Articles

Archive for Energy Medicine

Homeocracy IV

In the three prior posts of this series I tried to analyze some of the defects in the randomized clinical rials (RCTs) of homeopathic remedies for childhood diarrhea. The first entry showed that the first two RCTs’ (done in Nicaragua) methods could not produce a meaningful result because of the way the RCTs were set up (methods.) The second entry showed that the results obtained in the first two trials were meaningless clinically even if assumed to have resulted from more legitimate methods. The same applied to the third trial in Nepal, analyzed in the third entry.

This entry  will suggest that the authors’ fourth paper (Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials.  Pediat Inf Dis J, 2005;22:229-234.)- a meta-analysis (MA) of the data from the three RCTs resulted in conclusions equally as meaningless as those of the three trials.

The MA authors – several of the same workers from the three RCTs – begin by agreeing that the data from the RCTs, taken individually, were of borderline significance:

In our previous three studies, we evaluated the use of individualized homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea … The results of the two larger studies (n = 81, n = 116) were just at or near level of statistical significance. Because all three studies followed the same basic study design , […] we analyzed the combined data from these three studies to obtain greater statistical power.  In addition we conducted a meta-analysis of effect-size difference […] to look for consistency of effects.

MAs and systematic reviews (SRs) are the two consensus methods for summarizing data from multiple individual studies. The inclusion and search methods of RCTs for SRs and MAs are similar, but the objectives of the two are a bit different, as are the forms of the reports.  In SRs, the results are summarized  in more in narrative form, whereas in MAs the data are treated mathematically and the results are defined in statistical terms.  Thus authors of SRs are freer to speculate on the degree of confidence that a method is effective based on what is shown by the numbers of positive and negative RCTs collected.  Authors of MAs usually limit their comments to what the mathematical formulation of the summarized data show.
(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine, General, Homeopathy, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (5) →

Medical Propaganda Films

David Gorski suggested I expand on a comment I left recently on one of his November posts. His subject was the then new documentary movie, “A Beautiful Truth.“ “Truth” is about the Gerson method – the dietary deprivation cum coffee enema cancer treatment developed by Dr. Max Gerson, a refugeee from Germany I the 1930s. His daughter, Charlotte now runs the Gerson Institute in Tijuana, Mexico. Gerson is one of the models for the Gonzales method recently reviewed by Kim Atwood.

I had previously referred to the movie in a prior post (1) (but in a different context. Here I’ll explore the movie from a different angle – with its partners, propaganda documentaries.

David called my attention to “Truth” plus another by the same producer – with trailers on You Tube. When I watched the trailers last year I saw myself interviewed briefly, but could not recall being filmed, or even identify where the scene took place. I had to email Steve Barrett, also in the movie, who reminded me about filmmaker Steve Kroschel’s visits 2-3 years before, although neither did he have strong memory of the interview.
(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine, General, Health Fraud, Herbs & Supplements, Nutrition, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (24) →

AARP and Alternative Medicine

I know I said the next entry would be about the efficacy of the influenza vaccine. The road to blogging in paved with good intentions. I will eventually write that entry, but the ADD has kicked in and my attention has wandered elsewhere.

I am 51 and one of the benefits of this advanced age is you get to join AARP, the American Association of Retired People. Yes, I know I am not retired, and given the current economic situation I am already practicing for my retirement.

“Do you what paper or plastic?”

“For here or to go?”

“Do you want fries with that?

Piece of cake. Who needs a 401K?

The day I received the AARP application, on my 50th birthday, despite some misgivings (8), I joined.

The purpose of AARP, besides discounts at Denny’s and the right to yell at kids when they are on your lawn, is, according to their mission statement, “AARP is dedicated to enhancing quality of life for all as we age. We lead positive social change and deliver value to members through information, advocacy and service. (1)” AARP is a lobby/special interest group for the elderly. In medicine the elderly are considered a vulnerable/at risk group. The elderly may have have fixed incomes, chronic medical problems, declining cognitive function and social situations that make them particularly susceptible to scams of all kinds. So it was nice to have an organization looking after our interests.

AARP has at least 40 million members. Accompanying the membership is their magazine, somewhat eponymously entitled AARP Magazine. The AARP Magazine has the largest circualtion of any magazine in the US with 24 million copies, each read issue by more than one person (7). It has 3 times the circulation of Readers digest. Only Parade magazine has a wider circulation. These are the publications where people receive casual information about about health care. I would assume that a magazine from my advocacy organization would contain information that I can trust. After all, AARP is looking out for my interests as a senior, and any article they would publish, especially relating to health and finances, I should be confident was reliable.

The January/February had an article “Drug Free Remedies for Chronic Pain” by Loolwa Khazzoom (2).
(more…)

Posted in: Energy Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (17) →

Biofeedback and Laser for Allergies

AllergiCare Relief Centers are a chain of franchises started by a man called David Tucker who is not listed as having an MD or any other title. They offer diagnosis of allergies by biofeedback and treatment of allergies by laser acupuncture. They admit that the method is not backed by any science, and they claim that what they are doing is not medical treatment.

Responsible journalism might have investigated this as quackery or practicing medicine without a license. Instead, irresponsible journalism has helped promote these centers and has given them invaluable free advertising.

From one news story:

Tucker said the device works based on biofeedback. The allergy sufferer wears a sensing clip on his finger for testing, and the computer simulates the bio-frequency for 10,000 known allergens. As the body responds to those stimuli, the computer lists which substances are irritants. “This digitized allergen actually matches the harmonic frequency of the actual allergen, making the body believe it is in contact with the real substance,” Tucker said. “The body will react if it is allergic to the particular substance.” ….Once the allergens are identified, a laser stimulates biomeridian points on the body — the same points used in acupuncture and acupressure. Tucker said the idea is to strengthen organs to act properly the next time they encounter the allergen — that is, to treat them as harmless…So far, there is no science to prove the devices work, but Tucker claims a 70 percent positive response rate. (more…)

Posted in: Energy Medicine, Health Fraud, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (27) →

Acupuncture for Hot Flashes – Or, Why So Many Worthless Acupuncture Studies?

In yet another round of science by press release, a particularly unimpressive acupuncture study is making the rounds of the major news outlets proclaiming that acupuncture works. I guess that is a sort-of answer to my title question – why are so many scientifically worthless acupuncture studies being done?

Let’s take a look at this particular study to see why it is so weak. All I have to go on is the press release, since the study is not published. It was presented at a scientific meeting – which is legitimate, I just don’t have access to it. (The bar for publication in a peer-reviewed journal is much higher than presentation at a meeting, and there may, in fact, be changes to the text prior to publication.) But we can still say a great deal about this study from the information provided.

(more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine

Leave a Comment (20) →

“Patient-Centered Care” and the Society for Integrative Oncology

Should Medical Journals Inform Readers if a Book Reviewer can’t be Objective?

At the end of last week’s post I suggested that book reviewer Donald Abrams and the New England Journal of Medicine had withheld information useful for evaluating Abrams’ review: that he is the Secretary/Treasurer of the Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO), the organization of which Lorenzo Cohen, the first editor of the book that Abrams reviewed,* is President. I also promised to look at material from the book and from the Society’s website in order to discover “data that will allow even the most conventional oncologists to appreciate [the value of 'integrative' methods].”

There is little question that Abrams and Cohen know each other, or at least that Abrams couldn’t have been expected to write an entirely objective review of Cohen’s book. Abrams is the Program Chair for the Society’s upcoming 5th International Conference, sponsored by the American Cancer Society. He and Cohen will be sharing the stage for the “Intro/Welcome.” Does it matter that most NEJM readers wouldn’t have learned of this association by reading the review? Probably not, in the case of readers who are well-versed in the misleading language of “CAM.”

I believe that most readers of medical journals are not so sophisticated. Otherwise, how could it have been so easy for “CAM” literature to seep through the usual evaluative filters, not only in medical schools and government but in the editorial boardrooms of prestigious journals? For anyone from the Journal who might be following this thread, Dr. Sampson’s satirical but deadly serious account of “how we did it” is obligatory reading.

Do “Integrative Oncology” Methods have Value?

Now let’s take a look at what Dr. Cohen’s book and the SIO are up to. The book’s introduction and table of contents are available on Amazon.com. The introduction contains the usual, misleading assertions and falsehoods that are ubiquitous in “CAM” promotions. I’ve added a few hyperlinks:

(more…)

Posted in: Book & movie reviews, Cancer, Energy Medicine, Medical Ethics

Leave a Comment (6) →

Touched by a Touched Healing Toucher

Recent posts by Drs. Sampson and Hansen and some recent comments have got me to thinking for the umpteenth time about this issue: quackery is quackery, even if it seems harmless and even if some people seek it. This is the first of a series that will discuss it. I’m afraid I will ramble a bit; it may be that not every post will support that premise. Nevertheless, in the aggregate I’ll try to do exactly that.

The posts about Healing Touch sent me on a walk down memory lane, to one of my early forays into “CAM” skepticism. It was there that I discovered just how removed from reality some true believers, even those that project a superficial air of sobriety, can be. Here I’ll recount a brief exchange that I had with one such person, who was undoubtedly well-meaning. My attempts to influence her by the use of reason proved futile.

Shortly after the publication of the famous Emily Rosa article in 1998, I read a report about it in Newsday. It wasn’t all that bad, but my annoyance with mainstream publications giving the slightest credence to “alternative medicine” had been growing, and this moved me to act. I wrote a diatribe to Newsday that was not published (I can’t imagine why):

To the Editor:

“Therapeutic touch” is such obvious humbug that it never should have been taken seriously by anyone with the slightest aquaintance with how things work. Nevertheless, academic careers have been based on it, hundreds of useless papers have been written about it, courses in it have been given and even required of nursing students, grant money has been provided for it (but not used to test it!), and scores of ridiculous magazine and newspaper articles have praised it, apparently to a naive and credulous public. All of this constitutes a huge embarrassment to nurses, a fact that would appear to be lost on their largest professional organization (the ANA).

One of the statements in your article about the JAMA study was incorrect: the practitioners were not able to detect the energy field half of the time. They were able to guess the correct hand half the time, as would be predicted by chance alone. Thus there is no evidence that the “energy field” was detected at all. This is no surprise, because this kind of “energy field” exists only in the fantasies of true believers.

Dolores Krieger’s objection to the study, that the right practitioners were not tested, is disingenuous. She has been asked numerous times, by James Randi and others, to submit to testing of the same sort as described in Rosa’s study (Randi’s foundation has even offered a $1 million reward for anyone who can demonstrate the ability to detect the “energy field”!). Neither she nor any of her trainees or colleagues has come forward, nor has any of them published a single study supporting the efficacy of “therapeutic touch.”

Among the shamelessly fawning, uncritical articles on TT referred to above is one in Newsday by Tina Morales, 7/8/96. Really, now. There are very simple, basic skills useful for evaluating questionable claims. If the writer doesn’t have them the editor certainly should!

Before gentle readers admonish me for the scolding, schoolmarmish tone of that letter, let me assure them that I have long since learned to couch my objections to “woo” in more matter-of-fact, less provocative language. As frustrating as it may be, amiable, well-meaning, intelligent people who haven’t the slightest idea how to evaluate questionable claims vastly outnumber their more savvy counterparts, even in surprising fields: journalism and medicine, for example. Ten years ago I had no intention of becoming more than a temporary, annoying gadfly. I imagined that the “CAM” fad would soon blow over, and that I’d go back to spending my free time watching re-runs of Seinfeld and Law and Order. Alas, ’twas not to be. Patience.

(more…)

Posted in: Energy Medicine, Faith Healing & Spirituality, Health Fraud

Leave a Comment (18) →

Touch – a Trojan Horse

Touch – Ouch. here they are again.

I had planned to post contents of a letter written a decade ago to a Washington Post reporter on why med schools would entertain associating with quacky methods and their advocates. But an article in the SF Chronicle intruded on May 25 on a research project at Stanford on “Healing Touch” (HT). The project is to test if HT affects symptoms of cancer and chemo- and radiotherapy. HT at Stanford?

I had sat down to write a letter to the editor when a call came through Center for Inquiry, where the reporter had called asking for someone to give her information on HT at Stanford. She called within a minute, apologetic for not having included critical comments from others. She had received emails already from irate scientists who told her about 11 year old Emily Rosa’s experiment published in the AMA Journal showing non-existence of human energy fields, which the HT practitioners claimed to be manipulating. And wasn’t HT different from Therapeutic Touch – (TT?) From the reporter’s description, I saw little difference except these HT people seemed to make more of fixing subjects’ chakras.

(more…)

Posted in: Energy Medicine, Medical Academia

Leave a Comment (90) →

Another Acupuncture Study – On Heartburn

Blogging on Peer-Reviewed ResearchPatients with heartburn are often diagnosed with GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) and treated with a drug called a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) to reduce stomach acid production. It is pretty effective, but it doesn’t always work. When it doesn’t, standard practice has been to double the dose of PPI. Doubling the dose only improves symptoms in 20-25%. Most patients who fail the single dose turn out to have normal esophageal acid exposure, or “functional” heartburn. In other words, the symptoms appear to be due to something other than excess acid – so it really may not make much sense to double the PPI dose. What else could doctors try?

How about acupuncture? A recent clinical trial compared acupuncture to doubling the proton pump inhibitor dose in refractory heartburn. (more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine

Leave a Comment (20) →

Hype over science: Does acupuncture really improve the chances of success for in vitro fertilization?

There it was on Friday greeting me on the ABC News website: “Study: Acupuncture May Boost Pregnancy” in bold blue letters, with the title of the webpage being “Needles Help You Become Pregnant.” The story began:

It sounds far-fetched sticking needles in women to help them become pregnant but a scientific review suggests that acupuncture might improve the odds of conceiving if done right before or after embryos are placed in the womb.

The surprising finding is far from proven, and there are only theories for how and why acupuncture might work. However, some fertility specialists say they are hopeful that this relatively inexpensive and simple treatment might ultimately prove to be a useful add-on to traditional methods.

By the end of the day, the story was all over the media, including radio, TV, news websites, the blogosphere, and various other outlets, all trumpeting the message that a scientific study says that acupuncture can help infertile couples conceive. Nary a skeptical word seemed to be found. Knowing very well just how far parents will go to conceive, I was curious: Did this study actually say what the media says it said? What was so new and radical about this study that it rated a press release and a lot of promotion? Do we here at SBM (particularly Steve) need to rethink our extreme skepticism about acupuncture, given the poor quality evidence and lack of even a glimmer of a convincing physiologic mechanism to explain its supposed activities?
(more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine, Science and Medicine, Surgical Procedures

Leave a Comment (8) →
Page 9 of 10 «...678910