Articles

Archive for Science and Medicine

Google Trends and the Interest in Alternative Medicine

USA Today has come out with a new survey – apparently, three out of every four people make up 75% of the population.

–David Letterman

How popular is alternative medicine? One way is to survey people and ask them. Like all surveys, the nature of the question determines the answer. The first, and probably most referenced, and misquoted, article on ‘alternative’ medicine to address the question was “Unconventional Medicine in the United States — Prevalence, Costs, and Patterns of Use” from the NEJM .

‘Alternative’ proponents quote this article, often as the opening sentence of the paper. “One in three respondents (34 percent) reported using at least one unconventional therapy in the past year.” No one, it appears, ever reads past the abstract. As is so often the case, the substance of the article may not reflect the spin found in the abstract.

There are many issues with this paper (see http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/eisenberg.html for a detailed critique) , not the least of which is the definition of unconventional therapy. To get to this huge percentage of users they had to include exercise (26%), prayer (25%) and relaxation techniques (13%) as unconventional therapies. Little did I know that I participate in unconventional therapies every day.

(more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (12) →

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, 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: Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (10) →

The science of purging, or the purging of science?

It’s Thanksgiving in the U.S., one of my favorite holidays.  Thanksgiving habits get set down early in life, and the while I may find your lima bean casserole execrable, to you it’s just not Thanksgiving without it.

And speaking of excrement, you can expect to see adds encouraging you to “detox” from all of your holiday excesses.  Outside the field of substance abuse, what the hell is “detox” anyway?  “Detoxification” is apparently the pinnacle of modern health care, if you believe the dozens of adds on late-night TV.

For me to explain to you why even the very idea is laughable, I have to teach you a bit of human biochemistry—just a little, I promise. My scientific readers will find this grossly oversimplified, but hopefully they will forgive me.

Detox sounds so simple, but in fact, human biology is more complex and beautiful than is dreamt of in the quacks’ philosophies.
(more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (5) →

Bee Venom Therapy – Grassroots Medicine

Pat Wagner (or “The Bee Lady,” as she likes to be called) treats herself for multiple sclerosis (MS) by allowing bees to sting her. She calls this bee-venom therapy (BVT) and believes it has saved her from MS.

There are now thousands of people who administer BVT to themselves or others, mostly in private homes by unlicensed practitioners. BVT is not prescribed by a doctor, yet it is used like any other drug, given in regular doses at regular intervals. There is no scientific evidence to support its use, and yet thousands of multiple sclerosis sufferers and others tout its effectiveness.

BVT, which is one modality within Apitherapy, or the use of various bee products as a medical treatment, is still a relatively small phenomenon. It is largely an unrecognized grassroots or folk medicine treatment – but like all such phenomena has been given a huge boost recently by the easy spread of information via the internet. It has also been adopted by many so-called alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners, and has been increasingly wrapped in the typical marketing jargon of CAM. So, in a way, this grassroots treatment has been corporatized by the CAM industry.

(more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Neuroscience/Mental Health, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (15) →

NCCAM: the not-even-wrong agency

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is a government agency tasked with (among other things), “[exploring] complementary and alternative healing practices in the context of rigorous science.” In this space we have talked about NCCAM quite a bit, but I have to admit that I don’t think about them very much. The other day, though, I was reading though JAMA and I came across a study funded by the agency. The study, which showed that Ginkgo does not prevent Alzheimer’s-type dementia, was pretty good, so I cruised on over to NCCAM’s website to see what else they’ve been up to.

A quick glance at NCCAM’s front page:

    “Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory (GEM) Study Fails To Show Benefit in Preventing Dementia in the Elderly”
    “CAM and Hepatitis C: A Focus on Herbal Supplements ‘No CAM treatment has yet been proven effective for treating hepatitis C or its complications.’”
    “Selenium and Vitamin E in Prostate Cancer Prevention Study, ‘selenium and vitamin E supplements, taken either alone or together, did not prevent prostate cancer.’”

It seems that NCCAM is finding out something we already strongly suspected:  improbable medical claims are usually wrong.  Since that’s not how they see things,  and since I don’t believe that there is such a thing as alternative medicine, I was curious how they defined CAM.

CAM is a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Conventional medicine is medicine as practiced by holders of M.D. (medical doctor) or D.O. (doctor of osteopathy) degrees and by their allied health professionals, such as physical therapists, psychologists, and registered nurses. Some health care providers practice both CAM and conventional medicine. While some scientific evidence exists regarding some CAM therapies, for most there are key questions that are yet to be answered through well-designed scientific studies–questions such as whether these therapies are safe and whether they work for the diseases or medical conditions for which they are used.

The list of what is considered to be CAM changes continually, as those therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care and as new approaches to health care emerge. emphasis mine, ed.

The list of NCCAM studies appears to fall into three broad categories.

(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (10) →

Health Care Freedom

Freedom is a cherished commodity in our culture, as it should be. Our laws are largely based upon the premise that individuals should have the liberty to do what they want, unless there is a compelling public or governmental concern that overrides such liberties.

It is therefore no surprise that freedom is a common marketing theme – selling the idea of individuality or personal freedom of choice.

The marketers of dubious, unscientific, or fraudulent health care products and services are savvy to the marketing theme of freedom and have used it to great effect. It is all ultimately, however, a deception. There is an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with the freedoms of the public but rather is an end run around regulations meant to protect the public.

(more…)

Posted in: Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (19) →

“Integrative Medicine Experts”: Another Barrier to Effective Discipline

This is the final entry in the current series having to do with state regulation of physicians.† It is the final one merely because I’m tired of the topic, for now. There is plenty more to write about, including an event that occurred only yesterday right here at my own hospital. I’ll give a preview of that at the end of this post, but first we’ll look at another recent event.

Dazing Arizona  

Arizona’s citizens, more than most, can expect to be bamboozled by pseudomedicine. We’ve seen that the Arizona Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners has, for years, provided a regulatory safe haven for quacks with MD and DO degrees. Although I haven’t previously mentioned it in this series, which is about quack medical doctors, Arizona is also a haven for another group of quacks: “naturopathic doctors.” Like its homeopathy board, Arizona’s Naturopathic Physicians Board of Medical Examiners has been less than committed to protecting the public from its licensees. In each board’s case, the state Office of the Auditor General has suggested numerous fixes, but there has been little indication of improvements.

Nor would improvements be expected: in the words of Edzard Ernst,

Those who believe that regulation is a substitute for evidence will find that even the most meticulous regulation of nonsense must still result in nonsense.

Arizona is also the home of one of the first academic “integrative medicine” programs, begun by Andrew Weil at the University of Arizona. We have previously seen examples of misleading language emanating from that program. We’ve also seen the program’s inordinate effect on the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). We’ve seen examples of the writings of Kenneth Pelletier, one of the U of Arizona program’s consultants to the FSMB. A recent disciplinary case in Arizona illustrates the potential danger of a state medical board seeking consultation from another “integrative medicine expert” from that program.

(more…)

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

Leave a Comment (14) →

Does alternative medicine have alternative ethics?

Kimball Atwood has an interesting series of posts on the ethics of alternative medicine which I strongly encourage you to read.  He does a great job examining the ethical implications of certain alternative medicine practices, and has a terrific dialog with Peter Moran, a frequent commenter here.   At my other online locale, I make frequent forays into the morass of medical ethics, with an emphasis on specific clinical scenarios.  Today, though, I’d like to take a step back and examine the nature of medical ethics as they apply to so-called alternative medicine.

First, and perhaps most important, I am not an ethicist.  I do not have the depth of reading, the knowledge of terminology, or the specific education to lead a formal discussion on ethics.  What I am is a practicing internist, who must make ethical decisions on a daily basis. Most of these decisions are of necessity made “from the heart”, but it is not infrequent that I must evaluate a situation more formally and fall back on some of the ethical principles of my profession.

Ethics are not static.  They are not a divine gift bestowed on each of us as we don our white coats.  They are a living part of our specific cultures, and of the profession we serve.  Some of the modern principles of medical ethics are newer than others.  Beneficence, non-maleficence, and confidentiality are ancient principles of medical ethics, which continue to be relevant today.  Patient autonomy is a more recent value, reflecting a shift in how society views the relationship between patient and physician.  These ethics must be mutable, as the profession itself is ever-changing.  Despite this fluidity, there is an identifiable line of “doctor-hood” that has existed for at least the last century, and the members of this guild have always tried to adhere to some type of code of behavior.

Alternative medicine poses real challenges to the principle of medical ethics.  First, we’ll discuss who, in fact, is bound by these principles, then the way in which alternative medicine is or is not compatible with medical ethics. (more…)

Posted in: Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (22) →

“It’s just a theory”

I am afraid that the experiments you quote, M. Pasteur, will turn against you. The world into which you wish to take us is really too fantastic.

La Presse, 1860

It’s just a theory. Not evolution. Germ theory. Just a theory, one of many that account for the etiology of diseases.

I should mention my bias up front. I am, as some of you are aware, an Infectious Disease doctor. My job is simple: me find germ, me kill germ, me go home. I think there are three causes of disease: wear and tear, genetic, and germs. Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. My professional life for the last 22 years has been spent preventing, diagnosing, and treating the multitudinous germs that a continually trying to kill or injure us. It is a fundamentally futile job, as in the end I will be consumed by the organisms I have spend a lifetime trying to kill.

I would have though that the germ theory of disease was a concept that was so grounded in history, science and reality that there would be little opposition to the idea that germs (a broad term for viruses, bacteremia, fungi, parasite etc) cause infections and some other diseases.

Wrong. There are people who deny the validity of germ theory. Add there are people who deny gravity. And evolution.

Opponents of germ theory come in two flavors:

  1. Germ theory deniers.
  2. Those who propose alternative mechanisms of disease.

There is great overlap between the two categories, and the division serves more as a literary device for the sake of exposition than a true description of reality.
(more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (37) →
Page 68 of 81 «...4050606667686970...»