Sometimes, between blogging, a demanding day (and night) job doing surgery and science, and everything else, I embarrass myself. Sure, sometimes I embarrass myself by saying something that, in retrospect, I wish I hadn’t. More often, I embarrass myself by letting things slide that I shouldn’t. For instance, when friends send me a prepublication copy of their books, I should damned well read them, don’t you think? So it was that Paul Offit sent me a copy of his latest book, which just hit the bookstores and online outlets this week, Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine, and I haven’t finished it. Oh, I’ve read a good chunk of it, but it’s not a huge book (around 335 pages); so I should have finished it by now, particularly since it’s quite good. My failure to properly read and plug the book aside, I’m glad to see that the book’s getting attention in a large media outlet, namely USA Today, in an article by Liz Szabo Book raises alarms about alternative medicine. There’s also a companion piece How to guard against a quack. I figure that the least I can do is to plug Dr. Offit’s book and the USA Today story in which he is featured, just as Harriet plugged his recent speaking appearance.
It’s also nice that Steve Novella and I were both interviewed. Now, excuse me while I get back to doing what I really should have had finished a month or two ago: Reading Dr. Offit’s excellent book.
Skin tags (acrochordon) are benign growths, often raised on a pedicle with a tiny stem. 46% of the population has one or more of them. They are usually ignored, but some people think they are ugly and want to get rid of them, and sometimes the lesions rub on clothing and become irritated. Never fear! Tag Away is here!
I saw it advertised on TV. They said it is “not available in stores.” But they only meant their special TV offer is not available in stores. You can buy Tag Away on Amazon.com, at Walgreens, at Walmart, and elsewhere. Tag Away is an all-natural product that promises to remove unsightly skin tags painlessly. It comes in a 15 cc bottle and is applied with a cotton swab 3 times daily for 3-8 weeks. One website claims:
One of the secrets of this product’s amazing success rate is Thuka [sic] Occidentalis, which is world-renowned for its ability to eradicate even the largest, most unsightly skin tags.
That’s not true. It doesn’t have an amazing success rate, it’s not world-renowned, and there’s no evidence that it can actually remove skin tags of any size. (more…)
Kim, Khloe and Kourtney Kardashian permit the use of their names and images of their curvaceous bodies to promote “QuickTrim” diet products, a line of dietary supplements making overblown claims typical of the weight loss supplement industry. Their personal testimonies and formidable publicity machine (Kim alone has over 13 million followers on Twitter), “has reportedly generated $45 million in revenue since they struck the deal with New Jersey-based Windmill Health Products in 2009,” according to the N.Y. Post. Naturally, the sisters are paid for their efforts, although how that amount is calculated or how much they receive apparently is not a matter of public record.
Osteoarthritis is the “wear and tear” kind of arthritis that many of us develop as we get older. Cartilage becomes less resilient with age, collagen can degenerate, and inflammation and new bone outgrowths (osteophytes) can occur. This leads to pain, crepitus (Rice Krispie type crackling noises with movement), swelling and fluid accumulation in the joints (effusion), and can severely limit activity for some patients.
Since knee osteoarthritis is such a ubiquitous annoyance, home remedies and CAM offerings abound. Previously we have covered a number of CAM options on this blog, including glucosamine, acupuncture, and several others. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has just issued a 1200 page report evaluating the evidence for various treatments for knee osteoarthritis short of total knee replacement surgery. A 13 page summary is available online. They have done the heavy lifting for us, reviewing all the available scientific studies for evidence of effectiveness. Here’s what the science says: (I’ve highlighted the ones where the evidence is strong.) (more…)
by Igor I. Bussel & Andrey A. Pavlov Jr.
Jann Bellamy has recently authored an excellent piece on the limitations of the FDA and how the DSHEA actually protects the profits of supplement manufacturers rather than the health and well-being of consumers. Bellamy used the very poignant and currently “controversial” example of DMAA (methylhexanamine or 1,3-dimethylamylamine) to illustrate her point regarding the loopholes and lack of enforcement power of the FDA. The authors of this piece had been considering writing about DMAA and felt this would be an excellent time to further expound on Bellamy’s work. The goal of this article will be twofold: 1) to discuss the known history and pharmacology of DMAA, especially in regards to the basic methodology for evaluating novel substances or novel uses of substances in the context of lacking RCT level evidence (i.e. the concept of science vs. evidence based medicine) and 2) how the DMAA story clearly and unequivocally demonstrates how the DSHEA allows for unscrupulous profiteers to game the system with little, if any, consequence and nothing but profit until the cost in lives forces the issue.
DMAA was originally developed by Eli-Lilly in 1948 and then later trademarked as Forthane to be used as a nasal decongestant (there are varying accounts but it seems that Eli Lilly patented the molecule in the early 1940’s and then trademarked and marketed it as Forthane in 1971 for allergic rhinitis and then voluntarily withdrew it in 1983). The mechanism of action was vasoconstriction – the blood vessels in the nose would constrict so that less blood flow would lead to less nasal discharge. This is a mechanism used by common OTC nasal sprays like oxymetazoline (Afrin) and is indeed quite effective. However, Forthane was later withdrawn from the market because of significant side effects including headaches, tremors, and increased blood pressure. These effects likely occur because DMAA is structurally similar to amphetamine and as a result, the compound is not only a vasoconstricting agent but is also a central nervous system (CNS) stimulant.
Pennsylvania legislators need to know only one thing about House Bill 612 (licensure of naturopathic “doctors”) to vote against it: As a means of “naturopathic musculoskeletal therapy” the bill would allow naturopaths to “reposition body tissues and organs.”
This is impossible. You cannot “reposition” tissues and organs of the human body by external manipulation.
Why does this tell us everything we need to know about these naturopathic doctors and why they shouldn’t be licensed in Pennsylvania? For one thing, this is no mistake a bill draftsman made in understanding what naturopathic practice includes. House Bill 612 was obviously drafted by naturopaths. That means naturopathic doctors actually believe they can “reposition” your body’s tissues and organs. And that speaks to their poor education and training. They don’t even understand basic anatomy.
For another, it tells us naturopathic doctors reject evidence-based medicine as a standard of practice. There is no evidence that this “repositioning” of organs and tissues is beneficial for any condition or disease, even if they could do it in the first place, which they can’t.
And for yet another, this certainly calls into question their understanding of the disease process and their diagnostic skills. One has to wonder exactly what health problems they think these purportedly out-of-place organs are causing. And how do they go about determining which organs are out of place and where they should go? Or when they have been successfully returned to their proper position? Again, this should raise alarming questions in the legislators’ minds about their education and training. (more…)
In a former life, when I was an Air Force doctor, one of my duties was to give “Healthy Heart” briefings with a script furnished by Air Force experts. It covered the scientific consensus of the time (the early 80s) about diet. It recommended a low fat diet, restricted cholesterol and saturated fat, and demonized tropical oils like palm oil and coconut oil. (Trans fats weren’t yet on the agenda.)
Times have changed. Today we are more lenient about cholesterol in the diet, less concerned about total fat and saturated fat, and more concerned about trans fats. While many major health organizations still discourage its use, coconut oil has not only been rehabilitated in the public mind, but all kinds of health benefits are being claimed for it.
The fats in coconut oil
Coconut oil is high in saturated fats; it contains more saturated fatty acids than any other non-hydrogenated oil. It is stable and has a long shelf life. It is used in movie theaters to pop popcorn and in South Asian cuisine for dishes like curries. A hydrogenated version of coconut oil is an ingredient in non-dairy creamers. Much of the research done on coconut oil studied hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated forms. According to an article in the New York Times:
Partial hydrogenation creates dreaded trans fats. It also destroys many of the good essential fatty acids, antioxidants and other positive components present in virgin coconut oil. And while it’s true that most of the fats in virgin coconut oil are saturated, opinions are changing on whether saturated fats are the arterial villains they were made out to be. “I think we in the nutrition field are beginning to say that saturated fats are not so bad, and the evidence that said they were is not so strong,” Dr. Brenna said.
Coconut oil contains lauric acid, which raises both HDL and LDL cholesterol levels. This may improve the cholesterol profile, although there are concerns that it may promote atherosclerosis by other means. Virgin coconut oil contains medium-chain triglycerides, which are not as risky as some other saturated fats.
Vitamins are magic. Especially when they’re injected. Roll up the sleeve, find a vein, insert a needle and watch that colourful concoction flow directly into the bloodstream. It may sound somewhat illicit, but that person infusing it is wearing a white coat, and you’re sitting in a chic clinic. There must be something to it, right? Intravenous vitamin injections are popular with celebrities and have even been described by Dr. Oz as “cutting edge”. Advocates claim vitamin injections can benefit serious conditions like cancer, Parkinson’s disease, macular degeneration, fibromyalgia, depression, and that modern-day obsession, “detoxification”. And vitamin infusions aren’t just for the ill. They’re also touted as helpful for preventing illness, too. A search for vitamin injections brings up millions of hits and dozens of advertisements. There is no question that vitamin injections are popular. But despite all the hype and all the endorsements, there is no credible evidence to suggest that routine vitamin infusions are necessary or offer any meaningful health benefit. Vitamin infusions are a marketing creation, giving the illusion you’re doing something for your health, but lacking any demonstrable efficacy. What’s more concerning, providers of vitamin therapies target their marketing at those fighting life-threatening illnesses like cancer, selling unproven treatments in the absence of good scientific evidence that they are beneficial.
The intravenous vitamin industry is a sideshow to science-based health care. Yes, there is an established medical role for injectable vitamins, though it’s no energy-boosting cure-all – they’re used to replace what we should obtain in our diet. As a hospital-based pharmacist I used to prepare sterile bags of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), a mixture of vitamins, carbohydrate, protein and fat that completely replaced the requirement to eat. TPN is effective, but not without risks, and far less preferable than getting your nutrients the old fashioned way – by eating them. There’s also the routine use of injectable vitamins like B12, or iron, all of which can be science-based when used to address true deficiencies, or to manage specific drug toxicities. And there is the therapeutic use of high-dose minerals like intravenous magnesium for acute asthma attacks. But there is no medical justification to infuse vitamins into a vein when you can more appropriately obtain those nutrients in your diet.
Jack3d is a dietary supplement manufactured by USPlabs and promoted by the giant supplement retailer GNC as producing “ultra-intense muscle-gorging strength, energy, power and endurance.” A key ingredient is DMAA, which the FDA doesn’t think is a proper dietary supplement ingredient at all and wants Jack3d and other products containing it removed from the shelves and the web. The FDA also questions its safety.
As discussed in a previous post on the subject, both USPlabs and GNC maintain Jack3d (pronounced “jacked”) is safe when properly used. Apparently few agree with them on this point: not the FDA, not the U.S. military, not the countries and athletic associations which have banned DMAA. And certainly not the parents of Michael Lee Sparling, a 22-year-old Army private. The Sparlings filed a lawsuit alleging Jack3d caused the death of their son, who went into cardiac arrest and died after using it.
Here is where we left off the last time we looked at DMAA:
Last April , the FDA sent warning letters to several supplement manufacturers saying it had no evidence DMAA is a legitimate dietary ingredient and citing its risks. (Health regulators in other countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, have actually banned DMAA-containing supplements.) Heart attacks, heart failure, kidney failure and liver failure were among the health problems reported to the FDA, as well as 5 deaths. GNC responded that it was “completely opposed to this unilateral, factually and legally unfounded action by the FDA.”
Now to Round 2.
When you pick up a bottle of supplements, should you trust what the label says? While there is the perception that supplements are effective and inherently safe, there are good reasons to be skeptical. Few supplements are backed by good evidence that show they work as claimed. The risks of supplements are often not well understood. And importantly, the entire process of manufacturing, distributing, and marketing supplements is subject to a completely different set of rules than for drugs. These products may sit on pharmacy shelves, side-by-side with bottles of Tylenol, but they are held to significantly lower safety and efficacy standards. So while the number of products for sale has grown dramatically, so has the challenge to identify supplements that are truly safe and effective. (more…)