Articles

Author Archive

What Whole Foods Markets Doesn’t Tell You

Whole Foods Market is a relentlessly hip American supermarket chain which prides itself on organic fruits and vegetables, gluten-free just-about-everything, and high-end touches like wine bars and exotic take out items (roasted yucca, anyone?). The health products aisle is stocked with Bach Flower and homeopathic remedies. For example, in-house brand Flu Ease: “an established homeopathic formula that should be taken at the first sign of flu for temporary relief of symptoms including fever chills and body aches.”

Selling Flu Ease and like products certainly exhibits a lack of appreciation for scientific evidence, not to mention basic science. But I recently saw a product in the checkout line that was so filled with over-the-top quackery and so shocking in its disregard for the public’s health that I haven’t been back to Whole Foods since. And I won’t be going back.

The product? A glossy, slickly-produced magazine with the conspiracy-minded title What Doctors Don’t Tell You. The April 2014 issue promises, in banner-headline font size, a “New Light on Cancer.” It features the well-known symbol of fighting breast cancer, a loop of pink ribbon, but with a tear in the middle of the loop. We’ll look into this “new light” in a bit.

(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Critical Thinking, Faith Healing & Spirituality, Health Fraud, Herbs & Supplements, Homeopathy, Nutrition, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (166) →

Maryland legislature passes naturopathic licensing bill, but with damage control

It looks like Maryland is about to become the 18th state licensing (or registering) naturopaths unless the governor vetoes this legislation. That is unlikely to happen because the licensing bills passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate. But becoming licensed in Maryland may turn out to be something of a pyrrhic victory.

The companion House (HB 402) and Senate (SB 314) bills moved through the General Assembly with lightning speed, suggesting the legislative wheels were well-greased behind the scenes. The lubricant was compromise by all parties: the NDs, the Maryland Board of Physicians, and Med Chi, the state’s medical association. The result seems to be the product of the legislature giving everyone some of what they want, but no one got it all. The baby got split, and that is never good for the baby’s health.

The warhorse parade

The bills originally introduced were obviously drafted by the naturopaths. It gave them their own governing board. They would be able to perform minor office procedures, use colon hydrotherapy, dispense therapeutic devices for barrier contraception, and durable medical equipment. They could administer homeopathic remedies, nutritional “medicine,” vitamins, minerals and so forth via intradermal, subcutaneous and intravenous routes. And they could practice independently, free of any supervision by a physician. Basically, they would be primary care physicians, which is what they claim they are.

Fortunately, all of that is gone in the version that passed. Unfortunately, there is still plenty to be concerned about. We’ll get to those features in a minute.

I listened to recordings of a couple of hours of testimony before two committees, one House, one Senate. (You’re welcome.) But the groundwork for licensing was laid last year, with a report from the Maryland Board of Physicians based on “Practitioner Workgroup” meetings that included representatives from state government and medical, chiropractic, acupuncture, occupational therapy, naturopathic and “chain drug store” (go figure) organizations, a law/lobbying firm (can’t tell who they represented), and Dr. Linda Lee, the Director of the Center for Integrative Medicine at Johns Hopkins. These “stakeholders” decided to try to iron out their differences rather than duke out all the issues in front of the legislature.

(more…)

Posted in: Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (22) →

When healing turns into killing: religious and philosophical exemptions from parental accountability

Parents have a fundamental right to guide the upbringing of their children protected under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This includes the choice of medical care for the child. They also have a First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, including the right to care for their children in accordance with the tenets of their religion. In a better world, these rights would be exercised in a manner that is consistent with a reasoned selection of medical care among choices supported by the best available scientific evidence. If, for example, deeply religious parents choose to forego a treatment that had only a minimal chance of extending their child’s life and terrible side effects in favor of palliative care because they believe that their child would be better off in heaven we could all agree that their choice is constitutionally protected.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. Religious believers and those whose “philosophy” favors pseudoscience in child medical care (surveys bloviating about the popularity of CAM to the contrary) are in fact a tiny minority of the American population who influence public policy in a manner that far exceeds their actual numbers. This influence allows these special interest groups to cause needless suffering and death among children and their families. As well, their actions siphon off medical and legal resources that could more properly be directed toward the common good when states and medical institutions are put in the position of having to go to court to protect children from their parents. And, by giving parents false choices between a belief in magic and standard medical care, unnecessary complications are introduced into what are already difficult and heart-wrenching decisions by parents who truly want to act in the best interests of their children. (more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Epidemiology, Legal, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation, Religion, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (75) →

The illusions of “right to try” laws

There is nothing like a touching anecdote to spur a politician into action. And those who want to try investigational drugs outside the FDA’s clinical trial process have touching anecdotes in spades. If I, or a loved one, had a terminal cancer, I’d probably be right there with them, telling my story and hoping to get my hands on an investigational drug, no matter how slim the chance for improvement it offered. But a less emotion-driven analysis of so-called “Right to Try” bills currently before several state legislatures reveals some sobering truths about the false promises behind these bills, promises which in some cases appear to be driven more by political ideology than genuine concern for patients.

“Right to Try” bills are pending before four state legislatures: Colorado, Louisiana, Arizona and Missouri. We’ll get to the details of these in a bit. Legislators in other states have expressed an interest in filing similar bills. On February 26th, a Missouri legislative committee “heard emotional debate from supporters of a bill that would allow makers of investigational drugs, biological products or devices to make them available to eligible terminal patients.” Among those testifying were the parents of a young girl with a brain tumor and the father, a physician, of a patient with metastatic colon cancer. These stories are hard to hear and make it hard to say no.

The Right to Try bill has been christened with another catchy name (Warning! Link to credulous media report!) – the Dallas Buyer’s Club bill after the terrific movie which just won Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto Academy Awards for best actor and best supporting actor, and deservedly so. It depicts a macho, homophobic, HIV-infected cowboy (McConaughey) who saves the day battling the evil, bureaucratic FDA and the medical establishment. He skirts the law to bring life-saving drugs to AIDS patients at a time when AIDS was pretty much a death sentence. The plot even includes a delicensed American doctor who supplies the unapproved drugs from his Mexican clinic. And dietary supplements, of course. (You’d be tempted to suspect Stanislaw Burzynski, Hulda Clark and a naturopath co-authored the script.) But no matter its merits as a movie, it is just that, a movie. It is based on a true story but its interpretation of events has been called into question. (Orac also deconstructs the factual inaccuracies on Respectful Insolence today.) Nevertheless, it is a public relations boon to the Right to Try promoters, although, considering their decidedly right-leaning political inclinations, there has to be a certain amount of squeamishness in associating their cause with a movie featuring raunchy, sexually-explicit scenes, lots and lots of cussing, and a colorfully dressed trans-gender person (Leto) as its most sympathetic character. (more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Legal, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (62) →

A cure for chiropractic

Almost 10 years ago, a thoughtful article, entitled “Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession”, appeared in the journal Chiropractic & Osteopathy. The authors were a group of both academic and practicing chiropractors, as well as representatives from a health insurer specializing in coverage of CAM provider services. Another article, under different authorship, appeared the same year deploring some aspects of chiropractic education. In 2008, a third article came out with a similar theme, “How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry.” All three are open access and worth reading. The authors are to be commended for taking on an extremely contentious subject in their own profession.

The first article is a refreshingly honest look at the current state of chiropractic. The authors note the inability of chiropractors to consistently define who they are and what they do, which results in public confusion (including among those in the healthcare industry) about just what role chiropractors should play in the healthcare system. The authors deplore the continued existence of the “subluxation” in chiropractic and it’s accommodation by no less than the Association of Chiropractic Colleges. And they thoroughly deconstruct any notion that such a thing exists. The idea that chiropractors are capable of acting as primary care physicians is given equally short shrift and debunked as well.

The article points out that, whatever the confusion among chiropractors about who they are and what they do, the public has decided on its own: the public perception of chiropractors is that of back pain specialists. Back-related problems account for over 90% of the reason patients see chiropractors. They also argue that chiropractic must embrace evidence-based healthcare and stop relying on their clinical experience, noting the many reasons (e.g., regression to the mean) that a chiropractor’s observations may be explained by something other than treatment effectiveness. They admit that the chiropractor’s stock-in-trade, spinal manipulation, might not hold up under an evidence-based standard. (A possibility that is becoming a reality.) They even quote Marcia Angel’s observation on “alternative” medicine:

There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work.

(more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic, Legal, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (348) →

Twenty days in primary care practice, or “naturopathic residency”

The metastasis of alternative medicine throughout the health care system comes, in no small part, at the hands of the federal and state governments, mostly the latter and most particularly the state legislatures. Under their jurisdiction rests the decision of who can, and cannot, become a licensed health care practitioner, and what they can, and cannot, do. This is the gateway through which much of pseudo-medicine flows.

I’ve read many CAM practitioner licensing statutes (all of the chiropractic practice acts, in fact) and many legislative proposals to license or to expand the scope of practice. Typical of the boilerplate recited in support of this legislation is the education and training of these practitioners, which is touted as a means of protecting the public from charlatans and quacks out there selling snake oil to the credulous. Naturopathic licensing bills routinely require graduation from a naturopathic “medical” school accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education. (See, for example, Michigan House Bill 4152, which both David Gorski and I have discussed on SBM.) Unfortunately, what CAM provider legislation often does is simply provide legal cover for selling that very same snake oil.

Naturopaths are licensed in 17 states so far, although what they can and can’t do varies considerably. In some states, they have a scope of practice similar to that of an M.D. or D.O. primary care physician. At the most liberal end of this spectrum, N.D.s can prescribe drugs (as Michigan’s bill would allow), although this, too, varies depending on what’s listed on the state’s naturopathic formulary.

All of this has led me to conclude that the state legislatures do not have internet connections. Because, if they did, it would be pretty easy to Google around and figure out just what this naturopathic “medical” education entails and how practicing naturopaths apply their education and training in actual practice. In fact, I’ve done this myself and reported the results here on SBM. In the last day or so, I found out even more by looking around the websites of the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, the American Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools, and its member institutions. We’ll get to the fruits of that research in a minute. (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Homeopathy, Legal, Naturopathy, Pharmaceuticals, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (26) →

Ngrams and CAM

Ngram is a Google analytic tool/way to waste lots of time on the internet, a byproduct of Google’s scanning millions of books into its database. In a matter of seconds, Ngram scans words from about 7.5 million books, an estimated 6 percent of all books ever published. Type a word or phrase in the Ngram Viewer search box and in seconds a chart of its yearly frequency will appear. You can also search for a series of words or phrases and the Viewer will provide a color-coded chart comparing frequency of use. More sophisticated searches (e.g., making the search case sensitive, or not) are also possible.

As explained in the New York Times, researchers “have used this system to analyze centuries of word use, examining the spread of scientific concepts, technological innovations, political repression, and even celebrity fame.” Erez Aiden, a computer scientist who helped create the word frequency tool, says he and his co-researcher, Jean-Baptiste Michel, wanted “to create a scientific measuring instrument, something like a telescope, but instead of pointing it at a star, you point it at human culture.” In fact, the title of their new book is Uncharted: Big Data as a Lens on Human Culture. Still, they caution that, like other scientific tools, Ngram’s results can be misinterpreted. An example: the fax machine. If you query that term, it looks as if the fax appears almost instantaneously in the 1980s. In reality, the machine was invented in the 1840s but was then called the “telefax.”

If Ngram can search for scientific concepts, how about unscientific concepts? What might a search of unscientific concepts tell us about our human culture? Let’s find out. (more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Computers & Internet, Herbs & Supplements, History, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine

Leave a Comment (26) →

2013 Legislative Review: placenta take out

It’s official in Oregon now. You can take your placenta, along with your new baby, home from the hospital. This was already a practice among the CAM set but apparently new mothers were running afoul of laws designed to protect us from bio-hazards. New legislation exempts “the removal from a health care facility . . . of a placenta by a postpartum mother.”

Now, why would anyone want a placenta? Well, SBM is nothing if not your complete source of all things CAM and Harriet Hall has already covered the subject. The short answer is that in Traditional Chinese Medicine placenta-eating is thought to confer all sorts of health benefits on the new mother. I learned of this new law from USA Today, which explains that “some experts say” it has positive health benefits. Well, thank goodness for that. Wouldn’t want a new law passed without “experts” weighing in.

But if handling a placenta makes you squeamish, not to worry. The Placenta Power Wellness Service in Portland (among others) will steam, dehydrate and encapsulate it into a handy pill form for about $150-$250. (Each placenta will make 80-120 capsules, according to the website). If you wish, you can get raw placenta encapsulation instead. Placenta tincture, placenta salve and a print of your placenta (sort of like those newborn footprints) are available for extra. That would be a real conversation starter, sitting there on the mantel.

According to Placenta Power Wellness Service, anecdotal evidence shows women experience an increase in energy, mood enhancement, milk supply and feelings of elation. Plus, it’s been used in Traditional Chinese Medicine “for centuries.”

And folks, that is all you need to get a statute passed adding practices or products to the legally-available health care armamentarium: anecdotes, sometimes relayed by “experts.” Traditional use is icing on the cake. (Or maybe the placenta.) It’s the reason for the DSHEA, the chiropractic, acupuncture and naturopathic practice acts, “health freedom” laws, and getting the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia dumped in toto into federal law, with updates courtesy of the homeopathic industry. “I’ve seen it work!” “It worked for me!” Depending on the method, the evidence for the astounding variety of practices and products legally permitted by these laws generally ranges between none and some, with, I’d wager, most hovering in the “it can’t work” to the “we don’t know if it works” range. Not to mention the evidence of safety, or lack thereof. (more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Legal, Naturopathy, Obstetrics & gynecology, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (76) →

The Exciting Conclusion

On the slim chance that you’ve been perched on the edge of your seat wondering how the New Mexico appellate court ruled on chiropractic prescription privileges, whether the Council on Chiropractic Education got approved for another three years as an accrediting agency, if NCCAM ever came clean about spinal manipulation, and the fate of Brandon Babcock, DC, at the hands of the judicial system, here are your updates.

Prescription privileges for New Mexico chiropractors

A surprisingly titillating tidbit about New Mexico “advanced practice” chiropractors.

As discussed in previous posts, New Mexico “advanced practice” chiropractors succeeded in getting limited prescription rights. The statute specifically says they can:

prescribe, administer and dispense herbal medicines, homeopathic medicines, over-the-counter drugs, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, glandular products, protomorphogens, live cell products, gerovital, amino acids, dietary supplements, foods for special dietary use, bioidentical hormones, sterile water, sterile saline, sarapin or its generic, caffeine, procaine, oxygen, epinephrine and vapocoolants.

However,

Dangerous drugs or controlled substances, drugs for administration by injection and substances not listed [above] shall be submitted to the board of pharmacy and the New Mexico medical board for approval.

Apparently, the Chiropractic board couldn’t read the plain language of the statute and blew off this requirement, even though their own lawyer told them they couldn’t. This got them hauled into court by the medical and pharmacy boards. The International Chiropractors Association joined the fight. (more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic, Health Fraud, Legal, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (28) →

The Council on Chiropractic Education Straightens Up?

Three years ago, we reported that the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) was deeply embroiled in a heated dispute among various chiropractic factions over its new accreditation standards for chiropractic colleges. In a June, 2012 update of that post, we found the CCE still deeply embroiled in a heated dispute among various chiropractic factions over new accreditation standards for chiropractic colleges. Current events, however, require that we now report that the CCE remains deeply embroiled in a heated dispute among various chiropractic factions over new accreditation standards for chiropractic colleges. And it has come to this:

CCE does not represent me

Ostensibly, the debate is about whether chiropractic students should be taught to detect and correct the putative subluxation and CCE’s commitment to chiropractic’s remaining a drug and surgery-free practice. As we have discussed several times here at SBM, a faction of chiropractors fancy themselves as primary care physicians who are competent to diagnose and treat patients with a wide variety of diseases and conditions, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, with various methods, such as “Functional Endocrinology.” This is, in fact, the position of the largest and most mainstream of the chiropractic trade associations, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA). (The ACA is actively promoting reimbursement of chiropractors for required primary care benefits under the Affordable Care Act.)

At the other end of the spectrum, the chiropractic purists (or “straights”) believe chiropractors should limit themselves to the detection and correction of the (non-existent) chiropractic subluxation. And they are adamant about chiropractic remaining “without drugs or surgery.”

Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, chiropractic belief in the subluxation is widespread among chiropractors in North America and in Australia. And as far as I can tell, chiropractors who eschew belief in the subluxation have merely renamed it and redefined it in terms so vague as to be meaningless. Those who want to expand chiropractic to include a broader range of treatments do not exclude the subluxation as a relevant clinical entity. They’ve simply tarted it up in an attempt to obscure its lack of scientific viability. (more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic, Legal, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (87) →
Page 1 of 8 12345...»