Bible stories as evidence!].  There is pseudoscientific discussion on Dissonance &  Consonance and their effects on  the bodies ‘energy field‘.   Another slide on ‘Holosonics’ that states: “Sound waves are like deep sound massage at an atomic and molecular level“.

[And did he really just say that he is going to show us how he uses aluminium tuning forks to identify dissonance in patients bodies! - Oh I want to see that!]

Time to throw in a quick reference to school days physics lessons with tuning forks.  More Pseudoscience, this time on the subject of  ’Cymatics’ and the work of Hans Jenny   ”‘A natural scientist who perceived the unseen forces of nature”.   He seems to be a big fan of Hans Jenny and his work into the effect of vibration on the physical level and how “different levels of frequency can physically change matter“.   A slide tells us how Jenny’s work investigating the mathematical order of sounds has thrown light on the work of the likes of Pythagoras, Plato, Kepler and others.

SupraDNA, Tuning Forks and a Quantum Consciousness.

07:25 – 08:20   Now he’s talking about the diagnostic and therapeutic use of musical tuning forks and energy fields and another promise that he’s going to show us this in action.  But first, time for a far bigger dose of pseudoscience.   He’s  ”Looking to have an effect on Cell Differentiation from a SupraDNA point of view” and that sound, colour and light and elements in the vibrational spectrum have an effect on DNA and can determine the process of cell division.

[I'm sure you'll understand when I say that any attempt to suppress my natural scepticism has well and truly failed.  But I will persist because I really, REALLY want to see the tuning forks in action! ]

09:26 – 12:45  That’s enough of DNA, we’ve finally reached Musical Tuning Forks and how they offer  ”Simple and effective protocols for the clinician” and are an incredibly powerful tool for Chiropractors, Physiotherapists and Osteopaths to use to work on residual shock and trauma.  There is even a mention of giving out remedies, based on a form of  ‘Sound kinesiology.  There are also repeated references to ‘meridians’, ‘chakras’ and ‘energy fields’.

[At this point I am trying to remind myself that this course was advertised in the GOsC's Journal, the person speaking  is a fully trained and regulated UK osteopath, and his target audience are other statutory regulated therapists !]

As an example, we are told that by using musical tuning forks to treat a ‘big 28 year old prop forward‘ who only understands physicality and not what is going on at the more subtle level, you can have him leaving your clinic with a ‘Quantum Consciousness‘.

[Ahh, Y'see, there's my problem ..... There was a time when I was a big 28 year old prop forward.  No wonder it doesn't make sense, I must be lacking that Quantum element to my consciousness!]

Healing with Tuning Forks!

12:45  At last!  We have video of Musical Tuning Forks in use.  The footage is of  Geoffrey Montague-Smith in action with his tuning forks and was filmed by the BBC.

The clip runs from 12:45 until 17:59. If you watch nothing else, you REALLY should watch that 5 min  segment and marvel at the BBC’s coverage of a man waving various tuning forks above a pregnant woman’s body and that by listening to any ‘wobbles‘ in the sound it can be used as a form of diagnosis.  And how by changing the tuning fork in use to one of a different pitch or frequency it can ‘fix‘ the problem.

Watch the video Here

Watching this segment it is easy to find yourself both laughing and cringing at the display of utter woo.  But it seems far less amusing when you remember that this osteopath is using it to ‘treat’ a pregnant woman who seems to have been convinced that it is going to help her to have a stress free delivery for both herself and her baby!  Worse still he is offering to train others in this nonsense!

A PDF Course Overview can be found Here:  Harmonic Sound In Therapy

[Personally I'd prefer to see it called Sound Harmonics In Therapy - and abbreviated to S.H.I.T ]

 ”The basic tools used are an Aluminium C 256Hz, G 384Hz and a High C 4096 Hz. The prefect fifth of C and G represent the principles of Yin and Yang”.

It would be very unfair to say that all osteopaths, chiropractors or physiotherapists would put their faith in this sort of nonsense, but a similar course was run in 2011 and this 2012 course is being advertised in the The Osteopath, so one can only assume that there is a level of interest.  I'm amazed that the GOsC consider this rubbish to be suitable advertising for their journal.

As a qualified osteopath Mr Montague-Smith doesn't limit himself to waving tuning forks around, he also runs an osteopathic clinic in Tunbridge Wells - the Atman Clinic. 
Although tuning forks don't seem to feature on the website, he makes some interesting claims for osteopathy for a variety of conditions and EAV (electro-acupuncture) testing for certain medical conditions and food sensitivity testing.  

It should come as no surprise that these claims are now with the ASA!

 

In April this year I commented (Be Careful What You Wish For) on an article called ‘If the CAP fits’ that was published in the British Osteopathy Association Journal .  In this article, osteopathy Mary Monro expressed her the view that a lack of complaints to bodies like the Advertising Standards Agency was partly to blame for the limited range of conditions that the CAP codes allow osteopaths to claim to treat.

“We are told that the CAP code only allows us to mention a short list of possible conditions that we can claim to treat.  This is partly down to lack of evidence and partly down to a lack of complaints.   CAP almost never receive complaints about osteopaths’ advertising so (until very recently) they have no idea what we do.”

She also said that osteopaths should not restrict themselves to the CAP code list and that if they did the list would never get any bigger.

Online access to the article seemed to vanish shortly after I blogged about it, however a pdf copy of it was sent to me and is available here. Osteopathy Today April 2011pdf.

Although the General Osteopathic Council have already undertaken a mission to review members websites in order to highlight potentially misleading claims, many osteopaths were still making a variety of claims that I felt fell well short of the CAP codes.  So having read that article, I wondered just how many osteopaths shared Mary Monro’s view …… I decided it was time to find out!

I picked 11 websites belonging to either UK registered osteopaths or UK osteopathic organisations, all of them were making claims to use osteopathy to treat a range of conditions that were not authorised under the CAP codes.  All of these conditions would need robust evidence to substantiate the treatment.  ASA complaints were submitted for each of these sites.   Each of the complaint received a response from the ASA, many of them included the words:

“Based on the information you provided, it appears you have a valid point, and with a view to acting quickly, we have instructed them to remove the claims you highlighted from their website.”

In some cases the ASA also found other claims that they considered to be “problematic” and these would also need to be removed.   In 3 of the cases the ASA decided to deal with the issues under their formal complaints procedure.  This means the advertiser would be formally asked to provide evidence to substantiate the claims, however any of the 11 osteopaths would have been able to defend their claims if they felt they could.

So exactly what treatment claims did the ASA decide would have to be removed in order to comply with the CAP codes:

“Colic, Asthma, Sleep disturbances, Glue ear, Flat head syndrome, Feeding difficulties, Screaming/irritability, Recurrent infections, Ear Infections, Sinus Problems, Headaches, Behavioural problems, Leaning difficulties, Irritable bowel syndrome, Period pain”.   Also included were    “Symptoms of Cerebral Palsy and other forms of Brain Damage in babies and children, Whiplash, Threatened Miscarriage  and  arthritis“

Clearly some of these are serious medical conditions and are well beyond what most people would normally consider as treatable by a visit to an osteopath.

Some, like colic, are fairly benign although they can be distressing for both parent and child. These claims clearly target parents frustration and feed on the need to ‘do something‘ for their child.  Others like cerebral palsy target those who are vulnerable and suffering from long term and often incurable conditions.   Threatened miscarriage plays on the obvious fears for the health and welfare of an as yet unborn child, particularly if there is a history of problems during pregnancy.

It is also good to see Whiplash claims included in the list of conditions that the ASA had issues with.  A number of osteopathy sites were asked to remove this claim, many more are still making it!

I don’t intend to name all the sites or osteopaths involved, it is enough to say that none of them felt they had sufficient evidence to defend their claims and agreed to remove them from their websites when requested to by the ASA.    It is worth pointing out at this stage that all of these claims not only breached the CAP codes, but also the General Osteopathic Council Code of Practice.

Maybe I just picked the wrong osteopaths, because clearly none of them felt the urge to take up Mary Monro’s call to defend  their claims, present their evidence and thus increase the list of CAP permitted conditons.  All of them agreed to remove the website claims, that includes those involved in formal investigations.

However, I will highlight 3 organisations included in my complaints, partly because of the prominent position they play within (cranial) osteopathy in the UK, but mainly because there are still unresolved issues.  Whilst the individual clinics seem to have complied with the ASA’s advice, these organisations appear to need a little more encouragement!   

 The Sutherland Society.  One of the most popular cranial osteopathy website in the UK seemed to be the Sutherland Society.  Information and quotes from this site are common on UK cranial osteopathy websites and many provided links back to the Sutherland Society.

The list of conditions and claims on this site was comprehensive to say the least and included claims for cerebral palsy and brain damage, their main page also displayed a disclaimer that I questioned and the ASA had issues with, it has now been removed.  

The Sutherland Society was listed on the ASA’s webstite on 20 July 2011 – Here: Informally Resolved Cases.

However it seems not all the misleading claims have been removed –  ’Pregnancy and Childbirth‘  ’Babies and Children‘ and  ’Learning Difficulties and Special Needs‘.  These are now back with the ASA.

The London School of Osteopathy (LSO clinic).  This is a London based osteopathy teaching body, who claim “Research is an integral part of the LSO course” - They also run a teaching clinic that made a number of claims that were the subject of my complaint.     I have no idea what the quality of that research is, but their clinic website could certainly do with some to back up the claims.  But they chose not to defend!

The London School of Osteopathy was listed on the ASA’s website on 22 June 2011- Here: Informally Resolved Cases.

As a part of this case the LSO clinic was asked to remove claims including Whiplash, and “symptoms of chronic conditions e.g. asthma, arthritis“. Despite being listed as ‘informally resolved’ those claims are present today ( 31 Jul 2011) and the ASA have been informed.

The Foundation for Paediatric Osteopathy /Osteopathic Centre for Children (FPO/OCC).   Since submitting my complaint about the FPO the site has undergone a change of identity.  What was the Foundation for Paediatric Osteopathy is now the Osteopathic Centre for Children (OCC).  Other than a name change, the OCC is essentially the same organisaion.  The FPO and OCC have the same Company number (2545759) and Charity number (1003934) and the OCC were repeating the same claims as the FPO site:

“However, patients who visit us for treatment have presented with the following conditions: autism; gastric reflux; hyperactivity; behavioural difficulties; dyslexia; eczema; colic; glue ear; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; insomnia; asthma; hypersensitivity; headaches; back pain; diabetes; plagiocephaly and talipes. This list is not exhaustive.” 

On 15 June 1022, I was told that the ASA had spoken to the OCC and “discussed with them at some length the requirements of the CAP Code and the advice on medical conditions“.  The ASA sought and  received assurances that the FPO site had been withdrawn and that the OCC would consult, as a matter of urgency, with the Copy Advice team in order to make the OCC website CAP complaint.

The ASA also said that: (my bold emphasis)

“I think those assurances are sufficient to close this case without any further action. I have made FPO / OCC aware though that, should we receive further complaints about the same claims after they have had a reasonable amount of time to correct them, then we will pursue a more formal course of action.“ 

Well a quick check today (31 July 2011) shows that the OCC website is still making many of the same misleading claims as the old FPO site.  The ‘patients presented with the following conditions’ argument is exactly the same as that challenged on the FPO site

“However, patients who visit us for treatment have presented with the following conditions: asthma; autism; back pain; behavioural difficulties; cerebral palsy; colic; diabetes; dyslexia; eczema; epilepsy; gastric reflux; glue ear; headaches; hyperactivity; hypersensitivity; insomnia; plagiocephaly and talipes. This list is not exhaustive.”

They also make suspect claims on a few other pages.

The OCC web page states that they offer 30,000 osteopathic treatments per year to babies, children, pregnant and post-partum mothers.  That’s a lot of treatments offered to vulnerable patients for some potentially serious conditions, so you would rightly expect them to hold good quality evidence to support these treatments.

I have no idea if the OCC actually contacted the Copy Advice team, or how long the ASA view as a ‘reasonable amount of time‘ for making changes, but these claims have now been sent back to the ASA.   The OCC may just remove these claims (I’ll let you know), but if they genuinely feel that they can they can justify offering  30,000 treatments per year for conditions like cerebral palsy, autism, diabetes and dyslexia then they should be prepared to present the evidence!

If the OCC have no evidence, then that makes the statement on their main web page even more worrying:

The Osteopathic Centre for Children (OCC) is a charitable organisation based in the UK that seeks to ensure that paediatric osteopathy – a gentle, effective and environmentally-friendly treatment – is established as the first option for parents and carers concerned for their child’s health.

The first option for anybody concerned about a child health should be a properly qualified medical doctor, not an organisation lacking evidence to support their exaggerated claims!

Volume II covers the performance reviews of the 9 healthcare regulators who come under their remit.

Volume II can be found here   http://www.chre.org.uk/satellite/402  Or the PDF is here:  http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1012/hc10/1084/1084_ii.pdf

This document contains lots of  detail on issues surrounding health care regulation, many are worthy of a  much  closer look.  This post is simply a very quick look to highlight a few select areas where the business of regulation meets quackery.

There are some interesting mentions for homeopathy & pharmacies, herbalists, GCC complaints, along with a quick mention of the BCA’s failed libel action against Simon Singh.  Also issues surrounding the advertising of CAM, including the GOsC’s concerns over the potential for ‘mass complaints’.

Section 1 - Chief Executive’s foreword:

 There has also been considerable public attention given to those therapies where the evidence for efficacy is contested. Pharmacy regulators have had to consider the place of homeopathic remedies in pharmacy practice in the face of criticism from the Science and Technology Committee. 

The inclusion of herbal products in the regulatory framework means that herbalists will be regulated in future by the Health Professions Council. 

Chiropractic has come under scrutiny as a result of the attempt by the British Chiropractic Association to sue a science journalist for libel and the General Chiropractic Council has had to deal with several hundred complaints relating to the claims made about the efficacy of chiropractic for certain conditions.

Section 9. The General Chiropractic Council (GCC)

Some comments on the GCC’s complaint workload and the vote of no confidence by its members.  There is lots to read in this section.

GCC under external pressure …

9.2  ”The GCC’s investigating committee considered 29 non-website cases and 689 website cases and its final fitness to practise committees determined 16 non-website cases and 375 website cases”.

GCC under internal pressure …

Some interesting comments on the sale of homeopathic remedies in pharmacies – Also see sect 17

14.12 Under the Pharmacy Order 2010, the GPhC has a new role in relation to setting standards for pharmacy premises. The GPhC has established a ‘premises project’ and will be developing its standards.

14.13 “The premises standards will include those relating to the sale of homeopathic products in pharmacies”

 “We note that the sale of homeopathic products in pharmacies is an issue that has recently attracted media attention because of the lack of a consensus about the efficacy of those products and the potential implications for patients who take them in preference to conventional medicines. It is therefore a significant issue for the pharmacy regulator to consider”.

Well it would be kind of hard to have missed the media attention!   Any ‘lack of consensus‘ only comes in to play when you talk to a homeopath about the fact that there is no reliable evidence to support their quackery claims.

Section 15. The Health Professions Council (HPC)

On herbalists …

15.17 As yet there is little detail about how practitioners of herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine will be regulated, but the government has said that the focus will be ‘solely on minimising risk to the public’. The HPC register will be a register of people who are able to dispense unlicensed herbal medicines.”

 Section 17. The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI)

On homeopathy …

17.9  Registrants raised concerns with the PSNI following the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s review of the evidence base for homeopathy (which found that homeopathy is not an efficacious form of treatment). Supply of homeopathic products in pharmacies is legally permitted, and pharmacists have the right to sell them as part of their business

Legally permitted is one thing …. but that doesn’t address the ethical issue of selling ineffective sugar pills alongside genuine medicines!

“However, as there may be a risk to public protection if patients use such products in preference to conventional medicines to treat serious health conditions without being aware that there is no consensus regarding the evidence base for the treatments, the PSNI developed, consulted upon and published guidance on the supply of homeopathic products in pharmacies. The guidance made it clear that when registrants provide a homeopathic product the patient should be advised that there is no consensus on the efficacy of homeopathy.”

It is good to see an acknowledgement that using homeopathy in preference to conventional medicines represents a potential  risk to patient safety ….. that’s because it doesn’t work!

The full report is worth a read.

We can see just how common by using a very handy Google Custom Search, this tool can be used to search GOsC members websites for specific search phrases, in this case colic: (See Note at bottom of post for more custom searches and information on Fishbarrel!)

GOsC Members Websites – Colic

At present this search is returning 9 pages of websites (that may change) and whilst the results include sites that mention colic, rather than specifically offering treatment, the majority of these sites do make varying degrees of treatment claims for colic.

With this claim being so common, you would rightly expect there to be a body of  good quality evidence to support it.   Well I’ve looked for it before and couldn’t find it,  I’ve asked both the GOsC and NCOR if they knew of any and still not found anything conclusive.   This is covered in earlier posts:

Osteopathy: A question of evidence pt1

Osteopathy: A question of evidence pt2

NCOR (National Council for Osteopathic Research) have recently been conducting a review of literature and evidence covering cranial osteopathy for a number of conditions and the results of this should be made public soon.

Until then, perhaps the best place to turn to would be the recent article in the April/May edition of The Osteopath  The article, published by NCOR is called ‘Osteopathic Studies Investigating the Management of Infantile Colic’ (pages 19 – 21).

The opening paragraph contains a statement that highlights the problem with these colic claims:

“This is a distressing condition for both parent and infant.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that osteopaths treat infantile colic successfully, but limited published evidence is available on this topic“

What we seem to have are lots of (cranial) osteopaths offering to treat a distressing condition, but with very limited evidence to support that treatment.  So hopefully the article will address these issues.

The NCOR article covers what colic is, how it is assessed, what literature is available for osteopathy and also chiropractic and finally gives their conclusions.

One study that crops up regularly in relation to osteopathic treatment for colic is Hayden et al 2006.  This study appears on numerous websites, it was also included in the list of evidence that the British Chiropractic Association’s plethora of evidence (even though it is not chiropractic).  The study itself was a small scale, preliminary study with no blinding.  The full report is clear  that there are some  issues with the trial design and potential for bias and despite reporting some positive results, it acknowledges that a larger double-blind study is warranted.  This study has also been looked at by the ASA and has been rejected as substantiation for colic claims.

Even if colic is a fairly harmless condition, I fully agree with NCOR that colic can be a very distressing. NHS information on colic can be found here:  NHS Choices – Colic

So how do NCOR  actually view the level of evidence for the treatment of colic:

So here is a clear statement that there is insufficient evidence to recommend cranial osteopathy (or other manual therapies) for management of colic.  

It is important to note that these conclusions do not simply relate to the level of evidence required by the ASA/CAP codes when advertising or making website claims, but to the level of evidence available to justify offering  osteopathy as a treatment for colic.   This has obvious implications for compliance with the GOsC Code of Practice (item 122), but also for the wider issue of osteopathy and Evidence Based Practice.  

So what next......  
These claims would certainly be unacceptable to the ASA, so will we see individual osteopaths taking the easier option of (reluctantly) accepting  that there is a lack of evidence and voluntarily removing these claims, or  will it take some form of pressure to get them removed. 
How about the GOsC? Do they continue the slow, but welcome, process of reviewing members websites and offering advice, or do they issue a clear statement that colic treatment and claims cannot be justified.

Note:  Visit these links fr more information on the Google Custom Searches and the excellent quackery reporting tool 'Fishbarrel' produced by Simon Perry.
Fishbarrel  - ASA, Consumer Direct and MHRA complaints (Google Chrome browser plugin)
Google Custom Searches  

 

Chiropractic is not a cure or treatment for ANY of the health and LIFE challenges identified below BUT when nerve system interference (known as a “vertebral subluxation”) is corrected, with safe, effective chiropractic care, the body can regain lost performance and functionality and heal and repair itself and perform at a much higher level of LIFE and vibrancy.

Life Chiropractic is the website of chiropractor Marie-Claude Lambert, she introduces herself as  ”I’m not your usual type of Doctor. I’m a Doctor of chiropractic” – Anybody who feels the need to state they are not the ‘usual type‘ of doctor …… probably doesn’t qualify as a real Doctor!

When it comes to health matters it’s always better when your doctor is medically qualified!

She describes herself as a fully registered member of the United Chiropractic Association (UCA), a group who are very pro-subluxation and openly disagree with the GCC’s view that the subluxation is an historical concept.

Life Chiropractic were certainly not shy when it came to making claims for health conditions related to subluxations, although they did think it prudent to add some form of disclaimer.  Disclaimers are fine, when they actually  mean something, but they should not be thought of as a mechanism that would allow people to make claims that they cannot support with evidence.

So what exactly do Life Chiropractic think they can achieve by ‘correcting‘ a subluxation?   Are we talking about an aching back or a stiff shoulder ….. Well yes, but with a whole lot more included! So it was time to send some of these claims off to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Life Chiropractic believe in the subluxation and all they would be asked to do would be to prove that what they were claiming was true.   If they couldn’t produce the evidence then it would be these subluxations claims would have to be ‘corrected‘.

The ASA response was  that the issues raised would be sent to formal investigation and that Life Chiropractic would be contacted and given the opportunity to submit evidence to substantiate their claims.  Successfully defending these claims would not only be good for Life Chiropractic, it would be a hugely important win for chiropractors in the UK, so I imagined they’d be quite keen to do it.

If they didn’t already hold the evidence then I’m sure the UCA would be able to help if needed.   Failing there is always the Association of UK Chiropractors (AUKC), this is the organisation who presented the GCC with what they described as a substantial 120 page dossier called “The Vertebral Subluxation Complex – The History, Science, Evolution and Current Quantum Thinking on a Chiropractic Tenet”, that would surely come in handy.  Although it seems the AUKC are not keen on releasing this document to the public - maybe it’s just not that convincing!

Given all the potential sources available that they could call on, I was kind of surprised (even a little disappointed)  to hear from the ASA that rather than defend their subluxation claims, Life Chiropractic had simply told the ASA that they would remove the claims from their website.

So here is a look at what they claimed to treat, but failed to defend.

Autism: Subluxation claim challenged & removed!  Freezepage – Autism!

Please note: Chiropractic Care at LIFE Chiropractic is not a cure for symptoms of mild autism or even severe autism but by correcting vertebral subluxations (poor nerve flow from the spinal channels due to correctable imbalance) YOUR BODY is more able to heal this type of health challenge.

Deafness: Subluxation Corrected. Claim removed!  Freezepage – Deafness!

At LIFE Chiropractic we do not treat the symptoms of deafness but by working with the body to correct vertebral subluxations we have had deaf people’s hearing return. Deafness is also associated with the birth story of chiropractic.

Mini-Stroke: Subluxation Corrected. Claim removed!  Freezepage – Stroke!

Mini Stroke Warning Signs & Chiropractic:  Chiropractic is not a cure or treatment for mini stroke warning signs such as:

1. Vision problems in one or both eyes, including double vision.

2. Dizziness, clumsiness and weakness.

3. Speech problems including slurring.

4. Inability to walk.

5. Sudden amnesia and/or loss of consciousness.

However, by correcting vertebral subluxations which interfere with the brains ability to communicate with the body the team at LIFE Chiropractic have seen the body heal and cure many “incurable” and “inexplicable” problems.

Life Chiropractic also made other statements that stated or implied that subluxations played a part in either the cause or cure of certain conditions. Apart from those already covered, they also told the ASA that they would remove all references and testimonials referring to:

allergies, arm pain, arthritis, car accident recovery, foot pain, hand problems, migraines, sciatica and whiplash.

Subluxations Corrected. Claims removed!

Of course if you don’t have any proper evidence you can always fall back on testimonials, which tend to fall into the ‘it worked for me‘ category.  If you are lucky you could even get include a testimonial from a celebrity.  Quite why the views of a celebrity on the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment should be considered more valid than any other I cannot imagine!

The thing about testimonials is that the ASA also have requirement relating to their use.

Testimonial: Subluxation Corrected. Claim removed!

Freezepage – Conditions & Celebrity Testimonials!

So I guess there is more than one way to correct a subluxation, or at least the claims surrounding it!

As Life Chiropractic chose not to defend their claims, my ASA complaint was ‘informally resolved‘ and is listed on the ASA website here:  Trinity Chiropractic Ltd t/a Life Chiropractic

However that is not the last we’ll hear about subluxation claims and the ASA, there was a second chiropractor who has complex about subluxations and that was also sent to the ASA, again this been sent to formal investigation!

The article called ‘If the CAP fits” was published in the April 2011 edition of Osteopathy Today.  It covers the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) guidance on advertising,  the quality of evidence required to substantiate claims being made and the list of conditions currently permitted by the ASA/CAP for osteopaths.

Osteopathy Today can be found here:  Osteopathy Today   (login seems to accept any email address)

First I should cover a couple of the inaccuracies in the section called ‘Keeping advertising in perspective’.

In the article the author, Mary Monro, wrongly associates this blog with the Nightingale Collaboration.  In the article, she mentions the Nightingale Collaboration and their Focus of the Month.  She then goes on to say that  ”They do identify some websites that they disapprove of – to see if one of them is yours, follow the link to the Skeptic Barista article on ‘Osteopathy – dealing with change’“

I am going to take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that this blog and any comments posted on it DO NOT in any way represent the views of the Nightingale Collaboration.  Whilst I may agree with the Nightingale Collaboration’s aims and where appropriate I may support their objectives, I have been looking at (cranial) osteopathy and asking questions about evidence for well over a year …. before the Nightingale Collaboration was formed.

As far as I am aware the Nightingale Collaboration has not made any public comment regarding osteopathy, nor have they listed any osteopaths websites. If Mary Monro, the BOA or anybody else wants the Nightingale Collaboration’s views on osteopathy, they should contact the Nightingale Collaboration direct and not make assumptions based on comments on this blog.

I have contacted both the Nightingale Collaboration and the editor of Osteopathy Today to point out these inaccuracies, as yet there has been no answer from the BOA.

Something else that she seem to have misunderstood. In the article she says:   ”the ASA can only ask you to withdraw your advertisement if it fails to comply. They have no other sanctions – no fines, no jail, no threat to your business“. I have seen this sort of argument repeated on a number of CAM/Quack discussion threads.  Whilst this may be technically true that there is a limit to the ASA’s powers to prosecute, it would be foolish to believe that the ASA don’t have teeth (should they wish or need to use them), however it should rarely, if ever come to that.

Usually any breaches of the advertising regulations are dealt with, without referring the matter to the courts, but if needs be the ASA can refer those who refuse to work with them to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for legal action.

ASA: Self Regulation of Non-Broadcast Advertising  Any advertiser who deliberately chooses that route deserves what they get!

Now I’ll move on to the main points I wanted to cover in this post.

Be careful what you wish for …..

Most people reading this will be aware that claims made by complementary (or alternative) therapists have been under some scrutiny over the past year and with the ASA’s new remit these are likely to continue.  So it could be seen as a rather foolish move to openly state that your particular therapy is lacking in evidence to support your claims.

Well that’s the admission made by Mary Monro, who says:

“currently CAP only really accepts randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) as adequate evidence. This is not the place to debate the relevance of RCT’s to the study of osteopathy. Suffice to say that we are unlikely to come up with much research acceptable to CAP within the next decade“

This statement seems even more foolish if you then wish to make any sort of challenge to the ASA/CAP’s views of your particular profession or wish to successfully defend any complaint.    However she then goes on to comment on the  list of conditions the ASA/CAP currently allow osteopaths to advertise and blames this limited list on two things.

Firstly a lack of evidence and then quite bizarrely a lack of complaints!

“We are told that the CAP code only allows us to mention a short list of possible conditions that we can claim to treat.  This is partly down to lack of evidence and partly down to a lack of complaints.   CAP almost never receive complaints about osteopaths’ advertising so (until very recently) they have no idea what we do.”

Be careful what you wish for …..

She also seems to encourage osteopaths NOT to stick to the CAP code list .. ”If we restrict ourselves now to the CAP code list, the list will never get any longer and osteopathy will retreat into ‘very minor orthopaedics‘”

So what we have is an admission that there is a lack of acceptable evidence, a limited list of permitted conditions that she does not feel osteopaths should restrict themselves to and belief that this limited list is in part due to a lack of complaints!

Mary Monro may genuinely believe that osteopathy could benefit from more complaints, but that has not stopped her contacting the CAP to seek compliance advice for her own website.  And I am not sure that to many other osteopaths would welcome a string of ASA complaints against their website claims.

There is also something important that she has missed from the article, or perhaps just doesn’t realise. It is NOT the number of complaints that will influence the list of conditions that osteopaths are permitted to claim …. it is the quality of the evidence available to support those claims!  And as Mary tells us, there isn’t likely to be much of that for at least a decade.

Well the answer to Mary’s woe’s may well have arrived in the form of Fishbarrel.

Fishbarrel is a clever little plugin for the Google Chrome browser created by Simon Perry. It dramatically simplifies the process of submitting both ASA and Consumer Direct complaints. Once installed the misleading claims can be highlighted,  then with a few mouse clicks the ASA online complaint form is automatically filled in …. then simply click submit!

Simon Perry has made this as easy as shooting fish in a barrel!

As I understand it versions suitable for Australia, the US and New Zealand may well be in the pipeline:  Fishbarrel Australia

You can find out more about fishbarrel here: Martin Robbins – The Lay Scientist (The Guardian)

You can try fishbarrel yourself by visiting Simon Perry’s website – Adventures in Nonsense  Use if with care, it’s a powerful tool!

A simple Google search shows that there are still many UK osteopathy websites that claim to be able to treat conditions such as  autism, gastric reflux, hyperactivity, behavioural difficulties, dyslexia, eczema, colic, glue ear, Cerebral palsy and other types of brain damage, epilepsy, insomnia, asthma, hypersensitivity, headaches, back pain, diabetes, Feeding difficulties, Learning difficulties.   All of these require evidence.

I know there has been a good level of interest in fishbarrel in the few days since it was released and it can only be a matter of time before those using it find the osteopaths website claims and the ASA start getting complaints.

I should mention that the GOsC have been reviewing claims being made by their members, but this is a long process. The GOsC may well gain some small comfort from the thought that any complaints will be heading towards the ASA or Trading Standards, rather than to them.  I know they are very aware of the problems the GCC had (and are still dealing with) over website complaints.   However I do wonder what the GOsC will do when the ASA eventually issue adjudications against these osteopaths claims.  Any breach of the CAP codes is, by default,  a breach of clause 122 of the Osteopaths own code of practice!

I wonder how many osteopaths will share Mary Monro’s view that there is a need for more complaints when those ASA letters and emails start arriving!

If you get one of these, you should simply look upon it as being given the opportunity to extend that list of CAP conditions ….. you just need to find the evidence!

Be careful what you wish for ..

I thought this would be an opportune moment to take a quick look at how the ASA view the evidence for this treatment and the claims being made.

In the past I looked at the claims being made on a leaflet distributed by the CranioSacral Therapy Association (CSTA)   What is CranioSacral ? This leaflet was sent to the ASA, who looked at the evidence. The CSTA decided to try defend their claims but as they have no reliable evidence, the end result was that the ASA upheld all the points of the complaint: ASA Adjudication on CranioSacral Therapy Assoc

Despite the ASA’s remit changing on 1 March to cover website claims, many CST websites continue to make claims similar to those in the CSTA leaflet.

The CSTA leaflet I looked at was being distributed by Pat Hughes, a craniosacral therapist who works from a number of locations close to where I live. At the start of March I looked at Pat Hughes website (Dynamictreatments) and she was making all the same craniosacral claims as the leaflet.

DynamicTreatments before the ASA

She was making very similar claims for another therapy, Bowen Technique.

I also visited a local health food store who distribute here leaflets and the CSTA leaflet was still there, with Pat Hughes business/contact details on the back.

This website with the CranioSacral and Bowen Technique claims was reported to the ASA along with the fact that Pat Hughes was still distributing the leaflet almost 6 months after the ASA ruling.

The ASA responded saying that they would be looking at all the issues raised.

On 30 March the following appeared on the ASA’s list of informally resolved complaints, this was for the continued distribution of the leaflet.

Informally Resolved

At the same time some significant changes were taking place on Pat Hughes website:

DynamicTreatments after the ASA!

It remains to be seen what claims and conditions remain after the sites ‘routine maintenance‘ but I would hope conditions like autism, cerebral palsy and drug withdrawal have all vanished.  Actually it is doubtful that evidence could be provided for any of the original conditions!

On 31 March I paid a passing visit to the health food shop and the CST leaflet is still available, along with a new one for Bowen Technique, making claims like this:

Bowen Technique claims

The changes can be found here:

DynamicTreatments (2 March 2011) http://www.freezepage.com/1299063861EYQUSFMPTZ

DynamicTreatments (29 March 2011) http://www.freezepage.com/1301417216CVQGLLVDCZ

ASA (informally resolved)(30 March 2011)  http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications.aspx?date=30/03/2011#results

Of course Dynamic Treatments are not alone in making these claims, they are common place on craniosacral therapy sites. The CranioSacral Therapy Association (CSTA) provide a list of their registered members Finding a Craniosacral Practitioner Listing practitioners by location, many repeating these same claims.

The CSTA also have a Code of Ethics, that requires all its members to conform to the ASA/CAP advertising guidelines

All advertising in any medium must be legal, decent, honest and truthful and must conform to the guidelines such as the British Code of Advertising Practice.

Clearly these claims do not comply with the ASA/CAP guidelines and therefore CSTA members making those claims are in breach of their own Code of Ethic.

Membership of the CSTA is on a purely voluntary basis and despite the existence of a Code of Ethics and Conduct, it would appear to be an organisation more closely focused on the promotion of CranioSacral rather than providing any form of professional regulation.

They do have a web page dedicated to ‘Research‘ although it admits that they rely mostly on anecdotal evidence. The bottom of the page does invite people to send in research should you find any …. I suspect they only mean studies that report a positive result!

I don’t think we can expect too much from this research page, or from the CSTA willingness to enforce their Code.  The contact details at the bottom of the research page are for one David Ellis.

This is the list of conditions his own website used to offer to treat, however this list changed in May 2010 after I reported him for a breach of the Cancer Act 1939.

Reported and removed

Other than the cancer claim, the list is remarkably similar to that of Pat Hughes website. Today his site still makes some bizarre statements, but the list of conditions has been removed.

Where claims and conditions have been removed from these websites, it is worth remembering that IF they could substantiate the claims then there would be no reason to remove them!  As they can’t substantiate them, they shouldn’t have been made in the first place!

CranioSacral Therapists claim to treat a wide range of conditions and some are of a serious nature.  This therapy is lacking in any credible evidence to support it and the vast majority of practitioners have no formal medical training.

The level of training of craniosacral therapists can lead to tragic consequences and not simply from attempting to treat serious medical conditions:    Dutch Infant Dies after CranioSacral Therapy

In the tragic case of this Dutch infant, many may not class the description of the treatment given as typical of craniosacral, and to some extent I would agree, but the therapist did it under the banner of ‘CranioSacral’ and I doubt the parents knew any different.  However it does serve to highlight the dangers of therapies performed by people with no medical qualifications, using weakly defined methods to treat vulnerable people.

It doesn’t really matter if this therapy is being offered by a therapist on your local high street or the claims are being allowed to flourish in areas where they should be under far more scrutiny, it deserves to be challenged.

Prof David Colquhoun is doing an excellent job tackling CST at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine.

My previous CranioSacral Posts: http://skepticbarista.wordpress.com/category/craniosacral/

If you haven’t already done so visit the Nightingale Collaboration to see how you can help.

First: This was done because homeopathy lacks any reliable evidence to support the claims being made.  Those claims range from minor, self limiting conditions, through to far more serious ones and these claims need to be challenged.

Second:  This was done in support of the Nightingale Collaboration who seek to challenge misleading claims.  I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I can play a small part in supporting this organisation and I would urge others to visit the site and get involved.

Homeopaths along with all other CAM practitioners regularly complain that the rules are unfair and shouldn’t apply to them, or that the evidence required is the wrong sort of evidence.  What they need to remember is that these rules apply to everyone …… CAM is not a special case, there is no reason why the rules shouldn’t apply to your claims in the same way they apply to everybody else.

Third: I have had dealings with this homeopath before over homeopathic vaccination alternatives, advice &  remedies for serious tropical diseases like malaria and Typhoid. Homeopath(et)ic Travel Advice The danger in offering ineffective sugar pills to protect against potentially life threatening diseases is abundantly clear!

I felt that there were a number of areas where Helen Saunders website was making misleading claims and in breach of the ASA guidelines.

The main page made the claim:

“It is also helpful in transitional periods such as the menopause (it can provide a natural and effective alternative to HRT) and life changing situations such as pregnancy and childbirth.“

As in the travel advice she had previously offered me …. she is offering homeopathy as an effective alternative without any evidence to substantiate it

Other pages includes claims that said:

“Homeopathic treatment during pregnancy promotes healthy development of the baby before birth and helps to keep the mother in good health“

If you are going to claim that your little sugar pills can help support the healthy development of an unborn child, then you’re going to need to prove it!  The page continued, claiming to be able to help everything from sore nipples and nappy rash, through to asthma, allergies,  Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and endometriosis.  What was lacking was any form of evidence for any of these conditions.

A copy of the page was saved (using Freezepage) here:  homeopathy4health

Obviously the ASA have been in contact and something of a change seems to have taken place!  Once all the false claims have been removed, there isn’t much left.

A record of the changes can be found here:  https://www.changedetection.com/log/uk/org/homeopathy4health/saunders_log.html (Click on the ‘view changes’ for more detail)

Other areas of her website have also changed, the HRT claim has gone from the main page and many of the pages now contain disclaimers like

“IN THIS CONTEXT AND WHERE MENTIONED ON THIS WEBSITE THE WORD “TREATMENT” OR “TREAT” IN NO WAY PROMISES OR IMPLIES CURE BUT AN ANALYSIS OF THE CASE AND SUGGESTIONS FOR A HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY/S”

“IN THIS CONTEXT AND WHERE MENTIONED ON THIS WEBSITE THE WORD “SYMPTOMS” DOES NOT REFER TO SYMPTOMS AS RECOGNISED BY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION BUT SYMPTOMS AS RECOGNISED BY HOMEOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY”

Now I’m not sure how the ASA view these sort of disclaimers.  But it seems the best homeopaths can offer is no prospect of a cure for symptoms not recognised by medical professionals!

Current version of her website: http://www.homeopathy4health.org.uk/

Helen Saunders is a registered member of the Society of Homeopaths and claims to practice in accordance with their Code of Ethics, something she was clearly not doing.  Their Code of Ethics on Advertising and Media states:

38 All advertising must be published in a way that conforms to the law and to (the guidance issued in the British Code of Advertising Practice).

If  the information had complied with the CAP Codes, there would be no need to change it!

39 Professional advertising must be factual and not seek to mislead or deceive, or make unrealistic or extravagant claims. Advertising may indicate special interests but must not make claims of superiority or disparage professional colleagues or other professionals. No promise of cure, either implicit or explicit,should be made of any named disease. All research should be presented clearly and honestly  and without distortion, all speculative theories will be stated as such and clearly distinguished.

The information on this site was not certainly not factual and was making extravagant and unrealistic claims, so was therefore misleading.   In offering to treat numerous named conditions it certainly implied a cure.  Research for any of the conditions totally lacking, let alone clearly and honestly presented.

This homeopath was clearly in breach of the code of ethics she had signed up to. Helen Saunders is not alone here there are many more homeopaths who are registered with the Society Of Homeopaths (or other associations) who make claims of a similar nature … or worse.

The Society of Homeopaths must surely be aware that their members are making these claims, yet they do nothing to ensure their members comply with the code  If their members do not voluntarily abide by their code and the Society of Homeopaths take no action to enforce it …….. then their code is meaningless.

The latest edition of  The Osteopath has a couple of very interesting articles. One called Encouraging Advertising Standards (pg 6), gives (yet more) guidance on advertising regulations and says that the GOsC will be conducting a review of websites to advise where changes may need to be made.

There is also an interesting evidence based article produced by NCOR (National Council for Osteopathic Research) on osteopathy as a treatment for Otitis Media (pg 13-18).  This would appear to be the first of a number of articles covering the evidence base for a range of childhood conditions often seen and treated by osteopaths.  Another very positive move!

Not only does this NCOR article discuss the available evidence, but it briefly covers the evidence hierarchy and the standards of evidence required by the ASA.

The article gives a description of Otitis Media (including the different types) and links to a number of studies on the subject. The research items listed range from RCT’s to Case Reports and also some letters and editorial content. I acknowledge that NCOR state this in not an exhaustive list and only includes research from 1990 onwards.

Otitis Media is often referred to as ‘glue ear’ or simply ‘ear infections’.

A number of problems are reported with the design or methodology of these studies, including the RCT’s. These problems include a lack of control group, lack of blinding and high drop out rates.

None of the studies listed would seem to reach the standards required to support treatment claims and indeed the article does not state that any are. I think it is safe to assume that if NCOR had found any robust evidence of the required standard, they would have made it known.

NCOR are still conducting a literature/evidence review, so there is the possibility (however remote) that something robust will turn up.

Lacking any reliable evidence, the important parts of this article from an osteopathy/evidence/treatment point of view are the following statements: (in all cases Bold emphasis added by myself)

(Page 13)

“While most cases of OME will resolve spontaneously, some children will need intervention because of the effects of hearing loss. This intervention may take the form of educational and social action or the provision of a hearing aid to minimise the impact of the hearing loss. No non-surgical intervention has yet been shown conclusively to be of benefit.”

OME = Otitis Media with effusion.

Worth noting the comment that most cases of OME will resolve spontaneously.  However it is always worth seeking properly qualified medical advice (your GP).   It also states the view taken by NICE..

(page 18)

“Despite the evidence reviewed above, the NICE guidelines quoted do not recommend the use of a range of non-surgical treatments for the management of otitis media with infusion. These treatments currently include antibiotics; topical or systemic antihistamines; topical or systemic decongestants; topical or systemic steroids; homeopathy; cranial osteopathy; acupuncture; dietary modification, including probiotics; immunostimulants; and massage”.

It is worth noting the list of other conventional and CAM treatments that are not recommended to treat this condition. (antibiotics, homeopathy etc)

The NICE document it referred to can be found HERE, it contains a flow chart for assessing Otitis Media and suggesting treatments.   FLOW CHART

It also includes the following statement:

So having read the article, I don’t think it is unfair or biased of me to say that there would appear to be a lack of robust evidence to support any claims that Osteopathy should be offered as a treatment for Otitis Media.  However it remains one of the most common conditions advertised on Osteopathy websites.  It is quite clear that unless individual osteopaths are aware of research that has not been covered and meets the required standard, these claims should not appear on websites or other advertising literature.

A quick Google search on osteopathy and Otitis Media, glue ear, ear infections etc shows just how common these claims are.

Hopefully the NCOR series of evidence articles, the GOsC’s move to review website content and an increasing understanding of the ASA’s extended remit will see these claims diminish.