If you have children, there’s a good chance you’ve had experience with head lice. Head lice affects as many as 12 million people in the US each year, mostly children. Compared to other health conditions, it is a trivial problem; but it is common and annoying. It can cause itching, notes sent home from school, and often a strong “yuck” reaction. Fortunately, several effective treatments are available, including enough “natural” options to please any critic of Big Pharma.
Louse diagram, Micrographia, Robert Hooke, 1667
Pediculosis humanus var capitis is a bloodsucking parasitic insect specific to humans. It is 2.5-3 mm long and flattish. It can’t jump or fly or even walk efficiently, but is easily transferred, usually by head-to-head contact with an infected person or less often with an infected person’s headgear, comb, towel, or other object. Infestation is not a sign of poor hygiene. Lice bite and suck blood 4-5 times daily, injecting an anti-coagulant in their saliva. Mommy lice live for up to 3 months and lay up to 300 eggs at a rate of 3-4 a day. They glue the eggs individually to a hair shaft, usually close to the scalp but in warm climates as far as 6 inches from the scalp. They hatch in 6-10 days, after which the empty egg cases move further and further from the scalp as the hair grows out. The diagnosis can be made by seeing live, moving lice and finding nits (the egg or young lice) on the hair. The best place to look for them is behind the ear and at the nape of the neck. Nits can be confused with dandruff and debris, but these can usually be brushed away while nits remain firmly stuck to the hair shaft. Nits alone are not enough to make the diagnosis of active infestation. They may be either alive or dead: empty or nonviable egg cases may still be present long after the infestation has resolved. (more…)
Dr. David L. Katz is apparently unhappy with me. You remember Dr. Katz, don’t you? If you don’t, I’ll remind you momentarily. If you do, you won’t be surprised. Let me explain a bit first how Dr. Katz recently became aware of me again.
Last week, I posted a short (for me) piece about something that disturbed both Steve Novella and myself, namely Traditional Chinese herbalism at the Cleveland Clinic? What happened to science-based medicine? Steve had blogged about it as well a couple of days earlier. In actuality, it was a post that had originally appeared at my not-so-super-secret other blog, and, in my characteristically slightly arrogant way, I thought it was good enough that it deserved to be showcased here at Science-Based Medicine. To my surprise, Maithri Vengala over at The Healthcare Blog noticed and asked me if I would mind letting her post it over there. Never being one to turn down a request to showcase my work to a wider (or at least different) audience, I gave her my permission. The result was that my post ended up being published here, and I thought nothing more of it.
Until yesterday, that is.
Yesterday, thanks to the magic of Google Alerts, I became aware that Dr. David Katz was very unhappy with my post. At the very least, he strongly disagreed with it, so much so that he felt the need to respond. Naturally, he chose as his venue The Huffington Post, which is well known as a bastion of quackery, antivaccine pseudoscience, and Deepak Chopra-inspired magical thinking, to respond. Indeed, so bad is HuffPo (as it’s “nicknamed”) that Steve Novella and I have both referred to it as waging a “war on medical science,” and HuffPo has been a frequent topic of discussion on this very blog for its abysmal record of publishing pseudoscience, a record that goes back to its very beginning in 2005, when antivaccinationists flocked to the fledgling blog and news site. And that doesn’t even count all the nonsense from Deepak Chopra and even promotion of outright cancer quackery.
There are two topics about which I know a fair amount. The first is Infectious Disease. I am expert in ID, Board Certified and certified bored, by the ABIM. The other, although to a lesser extent, is SCAMs.
When I read the literature on these topics, I do so with extensive knowledge and, in the case of ID, 30 years of clinical experience. The extensive knowledge, and, one hopes, understanding, has led me to read meta-analyses with a grain of salt substitute. They average meta-analysis and systematic review is good for gaining a general understanding of the topic within, as well as, and here is the key phrase, the limitations of the included studies.
And like all the published literature, when writing a meta-analysis, those with an axe to grind will grind it. Even, or perhaps especially, the Cochrane reviews.
Just because something is labelled as a systematic review does not mean it is any good. We have to be just as vigilant now as ever. Even a review with a Cochrane label does not make its true. Four out of 12 Cochrane reviews on acupuncture were wrong. Caveat lector rules, OK? (more…)
Think you need to see a doctor? How about seeing him (or her) on your computer (or tablet or smart phone) screen instead of in the doctor’s office?
The technology of telemedicine, or telehealth, is here. So far, there is no single definition of what it does, and does not, encompass. For example, in some definitions, one of which we discuss today, it includes only video communication. Other definitions are broader, including fax, telephone, and e-mail. Here, we focus mainly on the direct patient-physician telemedicine encounter, unmediated by the presence of a physician who has actually seen the patient face-to-face. This is unlike, for example, the more common specialist consultation, in which the patient and physician have met face-to-face and the specialist is brought in via technology. A typical example of this is the radiologist who reads x-rays from a remote location. (Sometimes so remote that the radiologist isn’t even in the same country.) There is some evidence, but not much yet, that certain kinds of physician-mediated telemedicine can benefit the patient.
One can think of many ways a patient’s accessing a doctor via computer might improve access to healthcare. This could be a godsend for patients in rural areas who must drive an hour or more to find a doctor’s office. For example, here’s a program from the University of Mississippi Medical Center:
The Diabetes Telehealth Network will [put telemedicine] technology in the hands of the patients themselves in the form of Internet-capable tablets equipped with the Care Innovations™ Guide platform.
The Care Innovations™ Guide platform enables health-care providers to offer a clinically driven, fully integrated remote care management solution for populations with chronic conditions. The project will recruit up to 200 patients in Sunflower County, MS, who will use Care Innovations technology to share health data, such as weight, blood pressure, and glucose levels, daily with clinicians.
Science-based medicine is a concept that is larger than the analysis of any specific topic. It is, essentially, an approach to answering health and medical questions, one that involves careful and thorough analysis of scientific evidence within a framework of understanding of critical thinking, mechanisms of self-deception, and the process of science itself. We feel this creates the best opportunity to arrive at tentative conclusions that are most likely to be reliable.
We often address claims that are the result of a very different process. In fact there seems to be a thriving subculture on the internet that emphasizes the naturalistic fallacy, fear of anything technological (including irrational chemophobia), paranoia about the government, corporations, and mainstream medicine, and embracing anything perceived as being contrarian, exotic, or radical. To this subculture science is either the enemy, or it is used (as Andrew Lang famously quipped) like a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination. This approach is simultaneously gullible and cynical.
It is no surprise that those who follow this fatally flawed approach consistently arrive at the wrong conclusion, especially on any controversial scientific topic. The two most prominent netizens following this approach, in my opinion, are Joseph Mercola and Mike Adams. I do believe, however, that there is another hoping to join their ranks – Vani Hari, who blogs under the name Food Babe. (Mark Crislip also blogged about her here.)
Not long ago I wrote about the free online “Food for Thought” course. Joe Schwarcz (“Dr. Joe”) was one of the three professors teaching that course. He also has a radio show, a blog, a podcast, and he writes books. His newest book will be of particular interest to SBM readers: Is That a Fact? Frauds, Quacks, and the Real Science of Everyday Life.
I reviewed an earlier book of his, The Right Chemistry, for Skeptic magazine. You can read my review online here. I called him “The Carl Sagan of Chemistry” for his ability to popularize science and make it not only palatable but fascinating and entertaining. In the new book, Dr. Joe turns his attention to exactly the kind of subjects we cover on this blog. He is a chemist and most of us are physicians, but we reach the same conclusions because we look at the evidence from the same rigorous scientific viewpoint.
In The Right Chemistry, Dr. Joe explains that “chemical” does not mean “bad stuff” — chemicals make up the entire world, and we are made of chemicals that our own body manufactures. He shares his encyclopedic store of obscure and intriguing scientific facts. Have you ever heard of kangatarians? Did you know asparagus can grow up to 10 inches a day? Can you explain why crystals of Epsom salts crumble if you yell at them? Do you think explosives can’t be made on a plane with small amounts of liquids? (Dr. Joe thinks they can, but for obvious reasons he’s not divulging the recipe.) You probably didn’t know that in World War II the U.S. military developed a mixture called “Who Me?” that smelled like feces and was dispensed with an atomizer. French Resistance fighters were supposed to surreptitiously spray it on German officers to embarrass them, but it wasn’t a great success since the sprayer ended up as stinky as the sprayee.
Over the weekend, I was perusing my Google Alerts, along with various blogs and news websites, looking for my weekly topic, when I noticed a disturbance in the pseudoscience Force. It’s a phenomenon I’ve noticed many times before, but, as far as I can tell, I haven’t actually blogged about it here, at least not specifically, although I have mentioned it, particularly in posts about Stanislaw Burzynski. I have, however, blogged about it over at my not-so-super-secret other blog, which means that some of the thoughts (if you can call them that) that I plan to lay down in this post will likely seem familiar to some of you, but I think this is an important enough topic that I should cover it here, too. As arrogant as I might sometimes seem, even I’m not so deluded as to think that the fraction of SBM readers who are regulars at my not-so-super-secret other blog is anything greater than a clear minority, and even for those of you for whom there’s overlap I’ll try to make things different enough to be interesting.
On Friday, Sharon Hill published a post over at Doubtful News entitled Chiropractors get their spine out of place over critique. It’s about how chiropractors have reacted to a post by Steve Salzberg over at Forbes entitled New Medicare Data Reveal Startling $496 Million Wasted On Chiropractors. Salzberg’s blog post was basically about just that, namely the amount of money billed Medicare by chiropractors, information that’s possible to obtain since the government released Medicare billing data for individual practitioners. Salzberg pointed out that half a billion dollars is a lot of money, more than twice as much as what is wasted every year on the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the National Cancer Institute’s Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM). The result was rapid. Chiropractors swarmed, complaining to Forbes.com, and making the usual threats to sue, much as they actually did sue Simon Singh and, fortunately, saw their lawsuit blow up in their faces.
This, of course, can be looked upon as a purely mercenary protection of turf and livelihood not unlike how Daniel Kopans attacks any study that finds mammography to be less effective than thought (or even ineffective) in decreasing deaths from breast cancer. There is, however, a form of backlash against criticism of pseudoscience that is different and, when I first encountered it, more disturbing to deal with. It’s a level of pure, visceral hatred that is difficult to understand; that is, until you try to put yourself into your “enemy’s” shoes. Consider this post an exercise in doing just that, an exercise that will no doubt shock at least one of our readers.
Not too long ago, I expressed alarm at a series of bills that were popping up like so much kudzu in various state legislatures, namely “right to try” bills. Both Jann Bellamy and I warned that these bills gave a false illusion of hope to patients with terminal illnesses. Basically, these laws claim to grant the “right” of patients with terminal illnesses to access promising experimental medicines that have not yet been approved by the FDA. Indeed, these investigational drugs need merely to have passed phase I trials, and these “right to try” laws would allow them to be used in pretty much any human with a terminal illness who can persuade a pharmaceutical company to let them have such drugs. Of course, as I pointed out, such laws are based on a false premise, namely that there are lots of promising drugs out there that could save lots of lives of terminally ill patients, if only the hidebound FDA would get out of the way and let the people try them. The problem (besides the false assumption behind such laws) is that they are all state laws, and the FDA and federal law still trump state laws with respect to drug approval.
Apparently, advocates of “right to try” laws have gotten around to trying to take care of that little obstacle, too. I’m referring to a federal law under consideration in the House of Representatives and championed by the usual suspects, including the Alliance for Natural Health USA, a “health freedom” group that has yet to see a pro-quackery bill it doesn’t like.
In any case, at the time I originally learned about this bill, HR 4475, which was introduced by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and entitled “The Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act of 2014,” its text hadn’t yet been published to the Congressional website. I did learn that the bill has been floating around for a while in various forms (for instance, former Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) apparently introduced it.) Now its text has been published, as Guy Chapman has noted. He calls it a “quack’s charter,” and he’s only off by a bit. The bill doesn’t go quite as far as he believes, but the bill is still plenty bad, man. If enacted, HR 4475 would amend the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by inserting after section 561 (21 U.S.C. 360bbb) the text of HR 4475. This section of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is entitled “Expanded Access to Unapproved Therapies and Diagnostics,” and it’s the section of the act that regulates exactly that. The interesting thing is that this particular section of existing law is the framework under which the whole system of single patient INDs (also known as “compassionate use exemptions”) is already based. As I’ve described before, single patients can receive promising unapproved drugs under what’s known as a single patient IND, which has to be approved by the Institutional Review Board and the FDA and allows single patients to receive unapproved drugs. You can (and many have) argued that the single patient IND process is too cumbersome and restrictive, but HR 4475 seeks to (mostly) nuke this requirement. You’ll see what I mean in a minute.
I don’t recall if I’ve ever mentioned my connection with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF). I probably have, but just don’t remember it. Long-time readers might recall that I did my general surgery training at Case Western Reserve University at University Hospitals of Cleveland. Indeed, I did my PhD there as well in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics. Up the road less than a mile from UH is the Cleveland Clinic. As it turns out, during my stint in Physiology and Biophysics at CWRU, I happened to do a research rotation in a lab at the CCF, which lasted a few months. OK, so it’s not much of a connection. It was over 20 years ago and only lasted a few months, but it’s something that gives me an obvious and blatant hook to start out this post, particularly given the number of cardiac patients I delivered to the CCF back in the early 1990s when I moonlighted as a flight physician for Metro LifeFlight.
Obvious and clunky introduction aside (hey, they can’t all be brilliant; so I’ll settle for nauseatingly self-deprecating), several of my readers have been sending me a link to a story that appeared in the Wall Street Journal the other day: A Top Hospital Opens Up to Chinese Herbs as Medicines: Evidence is lacking that herbs are effective. I also noticed that our fearless leader Steve Novella blogged about it and was tempted to let it pass, given that I had seemingly lost my window, but then I realized that there’s always something I can add to a post, even after the topic’s been blogged by Steve Novella. Whether that something is of value or not, I leave to the reader. So here we go. Besides, if this article truly indicates a new trend in academic medical centers, it’s—if you’ll excuse the term—quantum leap in the infiltration of quackademic medicine into formerly reputable medical centers. It’s a depressing thing, and it needs to be publicized.
As I write this post, a large outbreak of mumps is ongoing in Columbus, Ohio. The city, which on average sees a single case each year, has seen over 250 since February. To put things in further perspective, only about 440 cases are normally diagnosed in the entire United States annually. The outbreak began on the campus of Ohio State University, where about 150 cases have been identified, but no information about the index case has been reported thus far.
Although the current outbreak will likely smolder for months, the total number of cases thus far is considerably fewer than the worst of the past decade. A 2009-2010 outbreak in New York and New Jersey ended up affecting about 3,000 people. In 2006, about 6,500 college students throughout the Midwest were infected. It is unlikely we will see these kinds of numbers in Ohio, but even our worst in recent years pale in comparison to those that have occurred in England over the past decade, where there was a peak of about 56,000 documented cases in 2005.
The diagnosis of only a few hundred cases per year is a clear victory of the mumps vaccination program, which started in 1967. Prior to the widespread adoption of the vaccine, 186,000 cases were seen in the United States annually. That works out to a decrease in cases of over 99%. This reduction didn’t occur because of improved sanitation, cleaner water, or even sunspots. It occurred because of the hard work and dedication of vaccine researchers, medical professionals and the widespread public acceptance of a safe and effective vaccine.
Mumps doesn’t get the kind of press that measles outbreaks do. There are a number of reasons why this is true and reasonable. I will get into more detail, but essentially mumps, although it can result in significant morbidity, just isn’t as sexy and it isn’t a good candidate for anti-anti-vaccine poster child. Measles wins in that regard, and let’s hope it stays that way. I am terrified at the thought of HiB meningitis returning. But that doesn’t mean that mumps outbreaks can’t serve as fodder for educating the public on vaccines. First though, a primer on mumps.