Articles

Archive for October, 2013

Pump it up: osteopathic manipulation and influenza

First, my bias. I work in Portland and we have medical students, residents, and faculty who are DOs (Doctor of Osteopathy). Before he moved on to be a hospitalist my primary physician was a DO. From my experience there is no difference between an MD and a DO. In my world they are interchangeable. There are many more qualified applicants for medical education than positions in MD programs and some opt for a DO education. Osteopathy has a dark side.
As best I can determine from my colleagues, learning osteopathic manipulation (OM) is the price they pay to obtain an otherwise standard medical education. I have yet to see OM offered by any of my DO colleagues. It may be they know better than to offer such a modality around me given my ranty propensity for all things SCAM.

The literature would suggest that OM is left behind by most DOs upon graduation. DOs are not proud of their OM, and rarely invite them ‘round to dinner. It will be interesting to see if OM fades over time in DO school as the old time true believers die off and are supplanted by a generation of DOs trained with more traditional medical education.

OM, the small pseudoscientific aspect of DO medical school education, is a form of massage and manipulation invented in the 19th century with no basis in reality. OM postulates

the existence of a myofascial continuity – a tissue layer that interlinks all parts of the body. By manipulating the bones and muscles of a patient a practitioner is supposed to be able to diagnose and treat and variety of systemic human ailments.

Studies into the efficacy of OM find it to be ineffective for any process aside from low back pain (is there anything that does not help low back pain?), not surprising for a therapeutic intervention detached from reality. My purpose with this entry is not to review OM per se, which may be a good topic someday, but to focus on a specific application of OM. (more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic, Clinical Trials, History, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (65) →

Dietary supplement industry says “no” to more information for consumers (again)

Once again, the dietary supplement industry is fighting efforts to give consumers more information about the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements.

Big Supp is very clever. It sells consumers on the phony idea that they need dietary supplements for good health. Even as the evidence continues to mount that consumers don’t need supplements and shouldn’t take them, the industry continues to convince the public otherwise. And in 2011 they raked in $30 billion.

The state and federal governments have served as handmaidens to the industry in this clever marketing strategy. Congress’s gift to the supplement industry, the Orwellian-named Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) “effectively excludes manufacturers of these products from virtually all regulations that are in place for prescription and over-the-counter drugs, and puts the requirement to demonstrate harm on the FDA, rather than the onus on the manufacturer to show a product is safe and effective,” as SBM’s Scott Gavura pointed out. DSHEA allows supplements to make “structure and function” claims, although no one seems to know what that means, including the FDA.

States have done their part in granting chiropractors and naturopaths the authority to give “nutritional” advice and recommend dietary supplements, sometimes on the basis of dubious diagnostic testing purporting to reveal imagined nutritional deficiencies. This gives them carte blanche to sell supplements to their patients, a clear conflict of interest.

And when proposed regulation threatens their profits, the dietary supplement industry and its surrogates enlist the very public it duped to join the battle. The industry convinces the public that someone is trying to take away their access to supplements they never needed in the first place. This threat is dressed up in terms designed to push all the buttons of a public already primed to be leery of “the government” – their “health freedom” may be taken away. Actually, freedom to choose among health care practices is most threatened by withholding readily-available information which would adequately inform health care decisions. (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Legal, Politics and Regulation, Public Health

Leave a Comment (51) →

Chiropractor Breaks Baby’s Neck – A Risk vs Benefit Analysis

It is unfortunately that individual dramatic cases are often required to garner public and regulatory attention toward a clear problem. The Australian press is reporting:

Melbourne paediatrician Chris Pappas cared for a four-month-old baby last year after one of her vertebrae was fractured during a chiropractic treatment for torticollis – an abnormal neck position that is usually harmless. He said the infant was lucky to make a full recovery.

Medicine is a game of risk vs benefit – everything we do, or don’t do, should be evaluated on the potential benefit vs the potential risk, using the best available evidence and scientific rationale. This case is important, not because it is a case of harm, which can happen with any intervention, but because it highlights the risk vs benefit question. Are there any indications for chiropractic care of children, for neck manipulation at any age, and what are the risks?

For an overview of chiropractic see my prior summaries here and here. Overall the evidence suggests some benefit for manipulative therapy for acute uncomplicated lower back strain, but probably no better than physical therapy or even minimal intervention. The risks of chiropractic are not sufficiently studied, and other indications have not been established by adequate evidence. (more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic

Leave a Comment (115) →

Answering Our Critics, Part 2 of 2: What’s the Harm?

Last week I posted a list of 30 rebuttals to many of the recurrent criticisms that are made by people who don’t like what we say on SBM. I thought #30 deserved its own post; this is it. At the end, I’ve added a few items to the original list.

What’s the harm in people trying CAM? Science-based medicine has been criticized for being too rigid and intolerant. Why do we insist on randomized placebo-controlled trials to prove that a treatment is safe and effective? Isn’t it enough that patients tell us they feel better? Isn’t that what we all want, for our patients to feel better? Even if the treatment only works as a placebo, isn’t that a good thing? What’s the harm in that?

The albuterol/placebo study

I would argue that we don’t just want our patients to think they are better, we want them to actually be better. A study that illustrates that principle has been discussed on this blog before, here and here.

A group of patients using an effective albuterol asthma inhaler was compared to 2 placebo groups (a placebo inhaler group and a sham acupuncture group), and to a group that got no treatment at all. Patients reported the same relief of symptoms with each of the two placebo controls as with the albuterol inhaler; all three groups reported feeling significantly better than the no-treatment group. It could be argued that placebos are an effective treatment for the subjective symptoms of asthma. (more…)

Posted in: Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (99) →
Page 3 of 3 123