Several rigorous trials of flower remedies are available. None of them shows that this approach is effective beyond placebo in curing disease or alleviating symptoms. As the remedies are highly diluted, adverse effects are not likely.
Conclusion
Flower remedies are based on concepts which contradict current medical knowledge. The trial data fail to demonstrate effects beyond a placebo response. Therefore flower remedies are a waste of money.
Cellular Therapy
Background
In conventional medicine, organs or cells are sometimes transplanted from one person to another, e.g. bone-marrow transplantations or blood tranfusions. This is entirely different from cellular therapy as used in alternative medicine, sometimes also called ‘live cell therapy’ or ‘cytotherapy’.
In 1931 the Swiss surgeon Paul Niehans had the idea of injecting preparations from animal foetuses into humans for the purpose of rejuvenation. This concept seemed plausible to lay people and many influential individuals who could afford this expensive treatment became Niehan’s patients. When it emerged that Niehan’s
Meanwhile several similar cellular treatments had emerged, particularly on the European continent. Examples include ‘Thymus’ therapy (injection of the extracts from the thymus gland of calves) or ‘Ney Tumoin’ (protein extracts from calves or cows) or ‘Polyerga’ (protein extracted from pig spleen) or ‘Factor AF2
’ (extract from spleens and livers of newborn sheep). These preparations are usually injected by doctors (non-doctor therapists are not allowed to give injections in most countries) who claim that they have anti-cancer properties, stimulate the immune system or simply regenerate organs or rejuvenate the body in a general sense.What is the evidence?
Thymus therapy has been extensively researched as a cancer treatment. The totality of this evidence does not show the approach to be effective. Other preparations have either generated similarly negative results or have not been submitted to clinical trials. However, it is known that any treatment that introduces foreign proteins directly into the bloodstream can lead to anaphylactic shock, the most serious type of allergic reaction. If this condition is not treated adequately and immediately, it can result in death.
Conclusion
The seemingly plausible principle of cellular therapy continues to appeal to the rich and super-rich. None of the claims of cellular therapy are, however, supported by scientific evidence, so these treatments are both dangerous and a waste of money.
Chelation Therapy
Background
Chelation therapy started as a branch of conventional medicine to remove heavy metals and other toxins from the body by introducing powerful chemical agents, which bind to the toxins and are subsequently excreted. This conventional form of chelation therapy is indisputably effective and often life-saving. In alternative medicine, chelation therapy is used in very different ways and has two main applications.
First, alternative therapists use chelation to remove toxins, but the source of these toxins is unclear. For example, they may attempt to remove mercury which allegedly leaked from dental fillings or vaccines. There is, however, no evidence to suggest any toxicity from these sources. Thus chelation therapy is employed to fix a non-existing problem.
Second, chelation therapy is used for eliminating calcium ions from the blood, based on the notion that calcium deposits in the arterial wall are responsible for arteriosclerosis which, in turn, is seen as the cause of heart disease, stroke, peripheral arterial disease and other conditions. Consequently, alternative chelation therapists insist that their treatment is helpful for coronary heart disease, stroke prevention, peripheral vascular disease and a range of conditions from arthritis to osteoporosis.
Alternative chelation therapists usually advocate a whole series of treatments. In total, this can cost the patient thousands of pounds.
What is the evidence?