Blog - Politics
Medical error is a lot more dangerous than homeopathy
In 2004, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a shocking study on the frequency of medical errors.
Researchers examined a random sample of charts over a year at one teaching hospital, one large community hospital, and two small community hospitals in each of five provinces, including B.C.
There were no psychiatric or obstetric patients in the study, which took place over the fiscal year 2000,
The researchers discovered that 7.5 percent of patients experienced at least one “adverse event”, and 36.9 percent of these adverse events were considered “highly preventable”.
Extrapolating the results suggested that adverse events were linked to between 141,250 and 232,250 admissions to Canadian acute-care hospitals that year.
The study also reported that 9,250 to 23,750 preventable deaths occurred.
You read that correctly: up to 23,750 preventable deaths took place in acute-care hospitals in Canada in a single year, according to the CMAJ study.
In 2007, the CMAJ published another troubling study, this time by University of Toronto medical professor Wendy Levinson and University of Washington associate professor of medicine Thomas Gallagher.
They reported that “adverse events”, including errors, occur frequently in health care.
“Disclosing errors to patients is challenging for both physicians and health care institutions,” they wrote. “Recent studies suggest that harmful medical errors are infrequently disclosed to patients and, despite a malpractice environment that is less onerous than in many countries, Canadian patients are no more likely to be informed about harmful errors than patients elsewhere.”
Last week, the Georgia Straight published an article on homeopathy, which is an alternative approach commonly used in Germany, India, and other countries. We published a disclaimer at the bottom of the piece saying it didn't necessarily reflect the views of the paper.
For that, we’ve been pilloried by some readers and members of a local skeptics' group, even though there is no evidence that homeopathic remedies have any dangerous side effects.
As I read the comments from outraged readers, I asked myself: “Do these people ever raise their voices in protest against the frequency of medical errors, which actually kill people? Do they ask what the B.C. government or the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. are doing about this situation? Or do they just get in an uproar about alternative health treatments?”
The medical community loves its peer-reviewed research, which is often underwritten by drug companies. But when Toronto physician Nancy Olivieri tried to publish some of her research that threatened the industry's profits, she was shut down.
The reality is that some people doubt the effectiveness of flu vaccines because the virus mutates so rapidly. Some wonder if their vaccine will have any efficacy against the particular flu virus that they might contract months down the road.
Some of these flu-vaccine skeptics might be inclined to consider homeopathy as an alternative.
Judging from the CMAJ-published research, the biggest threat to human health isn't homeopathy; it's that trip to your local hospital.



E-mail
Print

Comments
I mostly deal with my health issues using common sense... I would love to have a trusted medical doctor - but it is so hard to find one!
Most of them do not inspire confidence, and the good ones are never taking patients.
The *error* rate in mainstream medicine is versus the *effectiveness* of homeopathy? Please!
The point (still) is that homeopathy does not work. Of course it has no side effects: it contains no active ingredients.
But that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous: if you use it to try to fend off a potentially deadly disease, you (and those around you) have zero protection.
Readers would do well to check out the September 22 Ottawa Citizen, for a sane take on vaccination:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Accepting+immunity/2015432/story.htm...
The way the medical and skeptical community raises its voice is by doing SCIENCE. To uncover problems in our therapies and interventions, publishing them so the public and our peers can see the problem, and then trying to abate it. When was the last study done by homoeopaths of this kind? I see you did not cite any study like this.
The reason homoeopathy has no side effects is because it has no effects, outside the placebo effect. The danger in using homoeopathy to prevent the flu is that you are avoiding real treatment - and this will surely do some harm. We have already seen outbreaks of measles (a serious disease that can kill your child) in the US and the UK because of the lessoning of vaccination. The regular flu kills 36000 people in the US every year - and this is less virulent than the H1N1 strain.
We have to lower the death-from-error rate, no doubt, but it surely sits below 1 percent now. Digging up this red herring of medical errors does not lesson the argument against homoeopathic flu medicine - it just muddies the waters some more and confuses the issue. The flu vaccine is safe and effective at preventing flu. Homoeopathic medicine is safe but not effective at preventing the flu. I know which one I will choose.
The danger lies in the promotion of homeopathy as an ALTERNATIVE to conventional care. The dangerous side effects lie in people who opt for a selection of potions, to treat their lymphoma and die as a result of not seeking out chemotherapy, one of the few proven techniques for beating this type of cancer.
When these people who opt not to seek medical help eventually die of the disease, the disease is blamed. Nobody faults homeopathy, which is what promised the quick miracle cure that never arrived, and so it's not counted as a loss for homeopathy.
It's a bit like prayer... if you pray and you get what you want, god gets the praise. If you pray and don't get what you want, god doesn't get the blame.
Some people might think the promotion of COX-2 inhibitors, like Vioxx and Celebrex, posed a bigger threat than the promotion of homeopathy. As far as I know, no medical doctor has been hauled before a medical college in Canada for relying on Big Pharma's marketing messages and prescribing these drugs without paying attention to cautionary messages from the Therapeutics Initiative.
Of course real medicine is going to have more screw ups. That's because it's actually DOING something to the patient! ....boldly trying to solve the malady.
But if you insist on asking "what's the harm?" well there's a website for that too: http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
You're defending homeopathy, Charlie; would you defend a vendor of lucky pebbles? How do I know that the pebble is lucky and that it's working? Well, I haven't got cancer yet, so it MUST be working so I'll keep it in my pocket.
Everything that the pharmaceuticals put on the market, slanted marketing aside, has been through years of testing by non-involved parties, and has been subject to government oversight and has been assessed very rigorously.
When was the last time that chinese herbal powder from the Naturopath tested for safety? When was the last time that arnica tincture was tested for safery? Oh right, water doesn't need testing for efficacy, because it's WATER.
Why don't you try satiating everyone's appetite for a little unbiased research? Do a little digging and show us some evidence (real, tested and reliable) on your Homeopathic care. Cite it so we can see for ourselves where you're getting your information and check it our for ourselves. Up for a challenge?
As for Nancy Olivieri: she's a physician of great integrity. I've run a website honouring her for years. (Just google patient safety and olivieri to find it.) But her case is pretty far off-topic here: the topic is whether homeopathy works. Then again, since you raised her name: why don't you email her? Ask Dr. Olivieri whether she would have HER kids vaccinated, or whether she'd instead rely on homeopathy. I dare you.
Even if doctors are as evil as you paint them to be, that doesn't make the magical holy water known as homeopathy effective. It's so typical to blame science for the lack of evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness. It's not just cliche, it's pathetic.
And to the hysterical others: Homeopathy doing a lot more harm than good? Ridiculous-
In the United States alone over 50,000 people were injured or killed by Vioxx alone- that is number that settled the class action law suit
The FDA conservatively estimated that 27,000 plus people were killed by this one drug. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vioxx_estimates.html
Now statins are on the line and on and on it goes. Instead of all the hysteria about homeopathy treatment why not spend some of your obviously too much spare time dealing with the problem with drugs and conventional medical problems described in this article. A little more oversight there is in order.
There is something very unbalanced by all this attack on homeopathy.Yes, there are some people who don't seek conventional medical help. But it is not limited to those seeking homeopathic help. The many homeopaths I know recommend that someone always seeks conventional medical diagnosis and treatment in conjunction with homeopathy. So to portray them in the way you have is just plain ignorant. I can link to many instances of malpractice and even manslaughter done by conventional physicians but I think the vast, vast majority of physicians are responsible and have good intentions. A little balance and less hysteria is in order.
My gripe with mainstream medicine is it negates the individual, downplays the role of the mind's role and assumes all people should respond equally to treatment. It's based on utter disempowerment of the individual. Bear in mind most diseases originate in the mind.
That, and it is supported by an industry that is far too big, greedy and unethical.
As for homeopathy, I don't go for that either. And it is totally irresponsible and misinformed to lump all alternative healthcare modalities under "homeopathy."
There are lot of alternative, natural and non-invasive modalities for health maintenance and healing which are safer and more effective than mainstream medicine's drugs and scalpels and homeopathy's magic potions.
Effective health maintenance requires a diverse, individualized and holistic approach which ... not just blind faith in one modality or another.
Mr. Smith's non-contextualized qouting of figures obscures their meaning, however. Although he is correct that 9,250 to 23,750 deaths occur as a result of hospitalization, this is out of over 2.5 million patients. The risk of death is 1.6% overall, with 0.66% potentially preventable. While any preventable death is a matter of concern, the flip side of these figures is that, in Canada, if you enter a hospital you have a 99.44% of *not* dying from a preventable intervention. Which, it seems to me, is not too bad.
The article is here: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/170/11/1678
People have medical errors are more medically complex and older. Larger teaching hospitals also have more errors. To prove charlie smith's point would be to compare treatment of things like heart attacks and appendicitis with regular medicine versus homeopathy.
The story of cox-2 problems is also testimony to data gathering and the scientific approach. The UBC theraputics initiative include physicians and pharmacists. a process for cox-2 follow-up and its subsequent suspension of use is also testimony to the regulatory framework we have for pharmaceuticals, which homeopathic companies have tried to prevent for their own products wrt bill 51.
http://www.straight.com/article-144802/natural-health-crackdown.
Not that the makers of Oscillococcinum aren't hurting - Boiron made 313 million euro in 2004....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiron
It's hilarious how purveyors of CAM stick to their woo until they need REAL treatment and their lives are on the line.
http://www.somecanadianskeptic.com/2009/09/pro-homeopaths-strike-back-or...
And I could also give many links to medical malpractice, serious omissions and even medical manslaughter including those in pubmed but I don't believe that means that ALL medical doctors practice in this fashion or are all bad. So to say that all homeopaths or alternative don't practice responsibly is just a specious argument.
Then the argument that there is nothing in homeopathic remedies is also false. It is only true if you link to skeptic web sites where opinion becomes fact. Dana Ullman, who has a Masters in Public Health and a supporter of homeopathy has an ebook available with references to over 200 clinical trials of homeopathic remedies.
To try make an equivalent of the potential damage from someone seeking alternative health solutions to the over 27, 000 people estimated by the FDA to have died from Vioxx in the US alone is simply fallacious and misses an important point.
Bravo to Charlie Smith(!) for pointing out the discrepencies in the opinions about alternative health and the fact of the massive problems with conventional medicine.
Compare the scientific care, neutrality and comprehensive human time frame for Homeopathic Provings (studies which have been conducted for 200 years) to the limited medical perspective and compromised pharmaceutical context, not to mention continual regulatory errors.
This comparison is to challenge medical scientists to have the courage to rethink the limited vision and errors of their ways, and to consider instead how to further support our amazing natural healing system and to improve the healthiness of our living environment.
The evidence is available at any bookstore, or talk to a homeopathic doctor. The placebo effect has been properly accounted for in the well-conducted provings.
"...criticisms centred around the vanishingly small number of solute molecules present in a solution after it has been repeatedly diluted are beside the point, since advocates of homeopathic remedies attribute their effects not to molecules present in the water, but to modifications of the water's structure."
"Simple-minded analysis may suggest that water, being a fluid, cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking. There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account." (quoted from Brian Josephson letter to New Scientst").
Ian, last time I looked, investigating, researching and understanding unknown phenomena did not involve "magic-woo". There is, in addition, the matter of 200 years worth of properly trained MD's and other health professionals using Homeopathy.....successfully.
Sitting right in the Cochrane database is a study which demonstrates a Homeopathic remedy clearly showing efficacy in lessening the effects of the flu and ending it sooner, even though it had no effect in prevention. There are many many other studies confirming Homeopathy. The YouTube presentation by Dr. Iris Bell, MD, PhD in a debate on Homeopathy is quite good - view it to get some perspective on current research:
Anyone done an analysis of the use of vaccinations on babies and the prevalence of autism?
Or the use of birth control pills and the increase in breast cancer?
Big Pharma rules in the US and Canada. Drugs are rushed into distribution without adequate long term testing. Remember phen/phen.
Research the production of the H1N1 vaccine. It's being tested on 650 persons over a 2 month period to be available in Nov. Babies are included in this tests. Pregnant woman are advised to get vaccinated without any long term analysis of the effects of this new drug.
Plenty more for you to research here, Charlie. Have fun. Cheers.
monty
Adverse reactions to vaccines do occur, but the consequences of those adverse reactions are pretty bad, but the consequences of actually cathching the disease and letting it run it's course could be just as bad, and much more likely.
In other words, you could die from a vaccine, but your odds of dying as a result the disease the vaccine is protecting you from are much, much higher. And the fewer people get vaccinated, the more people get sick and could potentially infect you, and thus the higher your chances of catching the disease and facing those odds in the first place.
As for preventable hospital deaths, well, it's always nice to see what the causes might be. People don't die because top-of-their-field surgeons are taking out their appendix during a routine surgery. People die because overworked accute-care (i.e. ER) doctors are forced to take on more patients than they can handle, work more hours than they should. Or people just fall by the wayside because doctors don't have the time to perform a more in depth diagnosis.
At least those last patients still had a better chance of surviving than those who opted to take homeopathy instead, because they still could have been diagnosed correctly had they caught the doctor at the right moment.
I actually wonder how many "accute-care" patients are ex-homeopathy patients who've almost missed the window of opportunity to get better because they wasted precious time on useless homeopathic treatments instead, and survived a preventable disease because real medicine pulled them through in the end. Not to mention placing an extra burden on emergency room staff.
(But hey, they didn't die, so no black mark for homeopathy you know)
By the way Charlie, this "overwhelming" negative response, is part of their PR campaign to shut down any contrary voice, especially one in the media.
I wonder if people who support mainstream medicine's fearmongering and disease-causing would be curious in knowing actual vaccine ingredients.
For the sake of keeping this somewhat succinct, here are just a few of the dozens of horrid substances that vaccine-pushers have admitted to including in public vaccines:
- Aborted human fetal tissue (ie. disposed-of human babies);
- Aluminum hydroxide/phosphate (linked to causing Alzheimer’s disease);
- Animal tissues incl horse/pig blood, rabbit brain, dog/monkey kidney, chick/duck embryo, pig pancreatic hydrolysate of casein (animal tissues are a causal element for all the various auto-immune diseases associated with vaccination);
- Formalin (contains formaldehyde);
- Gelatin (obtained from selected pieces of calf & cattle skin);
- Glutaraldehyde (industrial water treatment chemical);
- Monosodium glutamate (MSG) (an excitotoxin, now known to cause cancer in humans, also linked to obesity);
- Thimerosal ie. mercury (a neurotoxin linked to so many diseases it's astonishing);
- VERO cells (a continuous line of monkey kidney cells - linked SV-40 virus known to cause leukemia)
We have no idea how much worse the 'h1n1' vaccine will be, especially if they are going to this length of sheer nonsense and induce mass hysteria to sell you on it.
Please, for your own good: turn off the idiot box, let go of fear & EDUCATE YOURSELF. The pharma-industrial-military complex have been systematically dumbing down human beings for decades.
Charlie, this was not a response. You responded to the skeptics attacks by saying that a trip to the hospital is more likely to kill you than people using homeopathy instead of medical science.
You, and this paper have become a danger to the public health.
Am I part of the 'pharma-industrial-military complex' now? First of all, a military industrial complex has a very specific meaning....don't just make up words and think that you're saying a thing....talk about scare tactics! Second of all, Sonya McLoud is a practicing homeopath that stands to benefit financially from pushing homeopathy. She's also the daughter of the paper's owner, so the editorial staff is either too afraid to call her on her nonsense, or they're ideologically aligned with not-using science.
Oh, and by the way, doctors, nurses and pharmacists get called to the fire for poor medical treatment all the time! There is a word for it: MALPRACTICE! Do homeopaths self-police like this? No. You lock arms and blame "big pharma" for suppressing you. And you have the nerve to call skeptics closed-minded shills for the medical industry? Shameful ignorance.
And still -- still! -- no one here has provided any reliable evidence that homeopathy works. For anything. It's unethical to sell people false hope.
"I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of phenomena are impossible."
William James
Yes, many. All show no causation between vaccination and autism. None at all.
Before making that accusation, look up "hypocritical" in a dictionary. Generally, to be hypocritical is to criticize someone else for flaws one also shares.
So, it's not hypocritical for me to criticize you for your behaviour, just because I fail to criticize everybody else who might be worthy of criticism, too.
I would criticize ANYONE -- big pharma, small-down doctor, or homeopath -- for promoting treatments that are either unsafe or ineffectual. It just so happens that, on this particular occasion, I'm criticizing a homeopath for trying to make money off a product that does not work.
Chris.
You, and The Straight, allow the publication of claims that homeopathy harms no one. How do you know? Where are the studies? Please link. I see no appetite by homeopathy to honestly bare its shortcomings to the public. Shameful.
Just because BRIAN D. JOSEPHSON won a nobel prize, does not make him immune from magical thinking.
Your quote is from his 1997 LETTER to New Scientist, admonishing them for dismissing the homeopath out of hand, without apparent consideration or scientific testing. Not from an article, or a peer reviewed paper, but from a letter to the editor such as anyone might write.
In the 12 years since this letter was sent, there have been attempts to arrange testing of homeopathy by wire, reading the "signature" or a solution and transmitting it over distances to impart function on pure water. Oddly, these tests have fallen through...
Josephson and Benveniste have experimented with water memory, and have found that it has memory! Though, somehow they're only able to detect the water that's remembering if they know which vials were imbued with memories. Water's alleged memory vanishes completely in a double blind test.
None of Josephson or Benveniste's experiments or claims have been able to be verified by other parties...
Madeline Ennis' study with histamine dilution has been conducted again by her own team and by others, and they are unable to duplicate the results.
Nobel laureates can be wrong, and they can be fooled just like anyone else can.
Homeopathy is, so far, as reproducible as Cold Fusion.
And then trying to prove you are brighter than a nobel laureate is just plain dimwitted. You can keep linking to your own skeptic web sites but the fact is homeopathy has been proven to be effective and safe.
Dana Ullman, who has a Masters of Public Health references over 200 successful clinical trials to homeopathy. Last year's noble prize laureate is now doing research on homeopathically prepared biological substances.
http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/skeptical-researcher-...
This article links to the original publication in New Scientist.
And this is about the "science" and obsessiveness behind debunking homeopathy and alternatives to drug based medicine :
http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/conventional-medical-...
Humans are never 100% correct.
Nobel laureates are human.
Are Nobel laureates 100% correct?
Spot the fallacy.
Veterinary homeopathy is booming. Many of homeopathy's greatest fans were once skeptical parents of babies whose teething problems eased - again, unlikely to be placebo!
Homeopaths don't promise miracle cures. And they certainly don't keep people from standard medicine.
No one is obliged to use homeopathy. But for those who do, it is a god-send. Please keep an open mind - remember, much of modern science couldn't have been explained either, once upon a time.
www.twitter.com/hivquestions - www.youtube.com/hivquestions (and healing alternatives)
Post a comment