Articles

Archive for General

The Many Faces Of Snake Oil

It is my unhappy duty to reveal yet another depressing example of dishonest gain in medicine. This time, however, patients were not the only victims. Many healthcare professionals, including physicians, were prey to what has been called “an intellectual property ponzi scheme.”

In a press release dated January 28, 2009, the HealthCentral Network announced the acquisition of a company called Wellsphere from its young CEO, Ron Gutman. Many of my fellow medical bloggers are familiar with Wellsphere as they’ve received countless email form letters from its CMIO, Dr. Geoffrey Rutledge. The form letters are flattering, and suggest that the company would like to feature the blogger’s writing on their platform.

But what happens next is disturbing – to become a member of Wellsphere, bloggers provide access to their blog’s RSS feed. Hidden in the fine print is the blogger’s consent for Wellsphere to publish the entire feed (in other words, all of the blogger’s written work) and that once it’s published on their site, they own the intellectual property rights to it.

Astonishingly Wellsphere convinced some 1700 bloggers to join their network, and have now sold their site (which is comprised almost entirely of blog post content) to HealthCentral Network for an undisclosed amount, likely in the millions.

How much did the health bloggers get for their writing? As far as I know, zero dollars.

In the reference section below you will see copies of emails sent by Dr. Rutledge and excerpts from the website’s Terms of Use document.

Is this the biggest scam ever pulled on health bloggers? You decide. The Wall Street Journal health blog reports:

As for the thousands of bloggers HealthCentral picks up with the merger, there is already grumbling in the blogosphere that Wellsphere built its business on health bloggers who don’t benefit from the deal. “But most are happy and we hope with all our resources and quality-content background we will really strengthen these engagements,” Schroeder told us.

Interesting statement from Schroeder – “most are happy.” He clearly hasn’t read the comments section of my blog. If there ever were a time for the medical/science/health blogosphere to rise up “Motrin moms-style,” it would be now. You may Tweet in protest by entering your comment with “#wellsphere” on Twitter. Or kick it old-school here in our comment section.

If you have any additional information, feel free to post it in the comments section below.

References:

Here is the introductory form email sent out by Dr. Rutledge:
(more…)

Posted in: General, Health Fraud, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (25) →

More on the Bravewell issue

Being on the West Coast places me (and Harriet?) at disadvantage in responding to recent developments, as I find out about them later in the day, if that day. (Retirement doesn’t help.)

First I had some comments on the WSJ article on “CAM,” the NCCAM by Steve Salerno and the response by the pseudoscince leadership. The 4-author response revealed political tactics used by quacks and sectarian medicine advocates to answer with straw man points and especially to ignore what they cannot answer.

In their response to Salerno’s article they accused him of being unqualified to object to “CAM” because he was only a reporter. Fact was that most of his points were from my writings, which Slerno frankly acknowledged. The several rebutting authors never mentioned my name. Of course not. (That it was lost in the SBM analyses is understandable.)

And that is the frank dishonesty we are dealing with when we face off with these characters, who now have the ears and eyes of the Institute of Medicine, academic deans and professors, and government. They are smiling as they read this.
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, General, Health Fraud, Medical Academia, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (10) →

Our own slippery grounds

When we were forming the National Council against Health Fraud I wondered aloud to the president, Bill Jarvis, what we would do if society solved the chiropractic problem. Bill laughed and said there would never be an end to quackery claims.

How right he was. But why? Many express surprise that at this time of remarkable intellectual and scientific advance, so many people choose to believe in irrational medical claims. The answer I am used to is the one that explains the difference between the attraction of subjective versus the dryness of the objective; between reflex and conditioned responses and rational thought, and between immediate emotionally gratifying, low-level mid-brain reactions and slow-reacting, cool, higher level intellectual thought. These comparisons are all valid but in trying to answer the question, we can miss the constancy of human nature biology, the dimension of time flow, the changing nature of evidence, and as yet unemphasized, the changes and evolution of measurement.…

Before Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) was devised, and the randomized clinical trial (RCT) accepted as the so-called gold standard, our evidential decisions turned on balances or ratios of science/nonsense, rationality/irrationality, reality/delusion, and an estimate of plausibility/implausibility. We can see now that the concept of EBM introduced a new set of standards to our equations balances – proof by RCT and their derivatives, systematic reviews (SRs). The demand for proof by RCT and and SR relegated the previous standards, the unbalanced ratio concept, to the level of anecdote and “uncontrolled observation.” We had to start over again with a new standard.
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Clinical Trials, General, Health Fraud, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (5) →

2008 Medical Weblog Awards

I am pleased to announce that Science-Based Medicine is a finalist for a 2008 Medical Weblog Award in the New Medical Blog category. You can see all the categories and finalists here: http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2009/01/the_2008_medical_weblog_awards_the_polls_are_open.html

Of note, our blogging friend, Orac, is also a finalist for Respectful Insolence in the health policies/ethics category, along with our own Dr. Val Jones for her excellent blog, Better Health.

We would appreciate you taking a look and voting for the blog of your choice.  And thanks to all of our readers for your kind support over our first year, and the active and informative discussions in the comments section. We look forward to more SBM in 2009.

Posted in: General

Leave a Comment (0) →

Influenza Deaths

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”- Donald Rumsfeld

How do we know what we know? It is said by some anti-vaccine proponents that vaccines are not needed because the diseases they prevent are either gone or no longer as severe as they were in pre vaccine times. People may have suffered and died in the distant past, but no longer. The risk now is from the vaccines not the diseases they no longer prevent.

36,000 people, more or less, die every year from influenza. That is the number of deaths according to the CDC web site; the NEJM review uses the higher number of 56,000 (7). Which number is correct? Isn’t that why the flu vaccine is recommended: to prevent all those people from dying.

36,000 is a lot of people. That’s about 120 deaths per million people in the US. In Oregon, population about 3 million, that would be about 360 people a year, which is two deaths a day for the six month flu season.

“Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time.”–George Carlin.

2,400,000 people die every year in the US, about 6600 a day. In Oregon, that is about 65 deaths a day. No one outside a epidemiologist is going to notice 2 extra deaths a day during flu season. I have seen a lot of people die of influenza, but I have a biased experience: I am an infectious disease doc, so I am likely to see people with influenza, especially patients with disease severe enough to kill them.

About the same number of people die from car accidents and die from handguns in the US each year as die from influenza. I have never known a person in my real, as opposed to my professional, life to die from influenza or handguns or a car accident. My personal experience suggests no one dies from these causes, but since I take care of patients at one of the Portland trauma hospitals, I know what cars and guns do to people. My professional life confirms that people do indeed die from being shot or car accidents. I would wager that most people reading this blog have not known anyone who has died from influenza, guns or car accidents. The fact that people do die of influenza seems contradicted by experience. Why get the vaccine? I don’t get the flu and and no one I know has ever died from it.

As an illustrative example, a relative of mine, a retired physician, mentioned that he thought the shingles vaccine was a waste of time and money as he had never known anyone to get shingles. Using personal experience to judge disease prevalence is unreliable. If I applied the same rationale to driving, I would not wear a seat belt as I have never been in a high speed crash.

36,000 people die of influenza each year. What is the source of that statistic? From “Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States”. JAMA 2003. Is that really how many deaths are there from influenza? It depends on what you mean by ‘death’ and what you mean by ‘influenza’ and what you mean by ‘from’.

“It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.” – Bill Clinton

(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, General, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (10) →

Quackery tolerance – a learned response

Academic politeness turns to the vicious  This is more on the theme of academic and postmodern roots of sectarianism-quackery’s advance on medicine. I illustrate through the personal experience of a noted combatant – Mary Lefkowitz - in the front lines of the war with intellectual and academic buffoonery passing as scholarship. The joke is not in the buffoonery, though. The joke is turning on us.

Some of you are familiar with Prof.Lefkowitz’s academic dispute from publicity last spring. Prof. Lefkowitz is on the list of academic opponents to relativism and postmodernism. Lefkowitz’s travail began in 1993 when another Wellesley faculty member who led a department or course of Africana Studies claimed in lectures that ancient Greek and Roman intellectual advances were lifted from libraries and other sources of ancient Egypt, and that furthermore, those Egyptians were black Africans.

You recognize this as Afrocentrism, one of relativism and postmodernism’s multi-pronged attack on intellectualism and Western civilization. I attended a session on the problem in 1992 (or so) at the AAAS in San Francisco, and did not appreciate or understand what was going on, or why the raised rhetoric and voices. I do now, especially having read excerpts from Lefkowitz’s book, History Lesson, published earlier this year.
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, General, Medical Academia, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (6) →

“I Reject Your Reality” – Germ Theory Denial and Other Curiosities

Note: This article was originally published in Skeptic magazine. Space limitations resulted in omitting some of what I wanted to say. I’m taking advantage of having a blog to publish the entire article as originally submitted.

——————

On an episode of Mythbusters, Adam Savage was shown a video clip that contradicted his memory of something he had said. He responded, “I reject your reality… and substitute my own.” He was joking. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who reject reality and who are not joking.

James Randi tells a story about a TV program that featured Uri Geller doing his standard trick of bending a key. Afterwards, the program’s host said it couldn’t possibly have been a trick because Uri had “never touched” the key. The host was then shown the recorded program, which proved that Geller clearly had the key in his hands, for two-and-a-half minutes. Instead of admitting having been wrong, the host exclaimed, “Well, that’s not how it happened.”

One of my own ancestors was a pro at this kind of thing. I’ll call her Aunt S (for stubborn). She had once tried tinned sardines, hated them, and refused to ever touch sardines again. One day she came into my grandmother’s kitchen when she was frying up some large fresh sardines a friend had brought her. Aunt S ate some, proclaimed them tasty, then asked, “What kind of fish were those, Mary?” My grandmother told her they were sardines. She protested, “No they weren’t! I don’t eat sardines!”

(more…)

Posted in: General, Nutrition, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (42) →

Psychological support and breast cancer – again

Does the degree of efficacy is depend on the time at which it is measured? Apparently so. The case of psychological support and breast cancer longevity again.

After an original 1989 report of positive effects on metastatic breast cancer, by 2006- 7 the majority of RCTs on such effects had settled the issue in the negative. This was only after 20 years of repeated research grants and RCTs based on hunches and feelings that somehow emotional support really affected the course of cancer. Investigations continued despite analyses showing the few original positive studies had been so flawed in design or defective in reported details, that they should have been dismissed and perhaps excluded from systematic reviews. (Spiegel D, Bloom JR, Kraemer H, Gottheil E. Psychological support for cancer patients, Lancet ,1989 Dec 16;2(8677):1447., Fawzy FI, Fawzy NW, et al. Malignant melanoma. Effects of an early structured psychiatric intervention, coping, and affective state on recurrence an survival 6 years later. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993 Sep;50(9):681-9.)

But to advocates, conflicting results served as motive to prove the claims by repeating the studies for 20 years, “doing them right this time.” As of mid-2008, consensus was the issue was still “negative.” Now another study, claimed to be positive, makes the news.

(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, General, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (5) →

Open-Access Peer Review: Increasing the Noise To Signal Ratio

Readers of Science Based Medicine are quite familiar with the distressingly common logical leap made by disgruntled healthcare consumers into alternative medicine. It goes something like this: I had a terrible experience with a doctor who [ignored/patronized/misdiagnosed] me and I also heard something horrible in the media about a pharmaceutical company’s misbehavior [hiding negative results/overstating efficacy/overcharging for medications], therefore alternative treatments [homeopathy/acupuncture/energy healing, etc.] must be more effective than traditional medicine.

Much to my dismay, a similar logical leap is being made about online health information. It goes something like this: Peer reviewing is biased and often keeps innovative research hidden to the world at large, therefore the best kind of peer review is open-access where anyone in the world can contribute.

You may feel free to slap your forehead now.

While I have absolutely no doubt that doctors have their shortcomings, and that some have created less than pleasant healthcare experiences for their patients – the solution to these shortcomings is not to dive headlong into snake oil. Moreover, I agree that the current peer-review process has its flaws and limitations – the solution is not to ask Aunt Enid in Omaha what she thinks of the recent meta-analysis of perioperative beta blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery.

Peter Frishauf, the founder of Medscape, recently published a webcast editorial predicting that:

“Peer review as we know it will disappear. Rather than the secretive prepublication review process followed by most publishers today, including Medscape, most peer review will occur transparently, and after publication.”

He goes on to describe a Wikipedia-like review scenario where:

“Any user can start an article, link it to related sources, and publish revisions with a click of the mouse. Anyone who reads an article can edit it.”

I know and like Peter very much, and his foresight (that publishing should become open-access), combined with the leadership of editorial heavy-weight, Dr. George Lundberg, led to the creation of the first really successful, quality, free online medical journal. This was no small feat, and a sure victory for global medical education efforts.

But the reason for The Medscape Journal’s success is not the “democratization” of peer review – but the democratization of access to trustworthy information. The quality controls are still in place – and must remain so – otherwise its value as a peer-reviewed journal will be utterly lost. Who should trust the edits of unqualified readers? Should science be determined by popular vote? Should all research be published by journals, regardless of its fatal flaws?

(more…)

Posted in: General, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (10) →

Fecal Transplants: Getting To The Bottom Of The Matter

Many Americans will be introducing more food than usual to their GI tracts on this Thanksgiving Day, and so I thought I’d provide you with a special gastroenterology-related post to complement the mood. If you have already eaten, I might suggest that you come back to this post on an empty stomach. I will be discussing the alternative medicine practice known as “fecal transplantation” and it is rather unsavory.

The idea of transferring stool from one person to another (for the treatment of various GI disorders) was first described in the 1950s. This month the TV show, Grey’s Anatomy, featured the practice in one of their plot lines – which rekindled interest in the therapy, and resulted in an explosion of search engine activity. I figured it was probably my duty, as a member of Science Based Medicine, to offer a rational analysis of the treatment in the hope that the Google gods will serve up my post to a few of the information-seekers out there. I hope to reach them before the snake oil salesmen, wrapped in their mantle of “gentle, natural cures,” convince them that they desperately need a good colon or liver cleanse, if not a fecal transplant.

Like most alternative therapies, fecal transplantation is based on a drop of truth and a gallon of pseudoscience. It is true that the gastrointestinal tract is teeming with hundreds of thousands of bacterial species and pseudo-species, and that without them we would die. It is also true that certain nasty bugs (like clostridium difficile) cause problems when they take up residence within the gut. Antibiotics do upset intestinal flora, much to the consternation of infectious disease specialists. Now, all that being said – the practice of repopulating the gut with another person’s stool requires some fairly grand assumptions about efficacy and safety that are not founded upon any clinical trial data whatsoever.
(more…)

Posted in: General, Surgical Procedures

Leave a Comment (11) →
Page 7 of 11 «...56789...»