I recently wrote about the conflict between child protection and the religious freedom of believers in faith healing. That issue has reared its ugly head again in the state of Washington.
Washington law currently denies the children of Christian Scientists equal protection under the law governing child abuse and neglect, and it grants a special exemption from criminal prosecution for abuse and neglect to that one specific religion and not to any others. Even if you supported religious exemptions in principle, there would be no excuse for the preferential treatment of one single religion. This law is clearly unconstitutional. (more…)
ChiroNexus recently listed the top 10 chiropractic studies of 2013. In my experience, chiropractic studies tend to be of poor quality. A media report says “study shows chiropractic works for X,” and when I look for the study it turns out to be a single case report or an uncontrolled study. When Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for saying chiropractic treatment for certain childhood ailments was bogus, the BCA responded with a list of 29 studies they said provided evidence for their claims. Steven Novella showed that out of 29 studies on the list, only 17 actually constituted evidence for 4 clinical claims, and those 17 were poor quality, cherry-picked, and too weak to support the claims. I have a copy of a chiropractic textbook entitled Somatovisceral Aspects of Chiropractic: An Evidence-Based Approach and there is nothing in it that would qualify as credible evidence to a science-based thinker. Chiropractic commenters on SBM have told us that modern chiropractic rejects the “subluxation” paradigm and relies on evidence, and I am always willing to look at new evidence and give chiropractors another chance to convince me that a reform movement is really underway, so I looked up the top 10 studies and read them. I was not impressed.
Note: This is a long article with mind-numbing details that will not be of interest to most readers. Feel free to scroll down to the Summary section. You can just read the bold-faced headings describing the claims of each study on the way down.
Also note: For those who want more detail, the “Study #” headings are links to the full text when available online, or to the PubMed citation.
Science is intended to discover the “is”, not the “ought;” facts, not values. Science can’t tell us whether an action is moral; it can only provide evidence to help inform moral decisions. For instance, some people who believe abortion is immoral reject birth control methods that prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum on the grounds that it constitutes abortion; science can determine that a particular birth control method prevents fertilization rather than preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum. A new book, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them, by Joshua Greene, provides some intriguing insights that are pertinent to medical ethics.
He thinks tribalism is the central tragedy of modern life. Evolution equipped us for cooperation within our own tribe but not for cooperation with other tribes. Cooperation with related individuals helps spread our own genes, but we are in competition with other tribes and cooperating with them might help spread their genes to the detriment of our own. It boils down to Us vs. Me and Us vs. Them. He uses the word “tribes” not in the original sense (Hutus vs. Tutsis), but to include Democrats vs. Republicans, Catholics vs. Protestants, CAM vs. science-based medicine, Arabs vs. Israelis, climate change activists vs. climate change deniers, and any other ideological or nationalistic group. (more…)
Recently you may have seen headlines like “Vitamin E slows decline in patients with mild Alzheimer’s” or “There’s still no cure for Alzheimer’s disease, but the latest hope for slowing its progression is already on drugstore shelves.” They were referring to an article in the January 1, 2014 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) announcing the results of the TEAM-AD VA Cooperative Randomized Trial of vitamin E and memantine (Namenda) for Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
The study attracted a lot of media attention. Most of the news reports I have seen were accurate and cautious, explaining the nuances of the study rather than suggesting that everyone should run out and buy vitamin E; but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that a lot of readers ignored the fine print and did just that. It would be interesting to track sales of vitamin E and see if there was a bump following the publicity.
We know of no treatment that will delay, prevent or cure Alzheimer’s disease, or that affects the underlying disease process. It’s a tragic, frustrating disease that takes away the very things that make us who we are: memory and personality. It is affecting more and more people as the numbers of elderly increase. Available prescription medications are only modestly effective in slowing functional decline and delaying the need for institutionalization. They are expensive, they don’t help everyone, and when they do help, they only help for a limited time. It is very exciting to think an inexpensive vitamin could help patients with mild to moderate AD, but we must resist the temptation to read too much into this study. (more…)
There’s an old joke about the doctor whose son graduates from medical school and joins his practice. After a while the son tells his father, “You know old Mrs. Jones? You’ve been treating her rash for years and she never got better. I prescribed a new steroid cream and her rash is gone!” The father responds, “You idiot! That rash put you through medical school.”
That’s a joke. It doesn’t reflect reality, but it reinforces a common misconception that doctors care more about their own income than about their patient’s outcome. That accusation is demonstrably untrue.
I’m sick and tired of all the doctor-bashing. They accuse us of being shills for Big Pharma. They say “Doctors are only out to make money.” Or “Doctors are greedy bastards only interested in the bottom line.” Or as one of our commenters recently put it: “First do no harm. Second ? Third, profit [sic]” Some have even made the ridiculous accusation that doctors have found the cure for cancer but have suppressed the information so as to keep people sick and increase their business. If profit were really their primary motivation, doctors would have to be astoundingly clueless, because they keep doing things that are guaranteed to reduce their profits. (more…)
Women make up a majority of Dr. Oz’s audience. The majority of women would like to lose weight. That is a match made in heaven, a marketer’s dream. And Oz has never hesitated to exploit that fact to increase audience share, playing fast and loose with sensationalized evidence instead of giving his viewers science-based advice.
Dr. Oz has promoted a series of weight loss supplements on his show. Raspberry ketones were presented as a fat-busting miracle, then green coffee bean extract was touted as “magic,” “staggering,” and “unprecedented.” And now both of those miracles have apparently been superseded by an even greater miracle: Garcinia cambogia extract.
Dr. Oz calls it “The newest, fastest fat buster.” A way to lose weight without “spending every waking moment exercising and dieting.” “Triples your weight loss.” “The most exciting breakthrough in natural weight loss to date.” “The Holy Grail.” Oz claims that “Revolutionary new research says it could be the magic ingredient that lets you lose weight without diet or exercise.” That sounds too good to be true, and it is. Garcinia probably does work to some extent to improve weight loss, but the evidence doesn’t begin to justify such grandiose claims. (more…)
This will be a departure from my usual posts. Several announcements in the news and medical journals have caught my attention recently, and as I delved into the details, I thought I would share them with our SBM readers. Topics include AIDS cures, the continuing danger of polio, eating nuts for longevity, racial differences in vitamin D, and the use of pharmacogenetic testing to guide the dosage of anticoagulant drugs. They are all examples of science-based medicine in action.
Have patients been cured of AIDS?
I read that the HIV virus had returned in patients thought to have been cured by bone marrow transplants, and I mistakenly thought they were referring to the original claim of cure I had read about. Nope, that one still stands. (more…)
The recent uproar about the chiropractor who was accused of breaking an infant’s neck has provoked renewed discussions about the role of chiropractors, not only in the care of children, but in general. We have addressed chiropractic many times on this blog. While spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) is an effective option for treating certain types of low back pain, chiropractors typically do a lot of other things that are not evidence-based, can be dangerous (strokes from neck manipulation), and are often outright quackery like applied kinesiology. Chiropractic treatment of children has been called child abuse, and even some chiropractors have spoken out against it.
Chiropractors have protested in the comment threads that we have an outdated, biased view of chiropractic, and that modern chiropractic practice is very different. They claim that they have rejected the original basis of chiropractic (the subluxation/nerve interference/innate paradigm), that they reject all forms of quackery, that what they do is based on scientific evidence, and that they have an important role to play in modern health care. We think that “reformed” attitude is rare. We would love to know what percentage of chiropractors fall into the “reformed” category, but no studies have been done to answer that question. Now there is a new study from Australia that provides important information about the state of chiropractic practice in that country. While it can’t answer the question about the number of “reformed” chiropractors in the US, it does shed some light on the subject. (more…)
Note: This was written as a book review for Skeptical Inquirer magazine and will be published in its Jan/Feb 2014 issue.
Medicine is chock-full of philosophy and doesn’t know it. Mario Bunge, a philosopher, physicist, and CSI (Center for Skeptical Inquiry) fellow, wants to bring philosophy and medicine together for mutual benefit. He has written a book full of insight and wisdom, Medical Philosophy: Conceptual Issues in Medicine.
Whether doctors recognize it or not, medicine is firmly based on the philosophical principles of materialism, systemism, realism, scientism, and humanism. Bunge explains that:
Without materialism, both diseases and therapies would be taken to be purely spiritual.
Without systemism, every disease would be attributed to an independent module.
Without realism, diseases would be viewed as either imaginary or as social flaws.
Without scientism, either nihilism or dogmatism would prevail, and all the achievements of biomedical research of the last 500 years would be consigned to oblivion.
Without humanism, all medical practice would be mercenary, and there would be no public health care. (more…)
On November 15, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released an updated guideline for the use of statins to prevent and treat atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The full report is available online. It has already generated a lot of controversy. The news media have characterized it as a “huge departure” from previous practice and have trumpeted that it will lead doctors to prescribe statins to millions more people. As usual, the truth is much more nuanced. There are some problems with the guidelines, but on the whole they represent an improved, more rational approach to prescribing statins.
Statins have always been a source of controversy: people seem to either love them or hate them, and discussions about them generate a lot of emotion. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics denies that cholesterol has anything to do with cardiovascular disease. An article on HuffPo calls statins “an unsafe, unnecessary product that will now be recommended to healthy people to make them sicker.” Mercola says they can actually make heart disease worse and cause premature aging, and no one should take them unless they have the genetic defect of familial hypercholesterolemia. A website collects patient self-reports of adverse effects; but like the vaccine reports on VAERS, these are only anecdotal reports of correlation, not evidence for causation.
At one time the evidence only supported using statins for secondary prevention and for men. We now have better evidence showing that they are effective for both primary and secondary prevention in patients of both sexes and all ages, and that they are more effective for those with higher risk factors. (more…)