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).
Archive for Chiropractic
It’s been a recurring theme on this blog to discuss and dissect the infiltration of quackademic medicine into our medical schools. Whether it be called “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) or “integrative medicine” (IM), its infiltration into various academic medical centers has been one of the more alarming developments I’ve noted over the last several years. The reason is that “integrative” medicine is all too often in reality nothing more than “integrating” pseudoscience with science, quackery with medicine. The most popular modalities that medical schools and academic medicine centers can’t seem to resist are acupuncture and various forms of “energy” healing, such as reiki and therapeutic touch. Unfortunately, when you “integrate” something like reiki or therapeutic touch (TT), which basically assert that there is mystical, magical energy source (called the “universal source” by reiki practitioners, for example) that practitioners can tap into and channel into patients for healing effect, you are in essence integrating a prescientific understanding of the world with science, religious faith healing (which, let’s face it, is all that reiki is), and magic with reality.
Why would medical institutions ostensibly based on science do that?
I don’t know, but I know it’s happening. There are many forces that conspire to insert sectarian versions of medicine into bastions of scientific medicine. These include cultural relativism leading to a reluctance to call quackery quackery; financial forces such as the Bravewell Collaborative, which funds a number of IM programs at academic centers; the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM); and a variety of other factors. It’s been a depressing slide, and periodically I wonder just how much more pseudoscience can be “integrated” into medical schools and academic medical centers or how much further medical schools can go in pandering to nonsense. I’m not wondering anymore, at least for now, not after learning about a cooperative agreement between Georgetown University and the National University of Health Sciences:
A good case of smallpox may rid the system of more scrofulous, tubercular, syphilitic and other poisons than could otherwise be eliminated in a lifetime. Therefore, smallpox is certainly to be preferred to vaccination. The one means elimination of chronic disease, the other the making of it.
Naturopaths do not believe in artificial immunization . . .
—Harry Riley Spitler, Basic Naturopathy: a textbook (American Naturopathic Association, Inc., 1948). Quoted here.
Here’s what a good case of smallpox will do for you:
If you’re lucky enough to beat the reaper (20-60%; 80% or higher in infants) or blindness (up to 30%), those blisters will leave you scarred for life. Oh, and the next time a good smallpox epidemic comes around, your children born since the last one will catch it and contribute their fair share to the death rate. But not you because you’ll be immune, so you’ll have the “preferred” experience of watching your children die well before you do.
EDITOR’S NOTE Today is a big grant deadline for me; at 5 PM EDT, the grant is due. As a consequence of working on my grant application into the wee hours of the morning last night, I didn’t have a chance to write my usual bit of logorrhea of the sort that I’ve laid down each and practically every Monday for the last three-plus years. Fortunately, retired chiropractor turned skeptic of chiropractic Sam Homola was ready to fill in admirably just for this week. Although I might throw up a post later this week, worst case scenario, I’ll be back here, same time, same day, same Bat Channel. In the meantime, take it away, Sam!
As a chiropractor, I am often asked why the image of chiropractic is so bad. “Why is chiropractic so often ignored by the media and ridiculed by physicians?” Journalists and health professionals tend to judge chiropractic by the worst of what they see, and what they see is often bad. This March 15, 2011, post from a chiropractic group asking for money to provide chiropractic services for earthquake and tsunami victims in Japan is a good example of why chiropractic has a bad image:
Please consider donating whatever you can to the SOTO-I/PAAC [Sacro Occipital Teaching Organization International-Pacific Asian Association of Chiropractic] Japan Relief Fund. 100% of your donation will go directly to helping the needy Japanese people through SOT Chiropractic treatments and services.
Please consider this avenue of donation rather than the Red Cross etc. While they are worthy organizations, we have ZERO overhead to administration and the funds will provide CHIROPRACTIC services to the needy. Please recommend this avenue of aid to your patients and friends also. Any and everything will help!
Practitioners of Sacro Occipital Technic (SOT) and SOT Craniopathy claim to restore innate healing capacity by removing neurological interference and improving the flow of cerebrospinal fluid (“craniosacral respiration”). Vertebral subluxations affecting certain organs are found by palpating tendon insertions at the base of the skull. Craniosacral respiration is improved by adjusting the bones of the skull and the sacroiliac joint.
There are dozens of such nonsensical chiropractic treatment methods foisted on the public through “press releases” and junk-science journals. NUCCA (upper cervical technique), which identifies slight misalignment of the atlas as a major cause of human ailments, is a commonly-promoted technique based on chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory.
This press release further illustrates the reason for chiropractic’s bad image:
A revolutionary neuro relief technique is being used by chiropractors across the United States and Canada to treat a wide-array of Symptoms and Chronic Disorders they were never before able to handle. This technique, when applied correctly performs absolute miracles for patients who have been suffering for an extensive period in their lives. Thus patients are happier and chiropractors are increasing their visibility and incomes!
I have been in Infectious Diseases for almost 25 years. I have two major jobs: I see inpatient consults and I chair the Infection Control program. I have been involved in quality improvement, especially as it relates to hospital acquired infections, for my entire career. It has been an interesting quarter century. Year after year we have driven down infection rates and other kinds of mortality and morbidity in hospitalized patients. Everyone recognizes that medicine is difficult and dangerous and its biggest problem is medicine is practiced by humans, who, I would venture to observe, are prone to mistakes and any number of cognitive errors.
It has not been a easy journey. People hate change and there has not always been certainty as to the best options to choose to solve a problem, a problem that continues today. For example, how best to treat a patient with potential methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization (MRSA). Should we screen everyone? Screen high risk patients? Surgical patients? Do we decolonize, with the long term consequence of accelerating antibiotic resistance? Do we place everyone with MRSA in isolation, with the known decrease in care that patients in isolation may have? Everything we do has potential downsides and unintended consequences. No good deed ever goes unpunished.
This is the second post in a series* prompted by an essay by statistician Stephen Simon, who argued that Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) is not lacking in the ways that we at Science-Based Medicine have argued. David Gorski responded here, and Prof. Simon responded to Dr. Gorski here. Between that response and the comments following Dr. Gorski’s post it became clear to me that a new round of discussion would be worth the effort.
Part I of this series provided ample evidence for EBM’s “scientific blind spot”: the EBM Levels of Evidence scheme and EBM’s most conspicuous exponents consistently fail to consider all of the evidence relevant to efficacy claims, choosing instead to rely almost exclusively on randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). The several quoted Cochrane abstracts, regarding homeopathy and Laetrile, suggest that in the EBM lexicon, “evidence” and “RCTs” are almost synonymous. Yet basic science or preliminary clinical studies provide evidence sufficient to refute some health claims (e.g., homeopathy and Laetrile), particularly those emanating from the social movement known by the euphemism “CAM.”
It’s remarkable to consider just how unremarkable that last sentence ought to be. EBM’s founders understood the proper role of the rigorous clinical trial: to be the final arbiter of any claim that had already demonstrated promise by all other criteria—basic science, animal studies, legitimate case series, small controlled trials, “expert opinion,” whatever (but not inexpert opinion). EBM’s founders knew that such pieces of evidence, promising though they may be, are insufficient because they “routinely lead to false positive conclusions about efficacy.” They must have assumed, even if they felt no need to articulate it, that claims lacking such promise were not part of the discussion. Nevertheless, the obvious point was somehow lost in the subsequent formalization of EBM methods, and seems to have been entirely forgotten just when it ought to have resurfaced: during the conception of the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine’s Introduction to Evidence-Based Complementary Medicine.
Thus, in 2000, the American Heart Journal (AHJ) could publish an unchallenged editorial arguing that Na2EDTA chelation “therapy” could not be ruled out as efficacious for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease because it hadn’t yet been subjected to any large RCTs—never mind that there had been several small ones, and abundant additional evidence from basic science, case studies, and legal documents, all demonstrating that the treatment is both useless and dangerous. The well-powered RCT had somehow been transformed, for practical purposes, from the final arbiter of efficacy to the only arbiter. If preliminary evidence was no longer to have practical consequences, why bother with it at all? This was surely an example of what Prof. Simon calls “Poorly Implemented Evidence Based Medicine,” but one that was also implemented by the very EBM experts who ought to have recognized the fallacy.
There will be more evidence for these assertions as we proceed, but the main thrust of Part II is to begin to respond to this statement from Prof. Simon: “There is some societal value in testing therapies that are in wide use, even though there is no scientifically valid reason to believe that those therapies work.”
The long-simmering internecine wars among various factions of chiropractic recently reached a full boil when the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) had the audacity to eliminate the word “subluxation” from its draft 2012 “Standards for Doctor of Chiropractic Programs.” The CCE is the official U.S. Department of Education-approved accreditation agency for chiropractic colleges. It intends to adopt the revised Standards in January 2011and asked for comment from those affected.
“Totally unacceptable,” is the response of James Edwards, DC, in a recent article in Dynamic Chiropractic entitled “What Is the CCE Trying to Pull?”
Perhaps taking up the spirit of this election season, Edwards defines the problem in terms of conservative vs. liberal ideologies: “After beating back and defeating the ridiculous ‘subluxation only, no diagnosis’ position of the extreme right-wing minority of the profession, we are now faced with the equally unacceptable ‘ivory tower’ position of the extreme left-wing minority of the profession.” Later in the article he refers to the proponents as the “left-wing fringe.”
If you go to the website of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), you’ll find that one of its self-identified roles is to “provide information about CAM.” NCCAM Director Josephine Briggs is proud to assert that the website fulfills this expectation. As many readers will recall, three of your bloggers visited the NCCAM last April, after having received an invitation from Dr. Briggs. We differed from her in our opinion of the website: one of our suggestions was that the NCCAM could do a better job providing American citizens with useful and accurate information about “CAM.”
We cited, among several examples, the website offering little response to the dangerous problem of widespread misinformation about childhood immunizations. As Dr. Novella subsequently reported, it seemed that we’d scored a point on that one:
…Dr. Briggs did agree that anti-vaccine sentiments are common in the world of CAM and that the NCCAM can do more to combat this. Information countering anti-vaccine propaganda would be a welcome addition to the NCCAM site.
In anticipation of SBM’s Vaccine Awareness Week, I decided to find out whether such a welcome addition has come to fruition. The short answer: nope.
A couple of weeks ago, in a review of the Mayo Clinic Book of Home Remedies, Harriet Hall expressed relief that she hadn’t found any “questionable recommendations for complementary & alternative medicine (CAM) treatments” in that book:
Since “quackademic” medicine is infiltrating our best institutions and organizations, I wasn’t sure I could trust even the prestigious Mayo Clinic.
The Home Remedies book may be free of woo, but Dr. Hall was right to wonder if she could trust the Mayo Clinic. About a year ago I was asked to comment on an article in the American Journal of Hematology (AJH), in which investigators from the Mayo Clinic reported that among a cohort of lymphoma patients who were “CAM” users,
There was a general lack of knowledge about forms of CAM, and about potential risks associated with specific types of CAM…
This suggests the need to improve access to evidence-based information regarding CAM to all patients with lymphoma.
The Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine details dozens of natural therapies that have worked safely for many patients in treating 20 top health issues. You may be surprised that Mayo Clinic now urges you and your doctor to consider yoga, garlic, acupuncture, dietary supplements and other natural therapies. Yet the record is clear. Many of these alternative therapies can help you achieve reduced arthritis pain, healthier coronary arteries, improved diabetes management, better memory function and more.
Nor could such a paradox be explained by the right hand not having known what the left was doing: Brent Bauer, MD, the Director of the Mayo Clinic Complementary and Integrative Medicine Program, is both the medical editor of the Book of Alternative Medicine (MCBAM) and a co-author of the article in the AJH.
As chance would have it, I had picked up a copy of the latest (2011) edition of the MCBAM only a couple of days before Dr. Hall’s post. Does it live up to its promises? Do its “straight answers from the world’s leading medical experts” respond to “the need to improve access to evidence-based information regarding CAM?” Let’s find out. In some cases I’ll state the implied questions and provide the straight answers.
A 1997 publication by the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, supporting the vertebral subluxation theory, noted that “…we [chiropractors] have successfully distanced the concept of a chiropractic subluxation from that of an orthopedic subluxation.”1 When discussing “subluxations” or misaligned vertebrae, however, chiropractors often fail to point out the difference between an orthopedic subluxation and a chiropractic subluxation. Reference to subluxations in medical literature is often presented as support for the practice of chiropractic as a method of adjusting vertebral subluxations to “restore and maintain health.”
In the eyes of the public, the chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory has confused the definition of the word “subluxation,” a common medical term. Unlike the mysterious, undetectable and asymptomatic chiropractic “vertebral subluxation complex” alleged to be a cause of disease, a real vertebral subluxation, that is, an orthopedic subluxation, can be a cause of mechanical and neuromusculoskeletal symptoms but has never been associated with organic disease.
Subluxations: Real and Imaginary
An orthopedic subluxation, recognized and named as such since the days of Hippocrates, is a painful partial dislocation. Simple misalignment of a vertebra, also referred to as a “subluxation,” is commonly caused by disc degeneration, curvatures, spondylolysis, and structural abnormalities. Such a subluxation may or may not be mechanically symptomatic and can be seen on a plain x-ray image. In the absence of pathology such as disc herniation or osteophyte formation, these common vertebral subluxations or misalignments rarely affect spinal nerves and have never been associated with organic disease. Spinal nerves supply musculoskeletal structures. The body’s organs are supplied primarily by autonomic nerve ganglia and plexuses located outside the spinal column and by cranial and sacral nerves that pass through solid bony openings, providing overlapping nerve supply independent of any one spinal nerve that passes between two vertebrae.
An orthopedic subluxation, a true vertebral misalignment, or a mechanical joint dysfunction that affects mobility in the spine is not the same as a “chiropractic subluxation” that is alleged to cause disease by interfering with nerve supply to organs. Such a subluxation has never been proven to exist. There is no plausible theory and no credible evidence to support the contention that “nerve interference” originating in a single spinal segment can cause an organic disease.