Articles

Archive for 2010

On the “individualization” of treatments in “alternative medicine”

One of the claims most frequently made by “alternative medicine” advocates regarding why alt-med is supposedly superior (or at least equal) to “conventional” medicine and should not be dismissed, regardless of how scientifically improbable any individual alt-med modality may be, is that the treatments are, if you believe many of the practitioners touting them, highly “individualized.” In other words, the “entire patient” is taken into account with what is frequently referred to as a “holistic approach” that looks at “every aspect” of the patient, with the result that every patient requires a different treatment, sometimes even for the exact same disease of very close to the same severity. Indeed, as I have described before, a variant of this claim, often laden with meaningless pseudoscientific babble about “emergent systems,” is sometimes used to claim that the standard methods of science- and evidence-based medicine are not appropriate to studying the efficacy of alternative medicine. Of course, this is, in nearly all cases, simply an excuse to dismiss scientific studies that fail to find efficacy for various “alt-med” modalities, but, even so, it is a claim that irritates me to no end, because it is so clearly nonsense. As Harriet Hall pointed out, alt-med “practitioners” frequently ascribe One True Cause to All Disease, which is about as far from “individualization” as you can get, when you come right down to it. More on that later.

A couple of years ago, before I became involved with this blog, I was surprised to learn that even some advocates of alt-med have their doubts that “individualization” is such a great strength. I had never realized that this might be the case until I came across a post by naturopath Travis Elliott, who runs a pro-alt-med blog, Dr. Travis Elliott and the Two-Sided Coin, entitled The Single Most Frustrating Thing About (Most) Alternative Medicine. In this article, Elliott referred to a case written up by a fellow naturopath, who used an anecdote about the evaluation and treatment plan by a naturopath of a pregnant woman with nausea to show what is supposedly the “unique power of our medicine.” Unexpectedly (to me at least at the time), Elliott did not quite see it that way:
(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine, Homeopathy, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (46) →

You can’t hide in the herd

Can you hide in the herd?  Well, I suppose the title has given away the punch line.

Herd immunity is a fascinating effect, and one of the mainstays of a public vaccination effort.  The idea is that if enough people in the community are immune to a particular disease, then those who are susceptible will rarely come into contact with a person who is contagious, and the disease will be unable (or find it difficult) to spread.  This results in a greatly reduced risk of infection for the entire population regardless of their individual immunity.

This has lead to the belief that because of the protection of the herd’s immunity, individuals now have the option to avoid even the minimal cost and risk of vaccination while having the same reduced risk of infection as if they had vaccinated.

Let’s set aside the fact that that there are people who have no choice but to rely upon herd immunity as their sole line of protection against these infections.  Forget that there is a threshold below which herd immunity collapses, and that our current vaccination rates tend to be right on the cusp of that threshold.  Pay no attention to the fact that the personal decision to not vaccinate deprives others of their sole protection from these infections.  Finally, ignore the ethics and self-defeating nature of benefiting from the sacrifice of others while simultaneously eroding the efficacy of the herd immunity being exploited.  On a small enough scale, doesn’t the tactic of hiding in the herd provide the same protection as getting vaccinated without incurring the minimal risk of vaccination?

Not so much. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (84) →

Don’t Believe The Hype: Cholinesterase Inhibitors As A Treatment For Dementia

Don’t Believe The Hype: Cholinesterase Inhibitors As A Treatment For Dementia
I distinctly remember the day I attended a “drug lunch” (as a PM&R resident in New York City) to learn about the value of donepezil (aricept) for the treatment of dementia. I was astonished by the drug’s lack of efficacy – the graph displayed in the PowerPoint show demonstrated a 2-point improvement on the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE), an effect that began after 6 months of donepezil use, and persisted for only 6 months after that. A 2-point difference on the MMSE has no clinical relevance of which I’m aware. The drug’s common side effects include: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, tiredness, drowsiness, trouble sleeping, or muscle cramps. That day I vowed never to prescribe the drug to my elderly patients.
Nonetheless, I was dumbfounded by the number of patients who came to the hospital already on the medication. Over and over again I heard the same story: “mom is becoming forgetful so our doctor started her on this medication to help her memory.”
When I asked if the family if they thought the medicine helped, the response was equally predictable: a shrug and then “what else can we do?”
Here we have a classic example of a medical problem with no satisfactory treatment or cure – and a desperate desire on the part of patients and family members to do something – anything – about it. Many times people in these predicaments turn to alternative medicines, herbal supplements and faith –based remedies. And sometimes they turn to FDA-approved drugs.
The Cochrane Collaborative has reviewed the scientific literature on the use of cholinesterase inhibitors (like donepezil) in mild dementia, and has found:
There is no evidence to support the use of donepezil for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The putative benefits are minor, short lived and associated with significant side effects. http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006104.html
So how did this drug get approved? Well, there do seem to be some small improvements (of dubious clinical significance in my opinion) in measures of cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer’s dementia in particular. http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005593.html
AHRQ states:
The evidence is mixed, however, about the effects of cholinesterase inhibitors on functional measures such as instrumental activities of daily living (i.e., ability to use the telephone, mode of transportation, responsibility for medication, and ability to handle finances). In general, the studies show little or no effect on functional decline after 6 months of treatment and a small but statistically significant difference from placebo after 12 months of treatment.
Research has found no clinically important differences between people taking cholinesterase inhibitors and those taking placebo in the development of behavioral and psychological symptoms… Studies rarely addressed other important health outcomes such as utilization of health care services, injuries, and caregiver burden.
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/dementia/dementsum.htm
Pfizer’s press release (when they received FDA approval to market Aricept in 1996) noted:
Alzheimer’s disease is a family tragedy. ARICEPT will benefit patients and families alike by improving or maintaining patient function, which in turn may help ease the burden for caregivers and help maintain personal dignity… “ARICEPT represents a significant step forward in addressing the therapeutic needs of the Alzheimer’s disease community…This therapy will help to change the approach to the management of Alzheimer’s disease.
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/e2aa.htm
Global sales of Aricept were approximately $1.1 billion for 2008 alone.
Me-too cholinesterase inhibitors have seen similar global profits, with sales of namenda at about $1 billion as well in 2008. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_14/b3877629_mz073.htm All this while the AHRQ can find no clinically relevant difference between the drugs in this class, and the effects they have are small and short lived.
There are pharmaceutical innovations that have changed the course of history (imagine where we’d be without the polio or smallpox vaccines), while others leverage the tiniest statistically-significant effects to drive global drug empires driven by public feelings of helplessness in the face of currently incurable diseases.
It’s no wonder that the public has a mistrust of pharma – their marketing engines drive sales of drugs that have vastly different clinical value. That means it’s up to physicians and scientists to tease out the legitimate enthusiasm from the marketing hype. And judging from all the patients with mild dementia that I see on cholinesterase inhibitors, I give us a failing grade.

I distinctly remember the day I attended a “drug lunch” (as a PM&R resident in New York City) to learn about the value of donepezil (Aricept) for the treatment of dementia. I was surprised by the drug’s lack of efficacy – the graph displayed in the PowerPoint show demonstrated a 2-point improvement on the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE), an effect that began after 6 months of donepezil use, and persisted for only 6 months after that. A 2-point difference on the MMSE has no clinical relevance of which I’m aware. The drug’s common side effects include: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, tiredness, drowsiness, trouble sleeping, or muscle cramps. That day I realized that the risk-benefit profile did not support its use.

Nonetheless, I was perplexed by the number of patients who came to the hospital already on the medication. Over and over again I heard the same story: “Mom is becoming forgetful so our doctor started her on this medication to help her memory.” (more…)

Posted in: Pharmaceuticals

Leave a Comment (41) →

Big Placebo says Medicine never cures anything

Kudos to Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise for coining a new appellation “Big Placebo.” Big Placebo is the alternative health counterpart to Big Pharma. Both are special interest groups designed to promote their products, whether they are worthy of promotion or not. There is one big difference between them: Big Pharma makes products that usually work (though not always, and sometimes not safely). Big Placebo hawks books and products that never work.

Big Placebo is unsatisfied with the $40 billion it takes in every year on treatments that don’t even work. They’re aiming for a much larger piece of the healthcare pie and to do so they are criticizing modern medicine.

To hear Big Placebo tell it, virtually all illness can be prevented and anyone who gets sick deserves it because of poor lifestyle choices. If only that were so. Unfortunately, most illness and disease is caused by factors beyond people’s control, including infectious agents, genetic defects and inherited predispositions.
(more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (240) →

$10,000 reward not offered for scientific proof of supplements and alternative medicine therapies and effectiveness

Inspired by a post today

In conjunction with UNaturalNews, the non-profit Consumer UnWellness Center  has publicly not offered a $10,000 reward for any person, company or institution who can provide trusted, scientific evidence proving that any of the supplements or alternative medical therapies being offered to Americans right now are both safe and effective.

Supplement or alternative medical therapies promoters keep citing their “science” in claiming that supplements or alternative medical therapies are safe and effective. UnNaturalNews asks one simple question: Where is this science?

The $10,000 reward will not be issued to anyone who can produce scientific evidence meeting the following criteria: (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Humor, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (15) →

e-Cigarette Safety

Ever since news of the harmful effects of tobacco smoke hit the public consciousess around the middle of the 20th century the tobacco industry and others have been looking for a “healthy” alternative. Are e-cigarettes just latest in a list of failed attempts to make smoking safe?

In case you are a new visitor to our planet (welcome) using tobacco products has been determined to be a significant risk factor in developing certain kinds of lung cancer and vascular disease, including strokes and heart attacks (the top three killers).  The tobacco industry initially tried desperately to deny or downplay the scientific evidence for the health risks of smoking, engaging in a campaign of doubt and confusion, but those efforts ultimately failed.

Some companies marketed light, low tar, and filtered cigarettes with the claim, direct or implied, that they were a more healthful alternative to regular cigarettes. However, there has never been convincing evidence that such cigarettes are less of a health risk. Still, the marketing stuck and now 90% of all cigarettes sold are filtered.

(more…)

Posted in: Public Health

Leave a Comment (87) →

The Mythology of Larry Dossey

A “Double Standard”?

Last week I had planned to write a comprehensive critique of a recent comment by Larry Dossey. He had posted it on Val Jones’s betterhealth website in response to Dr. Val’s essay, “The Decade’s Top 5 Threats To Science In Medicine,” originally posted here on SBM. Much of what Dr. Val had identified as the top threats involved recent dalliances, by government, medical schools, and the media, with the collection of implausible and mostly nonsensical health claims that advocates have dubbed “CAM.” As uncontroversial as Dr. Val’s assertions ought to have been—similar to suggesting that closing one’s eyes and “using the force” would be a threat to safe driving (even if some might quibble over the top threats to science in medicine)—Dr. Dossey demurred by distraction:

Your article implies that conventional medicine is grounded in evidence-based research and that CAM is not. This is grossly overstated, and suggests that a double standard is being applied to these fields.

Dossey trotted out familiar arguments: “Much, if not most, of contemporary medical practice still lacks a scientific foundation”; “the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found that only an estimated 10 to 20% of the techniques that physicians use are empirically proven”; hospital care is “the third leading cause of death in the United States,” accounting for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.

He concluded with an appeal to fairness, rationality, and collegiality:

Overwhelming evidence reveals that conventional medicine is, on the whole, woefully unscientific. It’s fashionable and easy to deny this, but the facts say otherwise. So, by all means, Dr. Val, be critical of CAM – but do not fall into a double standard. Let us ruthlessly apply science to ALL we do as physicians. Let us challenge ALL areas of medicine to a higher standard. On that, I’m pretty sure we can agree.

Keep up the good work.

Sincerely yours,
Larry Dossey, MD

I procrastinated with my own rebuttal, and in the meantime David Gorski responded to similar language found in an article by Dossey (and two other magical thinkers) titled “The Mythology of Science-Based Medicine,” published by the Huffington Post. I’ll not repeat Dr. Gorski’s able rebuttal in any detail, and I’ve already written about much of what this matter brings to mind. Examples are here, here, and here on the perils of conflating science-based medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM); here on the false dichotomy of modern medicine vs. “CAM”; here on a concise definition of “CAM”; here and here on the mischief spawned by demands to “ruthlessly apply science,” in the narrow, EBM sense of the word, to implausible health claims; here (point #7) and here regarding the tu quoque fallacy, the “10-20% empirically proven” claim, and the risks of modern health care; here (scroll down to “this week’s entry”) and here, regarding some of Dossey’s own opinions about science and the future of medicine.

For now I’ll elaborate on a few points. These pertain not only to Dr. Dossey but also to myths common to the advocacy of pseudomedicine, so I hope to provide some useful information.

(more…)

Posted in: Energy Medicine, Faith Healing & Spirituality, History, Medical Academia, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (17) →

Haiti

The current tragedy in Haiti may turn out to be one of the worst natural disasters (if not the worst) the Western Hemisphere has seen in the post-colonial era. Immediate deaths caused directly by trauma from the quake itself will likely number in the tens of thousands but we can be pretty sure that there’s more horror to come. This is a tragedy which is going to continue for months—probably years—to come. Science-based medicine has taught us much about how to mitigate disasters such as this one. Unfortunately, in Haiti medicine is only part of the problem; the long-standing political and economic problems have helped limit what medicine can do. But even in the most troubled of countries, attitudes toward science-based medicine can have profound effects on the health of the population.  (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (25) →

Abortion and breast cancer: The manufactroversy that won’t die

Editor’s note: Given the controversial nature of the topic, I think it’s a good time to point out my disclaimer before this post. Not that it’ll prevent any heated arguments or anything…

The Science-Based Medicine blog was started slightly over two years ago, and this is a post I’ve wanted to do since the very beginning. However, since January 2008, each and every time I approached this topic I chickened out. After all, the topic of abortion is such a hot button issue that I seriously questioned whether the grief it would be likely to cause is worth it. (Take the heat generated any time circumcision is discussed here and ramp it up by a factor of 10.) On the other hand, there is so much misinformation out there claiming a link between abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer when the data simply don’t support such a link, and the name of this blog is Science-Based Medicine. Why should I continue to shy away from a topic just because it’s so religiously charged? More importantly, in my discussion how can I focus attention on the science rather than letting the discussion degenerate into the typical flamefest that any discussion of abortion on the Internet (or anywhere else, for that matter) will almost inevitably degenerate into. Indeed, such discussions have a depressing near-inevitability of validating Godwin’s law not once but many times — usually within mere hours, if not minutes.

My strategy to try to keep the discussion focused on the science will be to stay silent about my own personal opinions regarding abortion and, other than using it to introduce my trepidation about discussing the topic, the religious and moral arguments that fuel the controversy. That’s because the question of whether abortion is the murder of a human being, merely the removal of a lump of tissue, or somewhere in between is a moral issue that, at least as far as I’m concerned, can’t ever be definitively answered by science. That is why it is not my purpose to sway readers towards any specific opinion regarding the morality of abortion. Indeed, I highly doubt that any of our readers care much about my opinions on the matter. On the other hand, I would hope that I’ve built up enough trust over the last two years that our readers will be interested in my analysis of the existing data regarding something another related issue. It is my purpose to try to dispel a myth that is not supported by science, specifically the claim that elective abortion is causes breast cancer or is a very strong risk factor for its subsequent development. That is a claim that can be answered by science and, for the most part, has been answered by science with a fairly high degree of certainty. Despite the science against it, the medical myth that abortion causes breast cancer or vastly increases the risk of it is, like the myth that vaccines cause autism, a manufactroversy that won’t die, mainly because it is largely fueled by religious beliefs that are every bit as immune to science as the ideological beliefs that drive the antivaccine movement.
(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Obstetrics & gynecology, Religion, Surgical Procedures

Leave a Comment (127) →

You. You. Who are you calling a You You?

The YOU Docs, for those of you (YOU?) who are unaware, are Doctors Mehmet Oz and Mike Roizen, authors of books about YOU and a weekly newspaper column called The YOU Docs. It’s all about YOU.

There are two areas of the knowledge where I have more than passing understanding: infectious diseases and sCAMs. It always concerns me when I read nonsense in the few areas where I have some expertise. I have to wonder about the validity of other information in the paper like war and the economy. You know, important stuff. It could probably be argued that since the YOU Docs are in the “How We Live” section, the same section that carries horoscopes, the movie and TV reviews, the weather report — the fiction section — it should not taken seriously. After all, it is usually adjacent to the People’s Pharmacist, and my father always told me that you can judge a person by the company they keep.

The YOU Docs had a column with the headline: “Research backs acupuncture for a range of ills“. More fiction? Research backs acupuncture? News to me, but they are, after all, YOU Docs, and therefore may have information not accessible to mere docs with a small ‘d’. I grant up front to the authors that it is hard to be rigorous, or even coherent, in a 452 word essay. I am over 3,200 words for this entry. There are also no references, so I have to assume I found the correct research mentioned by the hints in the text.

(more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (52) →
Page 32 of 34 «...10203031323334