I’m on the record multiple times as saying that I reject the entire concept and nomenclature of “alternative medicine” as being distinct from “conventional” medicine as a false dichotomy, when in reality there should be just “medicine.” Indeed, if there is one major theme to which this blog is dedicated it’s that medicine should be as much as possible science-based, a concept that takes into account not just clinical trials, which are prone to all sorts of false-positive results in the case of modalities that have no plausibility from a scientific perspective. In essence, I advocate treating “alternative” medicine the same as “conventional” medicine subjecting it to the same scientific process to determine whether it has efficacy or not, after which medicine that is effective is retained and used and medicine that fails the test is discarded. Where it comes from, the “alternative” or the “conventional” medical realm, matters little to me. All that matters is that it is based on sound science and that it has been demonstrated to have efficacy significantly greater than that of a placebo.
Given that, you’d think I’d be all in favor of subjecting alternative medicine, be it woo or more credible, to rigorous scientific testing. In many cases, you’d be right. My sole caveat is that, when testing alt-med, priority should be given to modalities that have at least a modicum of scientific plausibility, even if a bit tenuous. Herbal remedies would thus be at the front of my line to be tested, while obvious woo whose core principle on which it is based is so utterly ridiculous and scientifically implausible (like homeopathy, for instance) would be relegated to the back of line, if it’s ever tested at all. More implausible modalities that might work (albeit by a method that has nothing to do with the “life energy” manipulation that is claimed for it) like acupuncture would be somewhere in the middle. It’s a matter of resource prioritization, in which it makes little sense to test blatant woo before more plausible therapies are examined. Indeed, it’s arguable whether blatant woo like homeopathy should even have resources wasted testing it at all, given its extreme scientific improbability. Finally, regardless of what modality is being tested in scientific and/or clinical trials, it has to be done according to the highest ethical standards, on adults fully cognizant of or able to be taught about the questions being asked, the issues involved, and the potential risks who are thus able to give truly informed consent.
Blogger’s note: This blog, which is rough going in places, will be presented in either 2 or 3 parts (I won’t know which until next week). I’ll post a part each week until it is complete, but due to overwhelming popular demand I promise to maintain the every-other-week posting of the far more amusing Weekly Waluation of the Weasel Words of Woo/2.
On Feb. 25, 2008, the federal Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) cited Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) for violating Title 45, Part 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Protection of Human Subjects (45CFR§46). The violations involved Columbia’s administration of the NIH-sponsored trial of the bizarre “Gonzalez Regimen” for treating cancer of the pancreas.† The OHRP’s determination letter to Steven Shea, MD, the Director of the Division of General Medicine and Senior Vice-Dean at CUMC, cited ethical problems of a serious kind:
We determine that the informed consent for the 40 of 62 subjects referenced by CUMC was not documented prior to the start of research activities, nor was the requirement for documentation waived by the CUMC IRB for subjects in this study.
It was the second time that the OHRP had cited Columbia for its dubious management of the “Gonzalez” trial. The first occurred in Dec. 2002, after investigators had determined that the trial’s consent form “did not list the risk of death from coffee enemas.” The OHRP listed several other violations at that time, but “redacted” them from the letter that it made available to the public. (more…)
You Can’t Foo’ Stu with Woo!
A Spitzerian (“pointed”) analysis
Last week’s inaugural game elicited several amusing and penetrating analyses, including that of the hands-down Gold Medal Winner, Stu. His was the first entry, introduced in a concise and alliterative imperative, and was both hilarious and timely. It implied most of the points discussed by others. This distinctive combination has moved me to grant Stu a legacy here at the W^5. In the future there may be, undoubtedly no more than once in a very long while, entries that live up to the Soaring Standard of Stu®. If so, they will be Duly Acknowledged. (more…)
I promised readers the “Advanced Course” for this week, which undoubtedly has you shaking in your boots. Fear not: you’ve already had a taste of advanced, subtle, misleading “CAM” language, and most of you probably “got” it. That was R. Barker Bausell’s analysis of how homeopathy is “hypothesized to work.” In the interest of civility, let me reiterate that I don’t think of Bausell as a horrible person or an ignorant boor for having written that statement. Rather, I think of him as having been so steeped in the de rigueur “CAM” language distortions of the 1990s that he is largely unaware of their insidious power. I suspect too that he, like most of us who grew up when schools no longer stressed the rigors of English composition, has an underdeveloped sense of the relation between the craft of writing and the integrity of its content. That doesn’t excuse him from writing honest prose, of course.
Last week’s post cited blatant language distortions of “CAM”—euphemisms, slogans, and outright falsehoods—and some that were more subtle: question-begging, misrepresentation, and derogation. It would require a semester’s worth of seminars to delve into the overlapping categories of misleading “CAM” language, but here we can consider a few. Then, perhaps, we’ll engage in an amusing diversion—more about that at the end of this post. (more…)
The Best Policy
From time to time I have been reiterating that correct use of the language has much to do with logic; I should add that it entails also honesty. I use the word “honesty” in its broadest sense…
Concision is honesty, honesty concision—that’s one thing you need to know.
—John Simon. Paradigms Lost: Reflections on Literacy and its Decline. New York, NY: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc.;1980. pp. 48, 52
In 1983, a naturopath in Alberta inserted balloons into the nostrils of a 20 month-old girl and inflated them. The child died of asphyxiation. Subsequently, a judge described the treatment—dubbed “bilateral nasal specific” by the chiropractor who had invented it—as “outright quackery.”  Fast-forward 15 years: a woman presented to the otolaryngology clinic at the University of Washington in Seattle “complaining of severe midface pain and epistaxis” (nosebleed). She had suffered nasal septal fractures caused by a similar treatment, by then renamed “NeuroCranial Restructuring” (NCR). In their case report, the surgeons who had treated the woman at U. Wash discussed the claims of NCR and explained that the relevant anatomy predicts that it is implausible and risky. They also reported that it is expensive: “$2000 to $4800 for a standard course (of 4 treatments).” They concluded:
This case report of a complication after a CAM procedure called NCR highlights the wide range of treatment options available to patients. It is important for otolaryngologists to be aware of the spectrum of CAM therapies that patients may pursue and be aware of potential complications from these procedures.
An accompanying editorial used similar language.
How is it that in 1983 a judge could offer a concise summary of the essence of such a method, whereas scarcely a generation later 5 highly-trained medical doctors, even after presenting the sordid facts, could only obscure it with bland euphemism? (more…)
There is a new industry offering preventive health screening services direct to the public. A few years ago it was common to see ads for whole body CT scan screening at free-standing CT centers. That fad sort of faded away after numerous organizations pointed out that there was considerable radiation involved and the dangers outweighed any potential benefits.
Now what I most commonly see are ads for ultrasound screening. In fact, I am sick and tired of finding them in my mailbox and between the pages of my local newspaper. Ultrasound is certainly safe, with no radiation exposure. It sounds like it might be a good idea, but it isn’t.
Life Line Screening advertises itself as “America’s leading provider of quality health screenings.” They offer “4 tests in less than 1 hour – tests that can save your life.” They travel around the country, setting up their equipment in community centers, churches, and YMCAs. For $129 you get ultrasounds of your carotid arteries, your abdominal aorta, your legs, and your heel bone. They mail you your results 21 days later. (more…)
After the previous posting on the Bayesian approach to clinical trial data, several new comments made it clear to me that more needed to be said. This posting addresses those comments and adds a few more observations regarding the unfortunate consequences of EBM’s neglect of prior probability as it applies to “complementary and alternative medicine” (“CAM”).†
The “Galileo Gambit” and the Statistics Gambit
Reader durvit wrote:
A very interesting example, for a number of people, might be estimating the prior probability for Marshall and Warren’s early work on Helicobacter pylori and its impact on gastroduodenal management. I frequently have Marshall quoted to me as a variation on the Galileo gambit, so establishing whether he and Warren would have been helped or hindered by Bayesian techniques would be useful.
This suggestion raises a couple of issues. First, the “Galileo gambit” regarding Marshall and Warren’s discovery is a straw man (as durvit seems to have surmised). (more…)
In science- and evidence-based medicine, the evaluation of surgical procedures represents a unique challenge that is truly qualitatively different from the challenges in medical specialties. Perhaps the most daunting of these challenges is that it is often either ethically unacceptable or logistically impossible to do the gold-standard clinical trial, a double-blind, randomized placebo trial for an operation. After all, the “placebo” in a surgical trial involves patients to anaesthesia, making an incision or incisions like the ones used for the operation under study, and then not doing the operation. Clearly, even leaving the ethics aside, it’s impossible to blind the surgeons and operative team involved to which treatment, real surgery or placebo, the patient is receiving without having a different surgeon do the surgery from the one overseeing the postoperative care of the patient, with the operative surgeon barred from communicating to the postoperative surgeon what happened in the operating room and from participating in the postoperative care of the patient upon whom he operated. This sort of restriction, besides being also highly dubious ethically speaking, goes against the grain of surgical culture, in which a surgeon is expected to provide the postoperative care for his patients almost as a matter of surgical honor. A final problem that complicates any surgical trial is that surgeons of differing technical operating skill will necessarily be involved, and surgical skill is indeed very important in determining outcome. Although there have been examples of double-blinded trials with sham surgery as placebo, for example, in injecting dopamine-producing cells into the brain to treat Parkinson’s disease, difficulties doing such studies tend to force us as surgeons in many cases either to rely on retrospective data, prospective non-randomized data, or, when we’re lucky, a prospective randomized (but not double-blinded) trial of one surgical procedure versus another.
Call me naive, but I did not expect the volume or the emotional depth of the responses to the Iraqi civilian death post. I thought many would respond to the new NEJMed survey as I did; wondering about the validity of the previous surveys and recognizing that they have a validity problem. And, that there is a question about what is printed in major journals, from unexpected sources. I did not mean that studies such as Lancet II not be printed. I stated that it should not have been printed in a first line journal for the general medical public. It could have been printed in a 2nd or 3rd line specialty journal where its methods and conclusions could have been debated and reforms shaped by colleagues. I find that hints and clues to errors in pseudoscientific reports mostly lie in the methods section. But questioning a study’s validity can involve more than just a knowledge of the methods and recalculation of the data. Because the “CAM” movement has redefined the borders of the playing field as well as the rules of the game, the entire environment of the scientific system surrounding implausible or unusual reports has to be examined – this goes beyond limits of methods, and includes motivations, funding, characters, and subtexts.
In developing criteria for estimating plausibility (prior probability) the most important criterion of course is consistency and consilience with established knowledge. But there are more. One can increase the effectiveness of investigation by using indicators not presently included in “Evidence Based Medicine” or in science, but that are used in criminology (previous arrests, convictions,) business (trustworthiness, profit vs loss,) and ideology and politics (elevation of the trivial, manipulation of the system; example: sectarian medicine.)
Recently, I’ve had a number of people bring to my attention a news story that has apparently been sweeping the wire services and showing up in all sorts of venues. It is, on its surface, a story of hope, hope for the millions of elderly (and even the not-so-elderly) who are or will be afflicted by that scourge of the mind, memory, and personality, Alzheimer’s disease. This disease is one of the most feared of diseases. A progressive and fatal disease of the brain, it robs a person of his memory and personality, until he no longer recognizes loved ones and becomes too demented to care for himself. The pathophysiology involves the accumulation in the brain of a protein known as β-amyloid, which forms plaques outside of cells, while neurofibrillary tangles believed to be due to the hyperphosphorylation of a protein known as tau develop in dying cells. The exact mechanism by which neuron death occurs is not fully understood, but over time this process leads to a decrease in the amount of gray matter in the cortex. There is no known cure, and the current treatments that we have result in at best a modest delay of the inevitable dementia that accompanies progression of the disease.
Given this grim backdrop and the general aging of the population in developed nations, it is expected that there will be a large increase in the number of people developing Alzheimer’s disease over the next few decades. Naturally, this provides a great deal of incentive to develop more effective treatments. Not surprisingly, sometimes the treatments proposed may sound somewhat outlandish and may even be somewhat outlandish. The treatment about which people were e-mailing me falls into this category, and I haven’t decided yet whether it’s science or pseudoscience. It could be legitimate. What I do know, however, is that I don’t like the way its inventors are promoting it by press conference before any evidence of its clinical efficacy in humans has been accepted by a peer-reviewed publication, leading to a flurry of stories about a new possible “miracle cure” for Alzheimer’s disease grounded in not a lot of science. I’m referring, of course, to the “Alzheimer’s helmet” developed by Dr. Gordon Dougal and his colleagues Dr. Paul Chazot and Abdel Ennaceur at Durham University. Dr. Dougal is a director of Virulite, a medical company based in County Durham in the U.K. Here’s a widely cited article from the Daily Mail that describes the device: