Articles

Archive for Basic Science

Answering another criticism of science-based medicine

In the three and a half years that the Science-Based Medicine blog has existed, we contributors have come in for our share of criticism. Sometimes, the criticism is relatively mild; often it’s based on a misunderstanding of what SBM is; but sometimes it’s quite nasty. I can’t speak for the rest of the SBM crew on this, but I’ve gotten used to it. It comes with the territory, and there’s little to do about it other than to skim each criticism as it comes in to see if the author makes any valid points and, if he doesn’t, to ignore it and move on. Indeed, there’s enough criticism being flung our way that I rarely respond directly anymore. Exceptions tend to be egregious examples, incidents that spark real problems, such as when Age of Autism blogger and anti-vaccine activist Jake Crosby tried to paint me as being hopelessly in the thrall of big pharma, which resulted in the anti-vaccine horde who read that blog to try to get me fired by sending complaints to the Board of Governors at my university and the dean of my medical school. Other examples tend to be what I call “teachable moments,” in which the mistakes made in the criticism provide fodder for making a point about SBM versus alternative medicine, “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), or “integrative medicine” (IM)—or whatever the nom du jour is.

File this next one under the “teachable moment” variety of criticism directed at SBM.
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Clinical Trials, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (34) →

Scientific evidence for synergy in a botanical product

So, you’re curious about herbal medicine. Is there any truth to this stuff?

Uncle Howie tells you that he read in the National Enquirer about an herb that has better antibacterial effects on cuts and scrapes than Neosporin ointment — never mind that Neosporin is composed of three different antibiotics that come originally from bacteria themselves.

So you set out on a quest to purchase some of this herb, known colloquially as goldenseal. When you go to your local Whole Hippie Dump-a-Load-of-Cash Emporium you find goldenseal alright, in about twenty different forms. On one side of the aisle are containers with loose, crushed up leaves and roots that look like medical marijuana. On a shelf, you find see-through capsules that seem to contain a powdered version of the herb. Down the aisle a bit you find boxes of blister-packs containing a proprietary extract of free-range goldenseal from the Appalachians harvested under moonlight by bare-breasted virgins. The same company also makes an ointment, allegedly procured the same way.

(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Herbs & Supplements

Leave a Comment (46) →

“CAM” Education in Medical Schools—A Critical Opportunity Missed

Mea culpa to the max. I completely forgot that today is my day to post on SBM, so I’m going to have to cheat a little. Here is a link to a recent article by yours truly that appeared on Virtual Mentor, an online ethics journal published by the AMA with major input from medical students. Note that I didn’t write the initial scenario; that was provided to me for my comments. The contents for the entire issue, titled “Complementary and Alternative Therapies—Medicine’s Response,” are here. Check out some of the other contributors (I was unaware of who they would be when I agreed to write my piece).

Posted in: Acupuncture, Basic Science, Chiropractic, Energy Medicine, Herbs & Supplements, History, Homeopathy, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (10) →

Et tu, Biomarkers?

Everything you know may be wrong. Well, not really, but reading the research of John Ioannidis does make you wonder. His work, concentrated on research about research, is a popular topic here at SBM.  And that’s because he’s focused on improving the way evidence is brought to bear on decision-making. His most famous papers get to the core of questioning how we know what we know (or what we assume) to be evidence. (more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Clinical Trials, Epidemiology, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (10) →

Fungus yields new prescription drug for multiple sclerosis

The following post appeared earlier this week at my Chemical & Engineering News CENtral Science blog, Terra Sigillata. For some odd reason – perhaps this week’s frantic academic schedule of commencement activities – it was not highly read there. I thought that our Science-Based Medicine readers would appreciate it because this new prescription drug is derived from a family of fungi that have been used in traditional Chinese medicine. A few editorial changes have been made later in the post to increase the relevance to our readership here.

ResearchBlogging.orgA very well-written review of an orally-active drug for multiple sclerosis has just appeared in the April 25th issue of the Journal of Natural Products, a joint publication of the American Chemical Society and the American Society of Pharmacognosy.

The review, Fingolimod (FTY720): A Recently Approved Multiple Sclerosis Drug Based on a Fungal Secondary Metabolite, is co-authored by Cherilyn R. Strader, Cedric J. Pearce, and Nicholas H. Oberlies. In the interest of full disclosure, the latter two gentlemen are research collaborators of mine from Mycosynthetix, Inc. (Hillsborough, NC) and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. My esteemed colleague and senior author, Dr. Oberlies, modestly deflected my request to blog about the publication of this review.

So, I am instead writing this post to promote the excellent work of his student and first author, Cherilyn Strader. As of [Wednesday] morning, this review article is first on the list of most-read articles in the Journal. This status is noteworthy because the review has moved ahead of even the famed David Newman and Gordon Cragg review of natural product-sourced drugs of the last 25 years, the JNP equivalent of Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon (the album known for its record 14-year stay on the Billboard music charts.).

(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Neuroscience/Mental Health, Pharmaceuticals

Leave a Comment (5) →

Hope and hype in genomics and “personalized medicine”

“Personalized medicine.” You’ve probably heard the term. It’s a bit of a buzzword these days and refers to a vision of future medicine in which therapies are much more tightly tailored to individual patients than they currently are. That’s not to say that as physicians we haven’t practiced personalized medicine before; certainly we have. However it has only been in the last decade or so that our understanding of genomics, systems biology, and cell signaling have evolved to the point where the vision of personalized medicine based on each patient’s genome and biology might be achievable within my lifetime.

I was thinking about personalized medicine recently because of the confluence of several events. First, I remembered a post I wrote late last year about integrating patient values and experience into the decision process regarding treatment plans. Second, a couple of months ago, Skeptical Inquirer published an execrably nihilistic article by Dr. Reynold Spector in Skeptical Inquirer in which he declared personalized medicine to be one of his “seven deadly medical hypotheses,” even though he never actually demonstrated why it is deadly or that it’s even really a hypothesis. Come to think of it, with maybe–and I’m being very generous here–one exception, that pretty much describes all of Dr. Spector’s “seven deadly medical hypotheses”: Each is either not a hypothesis, not deadly, or is neither of the two. Third, this time last week I was attending the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting in Orlando. I don’t really like Orlando much (if you’re not into Disney and tourist traps, it’s not the greatest town to hang out in for four days), but I do love me some good cancer science. One thing that was immediately apparent to me from the first sessions on Sunday and perusing the educational sessions on Saturday was that currently the primary wave in cancer research is all about harnessing the advances in genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and systems and computational biology, as well as the technologies such as next generation sequencing (NGS) techniques to understand the biology of each cancer and thereby target therapies more closely to what biological abnormalities drive each cancer. You can get an idea of this from the promotional video the AACR played between its plenary sessions:

Which is actually a fairly good short, optimistic version of my post Why haven’t we cured cancer yet? As I mentioned before, with this year being the 40th anniversary of the National Cancer Act, as December approaches expect a lot of articles and press stories asking that very question, and I’m sure this won’t be the last time I write about this this year.
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Cancer, Clinical Trials, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (18) →

An ICD Code for the Running Piglets!

… animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the emperor; (b) embalmed ones; (c) those that are trained; (d) suckling pigs; (e) mermaids; (f) fabulous ones; (g) stray dogs; (h) those that are included in this classification; (i) those that tremble as if they were mad; (j) innumerable ones; (k) those drawn with a very fine camel’s-hair brush; (l) etcetera; (m) those that have just broken the flower vase; (n) those that at a distance resemble flies.

– Jorge Luis Borges (1899–1986)1

Not too long ago, I came across a disease taxonomy proposed by a certain East-West Medical Research Institute (EWMRI), that includes the kind of fantastic afflictions — such as “running piglet” disorder — fit for the best Borgesian list.

This obscure institute, located at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea, is one of the 800 WHO Collaborating Centres designated to carry out various activities in support of the Organization’s programs. With the collaboration of China, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and the US, this center is working to incorporate medieval Asian disease nomenclature to the 11th version of the International Classification of Disease (ICD-11).
(more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Basic Science, General, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (269) →

Are you sure you’re allergic to penicillin?

As a pharmacist, when I dispense medication, it’s my responsibility to ensure that the medication is safe and appropriate for the patient. There are numerous checks we go through including verifying the dose, ensuring there are no interactions with other drugs, and verifying the patient has no history of allergy to the product prescribed. Asking about allergies is a mandatory question for every new patient.

Penicillin is one of the oldest antibiotics still in use despite widespread bacterial resistance. Multiple analogs of penicillin have been developed to change its effectiveness, or improve its tolerability. And other classes of antibiotics (e.g., cephalosporins) share some structural features with penicillin. These products are widely used for both routine and serious bacterial infections. Unfortunately, allergies to penicillin are widely reported. Statistically, one in ten of you reading this post will respond that you’re allergic to penicillin. Yet the incidence of anaphylaxis to penicillin is estimated to be only 1 to 5 per 10,000. So why do so many people believe they’re allergic to penicillin? Much of it comes down to how we define “allergy.”

(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science

Leave a Comment (50) →

The NCCAM Strategic Plan 2011-2015: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

As hard as it is to believe, it’s been nearly a year since Steve Novella, Kimball Atwood, and I were invited to meet with the director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), Dr. Josephine Briggs. Depending upon the day, sometimes it seems like just yesterday; sometimes it seems like ancient history. For more details, read Steve’s account of our visit, but the CliffsNotes version is that we had a pleasant conversation in which we discussed our objections to how NCCAM funds dubious science and advocacy of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). When we left the NIH campus, our impression was that Dr. Briggs is well-meaning and dedicated to increasing the scientific rigor of NCCAM studies but doesn’t understand the depths of pseudoscience that constitute much of what passes for CAM. We were also somewhat optimistic that we had at least managed to communicate some of our most pressing practical concerns, chief among which is the anti-vaccine bent of so much of CAM and how we hoped that NCCAM would at least combat some of that on its website.

Looking at the NCCAM website, I see no evidence that there has been any move to combat the anti-vaccine tendencies of CAM by posting pro-vaccination pieces or articles refuting common anti-vaccine misinformation. Of all the topics we discussed, it was clearest that everyone, including Dr. Briggs, agreed that the NCCAM can’t be perceived as supporting anti-vaccine viewpoints, and although it doesn’t explicitly do so, neither does it do much to combat the anti-vaccine viewpoints so ingrained in CAM. As far as I’m concerned, I’m with Kimball in asserting that NCCAM’s silence on the matter is in effect tacit approval of anti-vaccine viewpoints. Be that as it may, not long afterward, Dr. Briggs revealed that she had met with homeopaths around the same time she had met with us, suggesting that we were simply brought in so that she could say she had met with “both sides.” Later, she gave a talk to the 25th Anniversary Convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), which is truly a bastion of pseudoscience.

In other words, I couldn’t help but get the sinking feeling that we had been played. Not that we weren’t mildly suspicious when we traveled to Bethesda, but from our perspective we really didn’t have a choice: if we were serious about our mission to promote science-based medicine, Dr. Briggs’ was truly an offer we could not refuse. We had to go. Period. I can’t speak for Steve or Kimball, but I was excited to go as well. Never in my wildest dreams had it occurred to me that the director of NCCAM would even notice what we were writing, much less take it seriously enough to invite us out for a visit. I bring all this up because last week NCCAM did something that might provide an indication of whether it’s changed, whether Dr. Briggs has truly embraced the idea that rigorous science should infuse NCCAM and all that it does, let the chips fall where they may. Last week, NCCAM released its five year strategic plan for 2011 to 2015.

Truly, it’s a case of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Clinical Trials, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (54) →

Old drugs, new tricks

What does honey bee colony collapse disorder have to do with a potential new cancer treatment?

They both relate – in a convoluted manner – to an old antibacterial drug called nitroxoline.

True to my devotion as a natural product pharmacologist, I’m proud to say that new life would not have come to nitroxoline had not a fungal natural product called fumagillin been studied as an antiangiogenic anticancer drug – one that inhibits the formation of new blood vessels.

(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Cancer, History, Pharmaceuticals

Leave a Comment (45) →
Page 8 of 13 «...678910...»