English proficiency is not a necessary precursor to becoming a contributing citizen in California’s economy and should not be used by the Board to discriminate against talented and skilled individuals who seek to provide high-quality acupuncture services in California.
— State Senators Curren D. Price Jr. and Darrell Steinberg, letter to the California Acupuncture Board, March 22, 2013.
To appreciate the recklessness of this statement, and to illustrate the Senators’ disconnect with the reality of Oriental medicine, let’s take a look at a consummate example of services provided by acupuncturists. The following video features the “Master” Kim Nam-soo demonstrating his moxibustion technique. He conducted a similar workshop for future acupuncturists in 2010 at Emperor’s College of Traditional Oriental Medicine in Santa Monica, CA. Make sure you do not miss the part where the Master is skillfully adding his own spit to the treatment!
Kim Nam-Soo (also known as “Gudang”) is a 97-year-old acupuncturist from South Korea. In this video, he is teaching a form of moxibustion (burning of a mugwort cone on or near the skin). He is first preparing a wad of mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), he is then placing it on an acupuncture point and burning it with an incense stick. Note that he is using his own saliva to make the mugwort more malleable before sticking it to the patient’s skin!
Besides acupuncture and moxibustion, the other services these “talented and skilled” individuals provide consist of massage, cupping, breathing techniques, and the use of herbal, animal and mineral products. In most states, bloodletting is not part of their scope of practice — except for Arkansas. (more…)
So let’s see how this study is being spun by the antivaccine movement:
When we at Age of Autism talk about ending the epidemic, the “to do” list seems almost overwhelming – funding a vax-unvaxed study, getting mercury out of flu shots, proving the HepB shot is nuts, wresting control of the agenda from pharma, fixing Vaccine Court (this time in the good sense of “fix”), establishing that biomedical treatments help kids recover, and on and on.
But there’s a shortcut to all this, and it goes straight through pediatricians’ offices. The evidence is growing that where a sane alternative to the CDC’s bloated vaccine schedule is offered, and other reasonable changes adopted, autism is either non-existent or so infrequent that it doesn’t constitute an epidemic at all.
The latest example comes from Lynchburg, Va., and the pediatric practice of Dr. Elizabeth Mumper. She noticed a frightening rise in autism in the 1990s. Concerned that vaccines and other medical interventions might be playing a role – concerned in other words that SHE was playing a role — Mumper changed course.
However, I deem it appropriate to mention that one of the topics that I blog most frequently about is vaccines and how the antivaccine movement pushes pseudoscience and quackery based on its apparently implacable hatred of vaccines. (You’ll see why very shortly.) It seems almost as long as my interest in the topic since I first noticed that the antivaccine movement acquired its very own celebrity spokesperson in Jenny McCarthy, who at least since 2007 has been promoting outrageous quackery and pseudoscience associated with her antivaccine views. To her, vaccines are chock full of “toxins” and all sorts of evil humors that will turn your child autistic in a heartbeat and in general “steal” your “real” child away from you the way she thinks vaccines “stole” her son Evan away from her. Indeed, among other “achievements,” she’s written multiple books about autism in which vaccines feature prominently as a cause, led a march on Washington to “green our vaccines” and has been the president of the antivaccine group Generation Rescue for the last few years. None of this stopped ABC from foolishly hiring her to join the regular cast on The View beginning in a few short weeks.
Because I occasionally check on what Jenny McCarthy is up to, I noticed a couple of weeks ago that she had been hired to be a celebrity spokesperson for blu™ e-cigarettes. Here she is, hawking the blu™ Starter Pack:
Mercury in unequivocally a neurotoxin. It is especially damaging to the developing brain. But it’s the dose that makes the toxin, and so a low enough exposure even to something known to be potentially harmful may not be. Further, the body has mechanisms for dealing with toxins, and toxins in the body may not be reaching the cells they can potentially damage in significant amounts. Therefore if we want to know if a potential toxin is actually causing any harm to people we need to do some type of epidemiological study – correlating exposure to possible adverse outcomes. All the studies in petri dishes and with cell cultures just won’t answer the question of harm.
The question of whether or not mercury in vaccines has caused neurological harm, specifically autism, has been largely answered. Numerous studies have shown no association between the amount of mercury exposure from vaccines and the risk of developing autism. A separate mercury-related question, however, is whether or not there is any risk of harm from mercury exposure from seafood. Mercury is methylated by bacteria into methymercury, and through them gets into the food chain in the oceans. Fish that eat other fish then concentrate the mercury in their tissues, and so predatory fish and sea mammals tend to have high concentrations of methymercury.
This has led to some precautionary recommendations, including that pregnant women should not eat tuna or other fish with high mercury levels. This makes sense, but what is the actual risk? The precautionary principle can also cut both ways. Fish contain many high-quality nutrients important for a developing brain, such as polyunsaturated fatty acids. Removing this food source from the diet of pregnant women may have unintended negative consequences.
It’s now officially summertime, but people have been hitting the pools and beaches for weeks in many parts of the nation. In fact it has been well into the 90’s for over two month here in Baton Rouge, which is what I blame for the early exit of LSU from the College World Series. Our boys just weren’t used to that cold and dry northern weather.
Not surprisingly, the media has already been busy reporting on some of the many tragic drowning incidents that have occurred thus far, and Facebook profiles have been full of commentary from worried parents. And, as usual, there are businesses offering infant and toddler swimming lessons costing hundreds and even thousands of dollars per course, some of which come with claims of decreasing the risk of drowning in the young participants.
At what age can a child begin swimming lessons? According to Jan Emler of Emler Swim School, teaching a child to swim can start “As soon as the umbilical cord falls off.” Emler, like more reputable proponents of infant and toddler swimming programs, doesn’t actually put newborns into swimming pools for lessons (I’ll leave water birthing enthusiasts out of this discussion). For the most part these programs only cover bath time activities to help younger babies grow comfortable being in the water. Truly teaching infants and toddlers behaviors aimed at reducing the likelihood of drowning in the event of falling into a body of water doesn’t usually start until 6 months of age. There are exceptions.
But when should these lessons start, are they safe and do they work? Or do they actually put children at risk of injury and the parent at risk of having a false sense of security? Until their updated 2010 policy statement on the prevention of drowning, the American Academy of Pediatrics came down firmly against initiating swimming lessons in children less than 4 years of age for a number of very good reasons. Why did they soften their stance and does their change of opinion support the claims that are being made by infant and toddler swimming programs? First some background information. (more…)
Editor’s note:This is an extra “bonus” post. Basically, it’s a revised version of a post I did at my not-so-super-secret-other-blog last week. The issue, however, has disturbed me so much that I felt it appropriate to post it to SBM as well. Fear not. There will be a new post by yours truly on Monday.
Sometimes, in the course of blogging, I come across a story that I don’t know what to make of. Sometimes, it’s a quack or a crank taking a seemingly science-based position. Sometimes it’s something out of the ordinary. Other times, it’s a story that’s just weird, such that I strongly suspect that something else is going on but can’t prove it. So it was a few months ago when I came across the story of Alex Spourdalakis, a 14-year-old autistic boy who became a cause célèbre of the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism.
I first noticed the story in early March when perusing AoA and came across a post by Lisa Goes entitled Day 19: Chicago Hospital Locks Down Autistic Patient. In the post was a shocking picture of a large 14-year-old boy in a a hospital bed in four-point restraints. He was naked, except for a sheet covering his genitals. A huge gash was torn in the bedsheet, revealing the black vinyl of the hospital bed beneath. The boy’s name, we were informed, was Alex Spourdalakis. Further down in the post was another, equally shocking, picture of Alex that, according to Goes, showed severe dermatitis on Alex’s back due to the hospital sheets. The photos shocked me for two reasons. First, if the story was as advertised (something always to be doubted about any story posted at AoA), for once I thought that I might be agreeing with Goes and thinking that AoA was actually doing a good thing, as disconcerting as that possibility was to me. Second, however, I was extremely disturbed by the publication of such revealing photos of the boy. Undoubtedly, Alex’s mother must have given permission. What kind of mother posts pictures like that of her son for all the world to see? Then there appeared a Facebook page, Help Support Alex Spourdalakis, which pled for readers to help the Spourdalakis family.
As I said, something just didn’t seem right at the time. (more…)
We accept certain risks for the benefits of modern society. We pump explosive gas into homes, we run wires with potentially fatal electrical currents through our neighborhoods, and we ski at breakneck speeds down mountains for fun.
We also allow people to operate vehicles weighing thousands of pounds at speeds that are potentially deadly if a mishap occurs. In 2011 there were 32,367 motor vehicle deaths in the US (10.4 per 100,000 population). Interestingly, this is down quite a bit from previous years. As a percentage of population the highest motor vehicle death year was 1935, with 34,494 deaths, or 27.1 per 100,000. The highest absolute number of motor vehicle deaths was in 1970, at 52,627.
The number of deaths has been mostly trending down since 1996, which is interesting because over this same period of time cell phone use has risen tremendously. There are various reasons for the decreased in fatalities – helmet laws, seatbelt laws, cracking down on drunk driving, increased car safety, and intermediate drivers licenses for new drivers to name a few. These trends have probably obscured any increase in car accidents from using portable communication devices while driving.
Changing behavior is difficult. It is also an increasing priority for health care. We have entered a period of history when lifestyle choices have a dominant impact on health and longevity. People are no longer dying young of incurable infectious diseases in significant numbers. Rather they are surviving long enough to die from their bad habits.
It’s not that we’re not trying – it’s simply that having a large influence on people’s day-to-day behavior is remarkably difficult. There is ongoing research looking at how to effectively change behavior at the individual and public level, but it is complex, often conflicting, and new techniques at best yield only marginal gains.
As usual, I was impressed with Mark Crislip’s post on Friday in which he discussed the boundaries between science-based medicine and what we sometimes refer to as woo or what Mark often refers to as sCAM. It got me to thinking a bit, which is always a dangerous thing, particularly when such thinking leads to my writing something for my not-so-super-secret other blog (NSSSOB). Of course, this is not my NSSSOB, but that doesn’t make it that much less dangerous. Be that as it may, I started thinking about a gambit I started noticing a few years ago being directed at me by the targets of my logorrheic deconstructions. Actually, I noticed it from the very beginning, when I first started blogging about SBM versus quackery way back in 2004 and even before, back when I was one of a doughty band of pro-science types who waded into the Wild West of online forums known as Usenet, in particular the misc.health.alternative newsgroup.
I happen to be in Washington, DC as I write this. In fact, as I write this I’m here to attend the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), the better to soak in all that cancer science goodness and (hopefully) be pumped up to go back and keep trying to do good science and, hopefully, manage to get my lab funded. Of course, the latter task is a really daunting these days, a truly depressing thing to contemplate, given that the current payline for the National Cancer Institute is around the 7th percentile, which makes me worry about how much longer my lab will be open. My self pity aside, Mark got me to thinking about the characteristics of purveyors of non-science-based medicine (i.e., quackery and quackademic medicine) compared to SBM. More precisely, I started thinking about a difference that what Mark calls sCAMmers try to pin on those of us who try to defend SBM against the forces of pseudoscience. To introduce this concept, I think it’s worth going back a few years to a comment I got a long, long time ago on a blog far, far away (i.e., my NSSSOB):
When it comes to autism, you seem to have lost something that I think every physician is well-served to have in abundance: compassion.
There are some weeks when I know what my topic will be—what it must be. These are weeks in which the universe gives the very appearance of handing to me my topic for the week on the proverbial silver platter with a giant hand descending from the clouds, pointing at it, and saying, “Blog about this, you idiot!” Usually, it’s because a study is released or something happens or a quack writes something that cries out for rebuttal. Whatever it is, it’s big and it’s unavoidable (for me, at least).
This is one of those weeks.
The reason it’s one of those weeks is because just last Friday, as I was driving to work, I heard a news story on NPR about a study that had just been released in the Journal of Pediatrics. The story, as it was reported, noted that the study being discussed looked specifically at a certain antivaccine trope and found for yet the umpteenth time that vaccines are not correlated with an increased risk of autism. Normally the news that a study had once again failed to find a link between vaccines and autism would be as surprising as a study finding that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or finding that water boils at 100° C at sea level. At this point, the evidence is so utterly overwhelming that there is not a whiff of a hint of a whisper of a correlation between vaccines and autism that it has become irritating that antivaccine activists keep pressuring scientists to do the same study over and over again, coming up with the same results over and over again, and then seeing antivaccinationists fail to believe those same results over and over again. Apparently, antivaccine activists think that if the same sorts of studies are done enough times, there will be a positive result implicating vaccines as a risk factor for or contributing cause to autism. By sheer random chance alone, this might happen someday, given the definition of statistical significance, but so far there has not been a single large, well-designed epidemiological study by reputable researchers that has found a link. (more…)