I refer to two recent feature articles by Kathryn Borg which appeared in The Sunday Times of Malta, (‘The cancer controversy’, November 24, and ‘Oxygen healing therapies’, December 1).
In these articles homeopathy and ozone therapy were unequivocally recommended as a cure for cancer when there is no sound scientific evidence to support such a claim.
A reasoned refutation of Borg’s recommendation of homeopathy in the treatment cancer was published in The Sunday Times of Malta on December 8 (‘Dangerous bad science’).
Every effort was made to be unfair to homeopathy and not to adopt an unduly judgmental or dogmatic stance.
It was conceded, for instance, that homeopathy can be good medicine if practised wisely by a compassionate practitioner but that it could be detrimental if the homeopathic practitioner ignored its limitations because it could result in patients delaying proper medical attention until is too late – often with tragic consequences.
The bottom line is that there is no place for homeopathy in the treatment of severe and life-threatening diseases – especially where scientific evidence-based orthodox medicine has been shown to offer patients chance of a cure. This particularly applies to cancer.
In her regular column of two weeks ago (‘Lifestyle and cancer’, December 8), she continued trying to defend homeopathy and ozone therapy in the treatment of cancer. Borg expressed “amazement” that this “backlash” (a favourite word with homeopaths) typically came from those who “control medication or medical support”.
The obvious reply is that one can hardly expect unqualified people to express disagreement or question the validity of homeopathy if they have little or no relevant knowledge of medicine or related subjects.
This is, in fact, where the danger lies; people with no background knowledge are liable to believe false claims of miracle cures published in the media. It is also reasonable to say that those who are seriously ill are particularly susceptible.
Borg also tried to drive the nail in further by adding (verbatim) that she had received “a very positive response” from “someone” who used ozone treatment and had “good results” – when it had already been explained at length in the earlier article of December 8 why claims for efficacy of treatment based on anecdote or non-science are worthless.
While Borg’s articles on healthy lifestyle issues are mostly sensible and down-to-earth, it can only be repeated that misinformation on treatment choices which is based on hearsay and dubious evidence to patients suffering from cancer can be very harmful and have tragic consequences .