Articles

Archive for Science and the Media

The Weekly Waluation of the Weasel Words of Woo #7

What Talent!

I, like Joe, am utterly humbled by the translations of the entry in the W^5/2 #6! Namidim (twice), Stu (m’man!), Michelle B (using the Now-Venerated, Awesome Power of Simple Substitution that had Suddenly Swept Stu to SuperStar Status lo! These many W^5/2s ago!), and Michael X (it’s Larry’s turn to cry!) each nailed that passage lacka split hawg through the Penetrating Power of Poignant Parody©.

Therefore:

I thought it wouldn’t happen for a while, if ever, and I tremble as I write this, but…I have no choice but to confer the legendary, coveted, Soaring Standard of Stu® upon each of the four prodigal W^5/2 scholars named above! My hat is also off to homeboy David Gorski, who followed that passage with a Perfectly Pertinent Post-post Posting©, demonstrating such uncanny, spontaneous timing and recall that he must be Duly Acknowledged as one of the Baddest Bosses of the Blogosphere®. (more…)

Posted in: Humor, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (15) →

Stem Cell Therapy and the Need for Transparency

Dr. Geeta Shroff is an Indian physician who is running a New Delhi clinic offering embryonic stem cell therapies for a large number of various medical conditions. The only thing these medical conditions have in common is that they are incurable. Indian law allows for the use of unproven treatments for terminal or incurable diseases. I cannot know Dr. Shroff’s intentions, but she has rejected the ethics and standards of science-based medicine and in so doing has transformed herself into a dangerous charlatan.

Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy

Embryonic Stem Cells (ESC) are controversial because of the ethical and moral consideration regarding harvesting ESC and the rights of an embryo. But that is not what makes Dr. Shroff’s treatments controversial, and not what I am going to write about here. The question, rather, is the state of the science of ESC therapy.

ESC’s are scientifically interesting because they have the potential to turn into any type of cell in the body. The hope for ESC therapy is that they can be used to replace dead or abnormal tissue in the body, something which is not now possible for many conditions. (Organ and bone marrow transplants are among the current treatments to replace failing tissue.) For example, an injured spinal cord might be repaired by using ESC’s to replace the damaged motor neurons and reestablish a connection between the brain and muscles. Atrophied muscles themselves can be repaired by having ESC’s turn into working muscle cells.

(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (6) →

Early detection of cancer, part 2: Breast cancer and MRI

Note: If you haven’t already, you should read PART 1 of this two-part series. It defines several terms that I will be using in this post, and I don’t plan on explaining them again, given that they were explained in detail in Part 1. Of course, if you’re a medical professional and already know what lead time bias, length bias, and stage migration are, then it goes without saying that you should still read Part 1 for its scintillating prose.

ResearchBlogging.orgWhen last I left this topic three weeks ago, I had discussed why detecting cancer at ever-earlier stages and ever-smaller sizes is not necessarily an unalloyed good. At that time, I discussed in detail a landmark commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled, Advances in Diagnostic Imaging and Overestimations of Disease Prevalence and the Benefits of Therapy. The article, although nearly 15 years old, rings just as true today in its cautioning doctors about whether ever-increasing diagnostic sensitivity that imaging technology and new blood tests were (and are) providing was actually helping patients as much as we thought it was. Before we dive into this problem as applied to breast cancer, let’s review what Drs. Black and Welch had to say about screening tests for breast cancer 15 years ago, as way of background and linking my last post and this one:

Before the widespread use of mammography, most breast cancers were discovered on physical examination, as palpable lumps. In one of the few studies to assess directly the accuracy of physical examination in screening for breast cancer, only 27 percent of tumors more than 1.0 cm in diameter and 10 percent of those less than 1.0 cm in diameter were detected by physical examination. However, the mean size of breast cancers detected by state-of-the-art screening mammography is about 1.0 cm, and many of the cancers detected as microcalcifications are only a few millimeters in size.

Again, prevalence depends on the degree of scrutiny. According to the Connecticut Tumor Registry, clinically apparent breast cancer afflicts about 1 percent of all women between the ages of 40 and 50 years. In a recent medicolegal autopsy study, however, small foci of breast cancer were found in 39 percent of women in this age group. Most cancers were in the form of ductal carcinoma in situ. Furthermore, over 45 percent of the women with cancer had two or more lesions, and over 40 percent had bilateral lesions. Although it has been argued that such small in situ lesions are not detected by and are therefore irrelevant to screening mammography, about half the lesions in that study were detected, usually as microcalcifications, on postmortem plain-film radiography of the resected breasts. Because of continual technical improvements and increasingly broad criteria for the interpretation of mammograms, the detection threshold for breast cancer has fallen considerably since the time of the Breast Cancer Screening Project of the Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York (1963 to 1975). This can explain the increased prevalence of cancer on mammographic screening, from 2.717 to 7.614 per 1000 examinations (with the incidence increasing from 1.517 to 3.214 per 1000 examinations). The lower detection threshold can also explain the increase in the percentage of carcinomas in situ (stage 0) among all mammographically detected cancers — from 12.7 percent to over 30 percent. The principal indication for biopsy has changed from suspicious mass to suspicious microcalcifications. This can explain why the reported incidence of breast cancer has increased and why most of the increase is in smaller lesions, particularly ductal carcinoma in situ.

About a year ago, three major articles hit the medical press that made me start thinking about this more than I had in the past. It’s my job, after all, because breast cancer surgery is a large part of my practice, and I do breast cancer lab-based research. What also tweaked me not to put off doing part 2 of this series is that, just two days ago, there was an abstract presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Meeting (where I still am today) that also serves to highlight just how difficult this question of integrating a test as sensitive as MRI into a screening regimen for and preoperative evaluation of breast cancer is and how MRI should fit into in this regimen can be.
(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Public Health, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media, Surgical Procedures

Leave a Comment (4) →

The Media and Vaccines

As the name of this blog makes clear, the authors believe that the public is best served when the institutions of medicine and health care are science-based. The basis of medicine has many levels and institutions in our society. They include not only the practitioners of medicine, but hospitals, medical schools and other academic institutions, government and regulatory agencies, industry, insurance companies, the legal system, media, and (last but not least) the public. Defending science-based medicine requires advocacy at every level.

Arguably, the acceptance of science-based medicine at all levels is influenced greatly by public opinion (too much, in my opinion, as a profession, almost by definition, should rise above the lowest common denominator of public opinion), and public opinion is influenced greatly by the mainstream media. There is one issue, however, for which public opinion has a direct and measurable effect on the efficacy of a medical intervention and that is the vaccination program. Therefore we pay particular interest to how the media deals with the issue of vaccines, especially the recent false controversy over an alleged link between vaccines and autism.

It is my observation (and also supported by a recent study) that the quality of mainstream science reporting has been generally low, attributed to the scaling back of dedicated science journalists. On this issue I have found the reporting to be mixed, with both good and bad examples, but with the highest quality outlets generally getting the story right. This week Time magazine’s cover story is The Truth About Vaccines by Alice Park. The article is excellent – it covers the controversy without pandering and without pretending that there is more of a scientific controversy than there is. She states quite succinctly that the evidence has been evaluated by scientific organizations and there simply is no credible evidence for a link between autism and vaccines.

(more…)

Posted in: Public Health, Science and the Media, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (18) →

The Real ID

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. [PZ] Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed.Stein (speaking about the Holocaust): …that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: … Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

I am a full time Infectious Disease physician. In the short hand of the medical field, I am an ID doc. Recently, saying I do ID is kind of like having last name like Himmler. No relation, but a vague discomfiture that I might be misrecognized as something else.

My ID, the real ID, along with medicine, is a branch of science (I always hear Mangus Pyke in the Thomas Dolby song when I type the word) with a long history, of, well, saving lives. Lots of lives. Millions and millions of lives. And relieving suffering. The simplest of things have been responsible for the long and reasonably healthy lives we get to have here in the industrialized world.

The Science-Based Medicine Blog deals with what Merlin Mann refers to as first world problems. The fine points of botanicals and prostatism or whether the placebo effect is the cause of the response to acupuncture. Interesting though these topics can be to some, when it comes to the overall health of most of us in the first world the main triumphs of science (Or is Ducks Breath I hear? “I have a masters degree in Science”) occurred over a century or two ago. The science of 200 years ago, by the standards of today, was simple, with simple results, but lead to remarkable advances in longevity and health.

(more…)

Posted in: Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (32) →

The early detection of cancer and improved survival: More complicated than most people think

“Early detection of cancer saves lives.”

How many times have you heard this statement or something resembling it? It’s a common assumption (indeed, a seemingly common sense assumption) that detecting cancer early is always a good thing. Why wouldn’t it always be a good thing, after all? For many cancers, such as breast cancer and colon cancer, there’s little doubt tha early detection at the very least makes the job of treating the cancer easier. Also, the cancer is detected at an earlier stage almost by definition. But does earlier detection save lives? This question, as you might expect, depends upon the tumor, its biology, and the quality and cost of the screening modality used to detect the cancer. Indeed, it turns out that the question of whether early detection saves lives is a much more complicated question to answer than you probably think, a question that even many doctors have trouble with. It’s also a question that can be argued too far in the other direction. In other words, in the same way that boosters of early detection of various cancers may sometimes oversell the benefits of early detection, there is a contingent that takes a somewhat nihilistic view of the value of screening and argues that it doesn’t save lives.

A corrollary of the latter point is that some boosters of so-called “alternative” medicine take the complexity of evaluating the effect of early screening on cancer mortality and the known trend towards diagnosing earlier and earlier stage tumors as saying that our treatments for cancer are mostly worthless and that the only reason we are apparently doing better against cancer is because of early diagnosis of lesions that would never progress. Here is a typical such comment from a frequent commenter whose hyperbolic style will likely be immediately recognizable to regular readers here:

Most cancer goes away, or never progresses, even with NO medical treatment. Most people who get cancer never know it. At least in the past, before early diagnosis they never knew it.

Now many people are diagnosed and treated, and they never get sick or die from cancer. But this would have also been the case if they were never diagnosed or treated.

Maybe early diagnosis and treatment do save the lives of a small percentage of all who are treated. Maybe not. We don’t know.

As is so often the case with such simplistic black and white statements, there is a grain of truth buried under the absolutist statement but it’s buried so deep that it’s well-nigh unrecognizable. Because we see this sort of statement frequently, I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss some of the issues that make the reduction of mortality from cancer so difficult to achieve through screening. I will do this in two parts, although the next part may not necessarily appear next week
(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Public Health, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (228) →

Near Death Experiences and the Medical Literature

MIRACLE MAX: See, there’s a big difference between mostly dead, and all dead. Now, mostly dead: he’s slightly alive. All dead, well, with all dead, there’s usually only one thing that you can do.

INIGO: What’s that?

MIRACLE MAX: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

The Princess Bride

Can you trust anyone when they purport to tell you what the medical literature says? No. As an example we will use the issue of near death experiences, or NDE’s.

We will avoid the obvious paradox in this entry, sort of the ‘everything I say is a lie paradox’ that will cause computers in the Federation to shut down.

Why am I going to comment on this issue? Well, this months Skeptic has a back and forth between Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra about life after death.

No. I am not going to comment on whether there is life after death. I am more interested in life during life, thank you very much. I’ll let the afterlife take care of itself.

But in their point counterpoint, they both refer to a Lancet article about NDE’s and it then begs the question:

Does anyone actually read or understand the literature they quote ?

(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Neuroscience/Mental Health, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (29) →

Science and Health News Reporting – The Case of the Regenerating Finger

Last week it was widely reported that an Ohio man, Lee Spievak, had regrown the end of his finger that had been chopped off in an accident. Reporters informed us, for example:

A man who sliced off the end of his finger in an accident has re-grown the digit thanks to pioneering regenerative medicine.

But this was not the real story. The true and amazing tale, rather, is of how the mainstream news media utterly failed to properly report this story. This is not an isolated incident, but a commonplace example of a broken system, and one that is getting worse. But first, let’s see how this reporting went wrong.

(more…)

Posted in: Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (11) →

Mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants and autism: Is there a correlation?

ResearchBlogging.orgOn April 30, outside the courthouse in Dallas, a press conference/rally was held. This particular rally was in response to a new study published by a group led by Dr. Raymond F. Palmer in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, whose conclusion was that autism prevalence correlates strongly with proximity to mercury-emitting coal-burning power plants and other industrial sources of airborne mercury, the implication being that such sources of mercury may be causal or contributory to the development of autism. Unfortunately, the rally was reported by the media as though this study were slam dunk evidence that mercury environmental mercury is a definite contributor to the development of autism. For example, there is some video (also here) from local news sources of the rally, in the first of which it is stated as fact that mercury caused autism in the child featured in the story and in the second of which a mother who thinks that mercury causes autism is quoted credulously. This study has had much less play in the national news, but antivaccination activists, such as the ones at the Age of Autism website, a site whose main theme is that either mercury in the thimerosal preservative that used to be in childhood vaccines before 2002 or vaccines themselves cause autism, both promoted the rally and posted a glowing and credulous take on the study, as did “alternative medicine” and antivaccinationist website NaturalNews.com.

My first thought upon reading of this is that it is yet more vindication of the science showing that the claim that mercury in thimerosal-containing vaccines is a failed hypothesis. After all, as I have predicted time and time again, as the scientific and epidemiological evidence continued to mount that thimerosal is just plain not associated with autism or autism spectrum disorders, even the most diehard adherents to this belief are starting to realize that they were backing a losing horse, especially since thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines other than the flu vaccine in 2001, leaving only trace amounts from the manufacturing process and there is no sign that autism prevalence is falling. That’s why lately, their effort has shifted from primarily demonizing mercury to blaming other “toxins” in vaccines, even to the point that their efforts to demonize some ingredient–any ingredient–in vaccines often reaches ridiculous levels of blatant silliness, such as touting sucrose as one of those “toxins.” Indeed, I was puzzled. If environmental mercury is the new cause of autism, then the rationale antivaccinationists use to demonize vaccines and portray their children as “vaccine-damaged” is much less potent. Why on earth would they tout this study, which, even if a good study (and it’s not), would weaken their arguments against vaccines immeasurably and take power away from their whole new propaganda slogan “Green Our Vaccines”? The only reason I could think of is that perhaps they somehow think that if mercury in the environment can be linked to autism that maybe–just maybe–they can convince people that they were right about mercury in vaccines all along. Indeed, this seems to be the sort of tack that David Kirby took a year ago when he started arguing that mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants in China (which do reach California), coupled with mercury emission from crematoria in which cadavers with mercury fillings were burned, were contributing to the continued increase in the autism caseload in California despite the elimination of thimerosal in 2001.

But what does the study say itself? Is it good evidence that airborne mercury from coal-fueled power plants is an important contributor to the development of autism? I will argue no, because the study’s flaws are so innumerable that it is well nigh uninterpretable. For simplicity’s sake, to summarize its findings, I’ll quote a Science Daily press release about it:
(more…)

Posted in: Neuroscience/Mental Health, Public Health, Science and the Media, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (9) →

Charlie Woo TV

Some of us received the announcement a week ago of the Bravewell Collaborative’s planned conference on “Integrative Medicine” co-sponsored with the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine, to take place in February, 2009.  (Note: I like to cap slogans and commercial trademarks and such and enclose them in quotation marks. Especially when the terms have no consensus meaning or are intended to obscure and confuse. ) 

Several of us may blog on the announcement. I want to emphasize a few points that struck me as revealing.  

The announcement also listed Friday’s Charlie Rose Pub TV interview program with Harvey Fineberg, MD, President of the “IOM,” Christy Mack, wife of the CEO of Morgan Stanley and the ideologue behind Bravewell and the project, and Ralph Snyderman, ubiquitous former dean of Duke University Medical School now vagabond “CAM” promoter and fund raiser. 

First off was a significant disclosure. Charlie Rose had been married at one time to Christy Mack’s sister, and Christy and he were still dear friends. As if disclosure is enough to help a viewer distinguish between facts and views obscured by a haze of politeness, appreciation, and gooey mutual stroking.

So much for  investigative, penetrating, and revealing journalism.

Snyderman, whose school was recipient also of large Templeton Foundation grants to ivestigate significance of spirituality and religion in “healing” revealed that he at one time was one of those straight arrow physicians who treated disease (instead of a person.) Until he experienced some of “the techniques” – unspecified – himself. In typical testimonial phrasing, he found it wondrous that something as intangible as hope could help heal. (Some of us also find that wondrous – even dubiousl.)  And then the tried and trite criticisms of docs being too involved in details (like what works and how to use it) and losing sight of the “whole person.”  ”Health is a value and one can have impact…” Eyes roll at such platitudinous and vacuous language.

If that were not enough, Fineberg demonstrated his deep knowledge of “Integrative Medicine” by telling the difference between “healing” and “curing,” and his democratic outlook by wanting to test any methods that works – regardless of the origin. David G’s blog the other day and Kim Atwood’s previous words discussed that issue, which still befuddles the NCCAM, which seems to test anything whether it contains molecules or not, and whether the idea generated in a crucible of observation and experimentation, or descended in a 2 AM drug-induced revelation.  He then used artemisinin (for resistant malaria) to illustrate the potential mining of miraculous natural drugs from traditional Chinese Medicine. I assume he assumed that TCM practitioners had  had been using it for malaria for centuries…despite the fact that there was no description of infectious diseases in TCM. Finding artemisinin for malaria was a product of extraction and purification from plants, known as modern pharmacology.

Christy Mack tried to introduce new concepts, explaining that one of her new aims is to empower the patient to heal oneself…That is not only decades old, but a word-linkage that, as with all esoteric ideation , means a lot to her and her co-believers, but little to the uninitiated.  Another concept was for each person to make a personal health plan for one’s life.  Can’t I do that now if I want? Seems I already did, then chance and nature intervened…

When Snyderman let slip the term, “CAM”, Mack jumped in saying, “Integrative Medicine” is not “CAM”.  Here was a clue to the joining of these otherwise poorly fitting edges of “IM” and the “IOM.”   We just won’t talk about those inconvenient absurdities that “IOM” might shrink from. My take is that Mack and ”CAM” advocacates want the blessings of as many System organizations as possible to fill their “CAM” CV as prelude to legitimization, licensing, and insurance reimbursement.  “CAM” practitioners are using the Bravewell as internediary to using “IOM.” Morgan Stanley money being an efficient lubricant. Simple.

So “IOM,” in exchange for more $?millions as it did for the NCCAM committee, sells itself and its merit badge for ”CAM”‘s  CV sash.  Fair exchange in this capitalist system, yes?  Seems that the only factor nissing in this exchange that keeps it from illegality is a sexual act. The Quiet Revolution moves on. 

Personal note: In 1993 when I awoke from 3 weeks of post-op unconsciousness in the ICU, the first things I recalled were on the overhead TV: the NCAA basketball finals, the Waco cult building complex on fire, and Charlie Rose interviewing another talking head with that ominous blacked-out background. The Quiet Revolution moves on as the Nightmare recurs. �

Posted in: Faith Healing & Spirituality, Health Fraud, Medical Academia, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (39) →
Page 33 of 35 «...1020303132333435