Articles

Archive for Politics and Regulation

The false hope of “right-to-try” metastasizes to Michigan

Nurse administers chemotherapy

Ed. note: Please read disclaimer in Dr. Gorski’s profile!

There are times when supporting science-based health policy and opposing health policies that sound compassionate but are not are easily portrayed as though I’m opposing mom, apple pie, and the American flag. One such type of misguided policy that I’ve opposed is a category of bills that have been finding their way into state legislatures lately known as “right to try” bills. Jann Bellamy and I have both written about them before, and with the passage of the first such bill into law in Colorado in May, I had been meaning to revisit the topic. Although “right-to-try” laws are a bad policy idea that’s not new, versions of such bills having been championed by, for example, the Abigail Alliance for at least a decade, the recent popularity of the movie Dallas Buyers Club appears to have given them a new boost, such that Colorado state Senator Irene Aguilar even frequently referred to her state’s right-to-try bill as the “Dallas Buyers Club” bill. It’s a topic I’ve been meaning to revisit since the news out of Colorado, but apparently I needed a nudge, given that it’s two months later now.

Unfortunately, that nudge came in the form of a right-to-try bill (Senate Bill 991) being introduced into the legislature in Michigan by Senator John Pappageorge and unanimously passing, almost without comment by the committee and certainly with minimal news coverage, through the first hurdle, the Michigan Senate Health Policy Committee. In parallel, the same legislation (House Bill 5651) has been introduced into the Michigan House of Representatives.
(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Pharmaceuticals, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (49) →

The Texas Medical Board vs. Stanislaw Burzynski, 2014 edition

3_DrB.jpg

As I begin this post, I’m on a miserably crowded, hot, stinky flight winging my way home from TAM. This puts me in the perfect mood to write about my bête noire to conquer all bêtes noires, namely Stanislaw Burzynski, the Polish expat doctor who claims to have much better results treating deadly brain cancers than conventional oncology, even though he is not an oncologist and has never even completed the prerequisite training for an oncology fellowship, namely an internal medicine residency. Actually, I don’t mean that in the way that you probably think I mean it. This time around, unlike the last time around, writing about Burzynski will put me in a better mood to endure being slapped into a sardine can in coach, barely able to move, barely able to type, but needing to get a blog post out on Monday.

If you remember, the last time I wrote about Burzynski, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had caved, and by “caved” I mean that it had lifted the partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s clinical trials. As is usual with the long and winding saga that is Burzynski, I feel compelled to give a brief review for any newbie who might encounter this post. Old hands at this story can skip ahead or just skim.

Two years ago, a child named Josia Cotto died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium level in the blood) due to receiving treatment for a brain tumor from the Burzynski Clinic using Burzynski’s “miracle drug” antineoplastons. Hypernatremia is a known complication of ANP treatment, and, as a result of this child’s death, the FDA put a partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s clinical trials for pediatric patients, which meant that he could continue to treat children already enrolled in his clinical trials but could not enroll any new patients. Six months later, this partial hold was extended to all of Burzynski’s clinical trials, and in early 2013 the FDA inspected the Burzynski Clinic and Burzynski Research Institute (BRI). (more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (50) →

Medical marijuana as the new herbalism, part 1: Science versus the politics of weed in New York and beyond

A while ago, I wrote about how the Cleveland Clinic had recently opened a clinic that dispensed herbal medicine according to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practice. As regular readers of the SBM blog might expect, I was not particularly impressed or approving of this particular bit of infiltration of quackademic medicine into a major academic medical center, particularly given some of the amazingly pseudoscientific treatments espoused by the naturopath who was running the clinic. I also pointed out that, although herbalism is the most plausible (or perhaps I should say the least implausible) of modalities commonly associated with “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) or “integrative medicine”, it still exhibits a number of problems, the biggest of which is what I like to call either the delivery problem or the bioavailability problem. In brief, herbs, when they work, are adulterated drugs. The active ingredient is usually a minor constituent, embedded in thousands of other constituents that make up herbs, and it’s almost impossible to control lot-to-lot consistency with respect to content or active ingredients given how location, weather, soil conditions, rainfall, and many other factors can affect how the plants from which the medicines are extracted grow and therefore their chemical composition. To demonstrate the concept, I pointed out that it’s much safer and more predictable to administer digoxin to a patient who needs its activity on the heart than it would be for the patient to chew on some foxglove leaves, given that the therapeutic window (the difference between the doses needed to produce therapeutic effects and the lowest dose that will cause significant toxicity) is narrow.

Which brings me to medical marijuana, a.k.a. medical cannabis.
(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Herbs & Supplements, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (184) →

The Center for Inquiry weighs in on the FDA’s mishandling of Stanislaw Burzynski’s clinical trials

We interrupt our usually scheduled post for an important announcement. OK, we do nothing of the sort. Scott Gavura’s post will go live a little later this morning. In the meantime, here’s a public service announcement about a frequent topic of mine, Stanislaw Burzynski, that I’d like you to read.

As you recall, last week, the FDA inexplicably decided to lift the partial clinical hold on Stanislaw Burzynski’s bogus clinical trials of antineoplastons, which he’s used since the 1990s as a pretext to charge huge sums of money for “case management fees” to patients for a treatment whose efficacy he has never demonstrated. Yesterday, the Center for Inquiry laid in, and has sent a letter to legislators:

“We are frankly stunned to hear that the clinical hold against Dr. Burzynski has been lifted,” writes CFI in its letter. For decades, Dr. Burzynski and the Houston-based Burzynski Research Institute have been trafficking in unproven and scientifically baseless cancer treatments based on compounds known as antineoplastons, derived from human urine, which Burzynski claims — without evidence — can target and destroy cancer cells. He has taken advantage of desperate patients who are at their most vulnerable, and willing to pay any price.

After the death of a six-year-old patient in 2012, the FDA placed a hold on Burzynski’s trials with children, followed by a hold on trials with adults in 2013, prohibiting him from taking on new patients on whom he could experiment and from whom he could extract more money.

Over several decades, his clinic has proven it is unable to properly protect patient rights, adhere to basic ethical or scientific protocols, or even maintain correct patient records. It has also shown it is willing to exploit desperate cancer patients and their families, milking them out of enormous sums of money. But it has yet to show even a shred of evidence that its cancer treatments have any positive effect whatsoever.

“We struggle to see why the FDA continues to enable this deceptive, antiscientific, and unethical medical adventurism and profiteering, even for patients who are terminally ill,” writes CFI. “Given the behavior of Dr. Burzynski and the Burzynski Research Institute over the course of nearly three decades of failed research and trials, and in the face of a complete lack of scientific evidence demonstrating the efficacy of their expensive and dangerous antineoplaston treatment, we find the FDA’s decision perplexing and profoundly disturbing.”

The full text of the letter can be found here.

If only groups like the American Cancer Society would write similar letters. Cancer patients have been taken advantage of for nearly four decades, and Burzynski has made a mockery of the clinical trial process for nearly 20 years. It’s gone on way too long.

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (4) →

Stanislaw Burzynski’s propaganda victory on antineoplastons: The FDA really caves

It’s been a while since I wrote a substantive post for this blog about the Houston cancer doctor and Polish expat Stanislaw Burzynski who claims to have a fantastic treatment for cancer that blows away conventional treatment for cancers that are currently incurable. The time has come—and not for good reasons. The last time was primarily just a post announcing my article about Burzynski being published in Skeptical Inquirer. When last we saw Stanislaw Burzynski on this blog, it was a post that I hated to write, in which I noted that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had caved to patient and legislator pressure and allowed compassionate use exemptions (otherwise known as single patient INDs) to continue. The catch? Cynically, the FDA put a condition on its decision, specifically that no doctor associated with Burzynski nor Burzynski himself could administer the antineoplastons. This set off a mad scramble among Burzynski patients wanting ANPs to find a doctor willing to do all the paperwork and deal with Burzynski to administer ANPs. The family of one patient, McKenzie Lowe, managed to succeed.

It’s hard for me to believe that it’s been almost three years since I first started taking an interest in Burzynski. Three long years, but that’s less than one-twelfth the time that Burzynski has been actually been administering an unproven cancer treatment known as antineoplastons (ANPs), a drug that has not been FDA-approved, to patients, which he began doing in 1977. Yes, back when Burzynski got started administering ANPs to patients, I was just entering high school, the Internet as we know it did not exist yet (just a much smaller precursor), and disco ruled the music charts. It’s even harder for me to believe, given the way that Burzynski abuses clinical trial ethics and science, that I hadn’t paid much attention to him much earlier in my blogging career. After all, I’m a cancer surgeon, and here’s been this guy treating patients with advanced brain cancers using peptides that, according to Burzynski, do so much better against what are now incurable tumors than standard of care while charging huge sums of money to patients on “clinical trials.” It might be a cliché to quote the Dead this way, but what a long, strange trip it’s been. Because there has been a major development in this saga whose context you need to know to understand, I’m going to do a brief recap. Long-time regulars, feel free to skip the next couple of paragraphs, as they just try to bring people up to date and include a lot of links for background, or, if you haven’t already, read this summary of Burzynski’s history published earlier this year in Skeptical Inquirer. Newbies, listen up. Read the next two paragraphs. You need to know this to understand why I’m so unhappy. (more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (55) →

NY federal court hands triple loss to anti-vaccination ideology

vacccine preventable disease plane ride away

The state of New York allows religious and medical (but not philosophical) exemptions from school vaccination mandates. New York City has a policy of excluding unvaccinated schoolchildren from classes when there is an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease reported in a particular school. Two sets of parents whose children had religious exemptions sued New York City and the state in federal court when their children were temporarily excluded from school under the policy, in some cases for up to a month. In other words, they were demanding that their unvaccinated children be allowed to attend even though there was an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease at the school.

These cases were consolidated with another filed by parents, the Checks, who claimed their child had been improperly denied a religious exemption. The parents had applied for a medical exemption, which was denied, as well as a religious exemption, which was granted, but then revoked. (The record is somewhat confusing on this sequence of events, but that sequence is not relevant to our discussion.) The unvaccinated child was ultimately sent to a private school, even though she should have been excluded from admission under New York City law there as well.

Last week, a federal judge dismissed all three cases (they had been consolidated and assigned to one judge) in an opinion holding that neither the students’ nor the parents’ constitutional rights were violated, including their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal. (more…)

Posted in: Critical Thinking, Legal, Politics and Regulation, Public Health, Religion, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (98) →

Dr. Oz and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Not Dr. Oz's usual television audience

Not Dr. Oz’s usual television audience

Dr. Mehmet Oz is one of the most well-known, and possibly the most influential medical doctor in America. The Dr. Oz Show is broadcast in 118 countries and reaches over 3 million viewers in the USA alone. When Oz profiles a product or supplement on his show, sales explode – it’s called “The Dr. Oz Effect”. Regrettably, Oz routinely and consistently gives questionable health advice, particularly when it comes to weight loss products, where Oz regularly uses hyperbolic terms like “miracle” for the products he profiles:

  • (On green coffee extract) — “You may think magic is make-believe, but this little bean has scientists saying they found the magic weight-loss for every body type.”
  • (On raspberry ketone) — “I’ve got the number one miracle in a bottle to burn your fat”
  • (On Garcinia cambogia) — “It may be the simple solution you’ve been looking for to bust your body fat for good.”

Dr. Oz has profiled so many dubious health strategies that “The Dr. Oz Effect” more accurately refers to the wasted time, effort and finances of any consumer that actually follows his health advice and purchases the steady stream of “miracles” that Oz endorses on his television show. Not surprisingly, Science-Based Medicine is probably Oz’s most persistent and tenacious critic. It’s not just that he’s high profile – it’s that Dr. Oz is a bona fide physician who ought to know better, but chooses to ignore science in favour of hyperbole. It’s the antithesis of what a health professional should be doing. And this is the root of the Oz problem: Oz can give good advice, but he regularly combines it with questionable statements and pseudoscience in a way that the casual viewer can’t distinguish between the science and the fiction. So when Oz calls something a miracle – people listen. Even when miracles show up several times per year. (more…)

Posted in: Health Fraud, Herbs & Supplements, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (166) →

Don’t supplement users deserve consumer protection, too?

Canada's Parliament buildingThe Canadian Parliament, hypothetically protecting consumers since Confederation.

One of the most pervasive yet appealing health myths is the idea that natural equals safe. It’s a statement that’s repeated constantly by manufacturers of supplements and “natural” health products. It’s been the primary argument used, with considerable success, to give these products completely different regulatory structures than exist for drug products. Weaker regulation of supplements and natural health products has been a boon to manufacturers, but the same can’t be said for consumer protection. It’s effectively a buyer-beware marketplace in most parts of the world, with little accurate information available to consumers. But supplement manufacturers aren’t content with the minimal regulation that’s currently in place – they want health “freedom”. In this case, “freedom” means the right to sell any product, while being exempted from safety and regulatory requirements. New Canadian legislation is poised to raise safety standards for drugs and enhance the ability of regulators to recall dangerous products, yet consumers of natural health products are left behind. The legislation proposes to exempt anything considered a “natural health product”. This is not only bad public policy, but it has the potential to cause avoidable harm. After all, shouldn’t users of supplements and natural health products be entitled to the same safety and quality standards as those that use prescription drugs? If the supplement industry gets its way, the answer will be “no”. (There is an opportunity until June 10 for you to provide feedback on this legislation – see below.) (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (81) →

Of the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy, Bayes, the NIH, and Human Studies Ethics

An experiment is ethical or not at its inception; it does not become ethical post hoc—ends do not justify means.
~ Henry K. Beecher

tact

A couple of weeks ago, Dr. Josephine Briggs, the Director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), posted a short essay on the NCCAM Research Blog touting the results of the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) (italics added):

The authors found that those receiving the active treatment clearly fared better than those receiving placebo. The accompanying editorial in the AHJ reminds readers about the value of equipoise and the need to “test our beliefs against evidence.”

Most physicians did not expect benefit from chelation treatment for cardiovascular disease. I readily admit, initially, I also did not expect we would find evidence that these treatments reduce heart attack, strokes, or death. So, the evidence of benefit coming from analyses of the TACT trial has been a surprise to many of us. The subgroup analyses are suggesting sizable benefit for diabetic patients—and also, importantly, no benefit for the non-diabetic patient. Clearly subgroup analyses, even if prespecified, do not give us the final answer. But it is also clear that more research is needed to test these important findings.

And TACT findings are indeed a reminder of the importance of retaining equipoise [sic], seeking further research aimed at replicating the findings, and neither accepting nor rejecting findings based on personal biases. The scientific process is designed to weed out our preconceived notions and replace them with evidence.

Dr. Briggs concluded:

So, TACT is a reminder—an open mind is at the center of the scientific method.

Dr. Briggs’s title was “Bayes’ Rule and Being Ready To Change Our Minds”, a reference to a recent editorial that had accompanied one of the TACT papers. That editorial, by Dr. Sanjay Kaul, a physician and statistician from UCLA, begins with this quotation:

Preconceived notions are the locks on the door to wisdom.
~ Merry Browne

Here is the relevant passage from Dr. Kaul’s editorial (italics added):

Sixth, it has been argued that the trial was unethical because there was no compelling clinical or preclinical evidence that chelation therapy has significant efficacy against atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and given that chelation therapy can cause harm, the risk was not minimal. A Bayesian analysis would not look kindly on the results because of the low prior probability of treatment effect (the so-called implausibility argument).6 This is an uncharitable (and unwarranted) interpretation of the data because previous systematic reviews concluded, “insufficient evidence to decide on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of chelation therapy in improving clinical outcomes among people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.” It is axiomatic that absence of evidence of efficacy is not the same as evidence of the absence of efficacy.

From a Bayesian perspective, the strength of evidence is often summarized using a Bayes factor, which is a measure of how well 2 competing hypotheses (the null and the alternate) predict the data. The Bayes factor and the corresponding strength of evidence for the primary end point result in TACT overall, and diabetic cohorts are shown in Table 1. The p-value of 0.035 for TACT overall cohort translates into a Bayes factor of 0.108, which means the evidence supports the null hypothesis ≈1/9th as strongly as it does the alternative. This reduces the null probability from 50% pretrial (justified by suspension of one’s belief in treatment effect) to 10% post-trial. Although this does not represent strong evidence against the null, it does reduce the level of skepticism surrounding chelation therapy. In the diabetic cohort, the nominal p-value of 0.0002 translates into a Bayes factor of 0.002 (1/500), which reduces the extremely skeptical prior null probability of 95% to 4% post- trial, indicating very strong evidence against the null.

In concluding, Dr. Kaul states:

Finally, TACT highlights the double standard when it comes to accepting inconvenient results not aligned with our preconceived notions on so-called dubious quack cures such as chelation…

Closed minds?

Dr. Kaul’s reference “6” above is to a lengthy article that we published in 2008 titled “Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy Should Be Abandoned”. So, it seems, both Drs. Briggs and Kaul were chastising us for our biased, preconceived beliefs about so-called dubious quack cures. Our minds were, apparently, not open. Let’s examine this contention. (more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Health Fraud, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (54) →

Harkin’s folly, or how forcing insurers to cover CAM undermines the ACA

Bloodletting: a good reason to discard disproven therapies

Bloodletting: a good reason to discard disproven therapies

All of us at SBM have repeatedly expressed frustration at the continuing influx of pseudoscience into the health care system. Judging from comments posted on this site and private communications we receive, our readers share this frustration but are at a loss to figure out how to get through to legislators and other policy makers. Unlike naturopaths and chiropractors, we don’t have the money to hire professional lobbyists. Fortunately, an opportunity to sound off against SCAMs has presented itself, completely free of charge.

How?

Now that the Affordable Care Act enrollment debacle is dying down, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is turning its attention to divining just what the heck Section 2706 of the ACA, the non-discrimination provision, means. (Actually there are other federal agencies involved; to simplify things, here we’ll refer to them collectively as “HHS.”) HHS has opened the issue to public comment, but only until June 10. Let’s take a look at why this is important and what you can do about it.

(There are providers other than chiropractors, naturopaths and acupuncturists involved in this fight. For example, you’ll see public comments from nurse anesthetists and nurse practitioners. But I’m not worried about providers who stick to science.) (more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Legal, Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (114) →
Page 1 of 37 12345...»