(Editor’s note: I was away at Skepticon over the weekend, where I gave a talk entitled “The Central Dogma of Alternative Medicine”. (When the talk’s up on YouTube, I’ll provide a link, of course.) Because of all the fun and travel delays I didn’t get a chance to turn my slides and notes into a blog post yet. Also, I’m on vacation this week. However, this gives me the opportunity to resurrect a blog post from 2007 on my not-so-super-secret other blog, because I think the concept is interesting. I even use it in a slide that shows up in many of my talks (above). I’ve updated dead links and added some text to include relevant links to posts written since. Enjoy, and I’ll definitely be back next week with original material, if not sooner, given that there are others here who might have the temerity to take part or all of this week off.)
I wish I had thought of this one, but I didn’t. However, I never let a little thing like not having thought of an idea first to stop me from discussing it (even if Steve Novella’s also discussed it), and this particular idea is definitely worth expanding upon because (1) it’s interesting and (2) it combines two of my interests, alternative medicine and evolution. I agree with parts of the idea, but it’s not without its shortcomings. Indeed, I’d very much welcome any of the evolutionary biologists who read this blog to chime in with their own ideas.
A colleague of mine, Martin Rundkvist over at Aardvarchaeology, has proposed a rather fascinating idea regarding the evolution of alternative medicine in which he argues that alternative medicine evolves according to certain selective pressures. As you may or may not know, evolution is not just for biology, but has been proposed as a mechanism in cultural memes, for example. Since alternative medicine is a cultural phenomenon, it is not unreasonable to look at such non-evidence-based medicine and hypothesize what might be the selective pressures that shape its popularity and evolution. After all, if we’re going to discourage the use of non-evidence-based medicine or even quackery, it’s helpful to understand it. We already know that alt-med terminology has evolved considerably into the current preferred term, “integrative medicine.” (See also the image above and my blog posts on this evolution here and here.)
This is not for kids?
Last month I wrote a post on the causes of poor sleep in adolescents, as well as the myriad problems that can result in this high-risk population. Fortunately there is a system-wide public health measure proven to work, and now groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics are fully endorsing it. In that post, I briefly mentioned the increasing popularity of energy drinks and shots as caffeine delivery devices, and their role as both a potential cause of sleep deprivation and a means of temporarily ameliorating the effects.
I have been planning on addressing in greater detail the intentional, and unfortunately often accidental, ingestion of energy drinks in the pediatric population and the various associated risks for quite a while. What finally motivated me to get to work on this topic was the recent spate of media coverage regarding the results of a study presented this week at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2014. The research, which involved the analysis of data obtained from the National Poison Data System for October 2010 through September 2013, supports concerns that pediatricians and other pediatric healthcare professionals have had for a very long time. Energy drinks are dangerous, particularly in young children, and a large part of the blame falls on the shoulders of manufacturers as well as the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) so frequently discussed on SBM.
Before I break down the scary numbers from the study, first a little background on energy drinks. (more…)
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. My blogging plan was to take a break from my series of naturopathy versus science posts, where I’ve been contrasting the advice from naturopaths against the scientific evidence. From a blogging perspective, naturopathy is a fascinating subject to scrutinize as there is seemingly no end of conditions for which naturopaths offer advice that is at odds with the scientific evidence. From a health care perspective, however, reading the advice of naturopaths is troubling. Naturopaths promote themselves as health professionals capable of providing primary care, just like medical doctors. And they’re increasingly seeking (and obtaining) physician-like privileges from governments. Naturopathy seems to be getting an easy ride from regulators, despite a lack of evidence that shows naturopathy offers anything distinctly useful or incrementally superior to science-based medicine.
Defining the scope of “naturopathic” treatment is difficult. Naturopaths offer an array of disparate health practices like homeopathy, acupuncture and herbalism that are only linked by the (now discarded) belief in vitalism – the idea we have a “life force”. From this philosophy can sometimes emerge reasonable health advice, but that has little to do with the science or the evidence. As long as it’s congruent with the naturopathic belief system, it’s acceptably “naturopathic”. In past posts I’ve looked at the naturopathic perspectives on fake diseases, infertility, prenatal vitamins, vaccinations, allergies and even scientific facts themselves. An advertisement passed to me this week promoted a naturopath who claims to treat pediatric conditions like ADHD and learning disabilities: (more…)
A new study published in JAMA sheds further light on a controversial question – whether or not to prescribe low-dose aspirin (81-100mg) for the primary prevention of vascular disease (strokes and heart attacks).
Primary prevention means preventing a negative medical outcome prior to the onset of disease, in this case preventing the first heart attack or stroke. Secondary prevention refers to treatments given to patients who have already had their first heart attack or stroke in order to reduce the risk of subsequent events.
The evidence strongly supports the efficacy of aspirin for the secondary prevention of both heart attacks and strokes. Aspirin has two effects which likely contribute to this protective effect. First, aspirin is an anti-platelet agent – it reduces the stickiness of platelets, which are cell fragments in the blood that clump together to stop bleeding. They can also clump together around an ulcerated cholesterol plaque on an artery, forming a thrombus, resulting in blockage or embolus (the clot traveling downstream) and causing either a heart attack or stroke.
Other anti-platelet agents, such as clopidogrel, are also effective in preventing stroke and heart attack.
Of course, platelets exist for a reason, and blocking their action increases the risk of bleeding or can make bleeding worse when it occurs. Therefore determining the optimal dose and target population are important to maximize the benefit of aspirin or other anti-platelet agent while minimizing the bleeding risk. (more…)
Screen detection and tumor growth rates. Cancers have different growth rates, which determine their potential to be detected by screening. Tumor A remains microscopic and undetectable by current technology (although more sensitive tests in the future might render it detectable). Tumor B eventually becomes detectable by screening (*), but its growth rate is so slow that it will not cause symptoms during the life of the individual; its detection will result in overdiagnosis. Tumor C is capable of metastasizing, but it grows slowly enough that it can be detected by screening (*); for some, this early detection will result in survival. Tumor D grows very quickly and therefore is usually not detected by screening. This will present as an interval cancer (i.e. detected clinically in the interval between screening examinations) and has a particularly poor prognosis. Note that of the four tumor types, only Tumor C has the potential to benefit from screening. Red dashed lines represent the natural history of a tumor in the absence of detection by screening. (Figure 1 from Gates, 2014).
A new stool DNA test was recently approved by the FDA for colon cancer screening. My first reaction was “Yay! I hope it’s good enough to replace all those unpleasant, expensive screening colonoscopies.” But of course, things are never that simple. I wanted to explain the new test for our readers; but before I could start writing, some other issues in cancer screening barged in and demanded to be included. They exemplify the dilemmas we face with every screening test. We have covered these issues before, but mainly in reference to mammography and prostate (PSA) screening. My article morphed into a CLT sandwich: colon, lung, and thyroid cancer screening.
The current issue of American Family Physician has a great article on cancer screening. It uses lucid graphics to illustrate lead time bias, length time bias, and overdiagnosis bias, as well the effect of varying tumor growth rates on screening success rates, all concepts that have been covered by Dr. Gorski here. Briefly, screening may do more harm than good if:
- It detects cancerous cells that never would have developed into invasive cancers or harmed the patient in any way;
- Early diagnosis and treatment decrease quality of life without reducing death rates; or
- The test falsely indicates cancer in patients who don’t have it or fails to indicate cancer in some who do. (more…)
A few weeks ago, Steve Novella invited me on his podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, to discuss a cancer case that has been in the news for several months now. The case was about an 11-year-old girl with leukemia who is a member of Canada’s largest aboriginal community. Steve wrote about this case nearly a month ago. Basically, the girl’s parents are fighting for the right to use “natural healing” on their daughter after they had stopped her chemotherapy in August because of side effects. It is a profoundly disturbing case, just as all the other cases I’ve discussed in which children’s lives are sacrificed at the altar of belief in alternative medicine, but this one has a twist that I don’t recall having dealt with before: The girl’s status as part of the First Nations. Sadly, on Friday, Ontario Court Justice Gethin Edward has ruled that the parents can let their daughter die.
The First Nations consist of various Aboriginal peoples in Canada who are neither Inuit nor Métis. There are currently more than 630 recognized First Nations governments or bands in Canada, half of which are located in Ontario and British Columbia. This girl lives in Ontario, which is basically just next door to Detroit, just across the Detroit River. Unlike previous cases of minors who refuse chemotherapy or whose parents refuse chemotherapy for them that I’ve discussed, such as Sarah Hershberger, an Amish girl whose parents were taken to court by authorities in Medina County, Ohio at the behest of Akron General Hospital, where she had been treated because they stopped her chemotherapy for lymphoblastic lymphoma in favor of “natural healing,” or Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old boy from Minnesota with Hodgkin’s lymphoma whose parents, in particular his mother, refused chemotherapy after starting his chemotherapy and suffering side effects, there’s very little information about this girl because of Canadian privacy laws. I do not know her name. I do not know anything about her case except that she has acute lymphoblastic leukemia, that she started treatment but her parents withdrew her because of side effects.
Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas.
– Marie Curie’s advice to journalists
Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer was on CBS This Morning News explaining plans for a psychosocial intervention study with women with Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. The project would attempt to shrink women’s tumors by shifting their mental perspective back to before they were diagnosed.
Seeing her on TV unsettled me because I had just supplied a journalist with quotes for his article in the New York Times about Langer. I hadn’t been following her recently. Instead I focused on her now-famous study from the 70s. Langer had claimed that giving nursing home residents a plant for which they were responsible cut their mortality by half (the nursing home residents, not the plant), compared to residents whose plants were attended by staff. The paper continues to get uncritical coverage in the media and in introductory psychology texts.
I looked up the Timesarticle after seeing CBS This Morning News, and it accurately quoted me:
There are many conspiracy theories about vaccines, and they circulate almost continuously. Some are relatively new, but most are at least a few years old. They all tend to fall into several defined types, such as the “CDC whistleblower” story, which posits that the “CDC knew” all these years that vaccines cause autism but covered it up, even going so far as to commit scientific fraud to do so. Of the many other myths about vaccines that stubbornly persist despite all evidence showing them not only to be untrue but to be risibly, pseudoscientifically untrue, among whose number are myths that vaccines cause autism, sudden infant death syndrome, and a syndrome that so resembles shaken baby syndrome (more correctly called abusive head trauma) that shaken baby syndrome is a misdiagnosis for vaccine injury, the antivaccine conspiracy theory that vaccines are being used for population control is one of the most persistent. In this myth, vaccines are not designed to protect populations of impoverished nations against diseases like the measles, which still kills hundreds of thousands of people a year outside of developed countries. Oh, no. Rather, according to this myth, vaccines are in fact a surreptitious instrument of population control designed to render people sterile, for whatever nefarious reasons the powers that be have to want to control the population.
You might recall how a few years ago antivaccinationists leaped on a statement by Bill Gates that “if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” They used it to accuse Gates of being a eugenicist and that vaccines were in actuality an instrument of global depopulation. It was a ridiculous charge of course. In context, it was clear that Gates was referring to how the expected population increase from 6.8 billion to 9 billion could be blunted by providing good health care, including reproductive care and vaccines, to impoverished people in regions where the population increases are expected to be greatest. He was clearly referring to decreasing the expected population increase by 10% or 15%, meaning that instead of going up to 9 billion the population would only increase to between 7.65 and 8.1 billion. In other words, he was referring to how good health care could decrease the expected rate of population growth, not how vaccines could be used to depopulate the world. However, because of the prevalence of the myth that vaccines are sterilizing agents intended for global depopulation, the charge that Gates is a eugenicist, as obviously off base as it is to reasonable people, resonated in the anti-science world of antivaccinationists. Similar claims, namely that there is “something” in vaccines that results in infertility and sterilization, have been unfortunately very effective in frightening people in Third World countries and have played a major role in antivaccine campaigns that have delayed the eradication of polio.
Parent “I want #Ebola vaccine for my child”
Doc “There isn’t one, but we have #flushot“
Parent “We don’t believe in that”
So much of what we are for at Science-Based Medicine is reflected in what we oppose: all the pseudo-medical interventions and SCAMs. It is not always a positive message, forever noting why you should not be participating in a given bit of fantasy-based medicine. We are often the nay-saying curmudgeons of the medical world. Even for medical topics about for which I am in strongly in favor, vaccines, much of my prose is devoted to countering myths and lies about influenza vaccines, from why the Cochrane review is messed up to why health care workers are dumb asses for not being vaccinated.
Well no Debbie Downer or Crotchety Crislip today. Nope. We are going to ride our Rainbow Unicorn to the land of Happiness and Immunity and discuss some of the reasons why you and yours should get the influenza vaccine. (more…)
New York may soon join a handful of other states who reject science-based guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease in favor of ideological guidelines based on the vociferous lobbying of patients and “Lyme literate” health care providers. Ignoring science is an unfortunate but well-known legislative phenomenon. I’ve discussed it a number of times on SBM, in the form of Legislative Alchemy, the process by which credulous state legislators turn practitioners of pseudoscience into state-licensed health care professionals, such as naturopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths and acupuncturists.
Lyme disease is an infectious disease transmitted by a tick bite. Its symptoms are a rash, fever, headache and fatigue, although not all symptoms may appear. According to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA):
Lyme disease is diagnosed by medical history, physical exam, and sometimes a blood test. It may take four to six weeks for the human immune system to make antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi and therefore show up in a positive blood test. That is why patients with the Lyme rash usually have a negative blood test and diagnosis is based on the characteristic appearance of the rash. Patients with other clinical manifestations such as Lyme arthritis will usually have a blood test. Anyone who has symptoms for longer than six weeks and who has never been treated with antibiotics is unlikely to have Lyme disease if the blood test is negative.
Treatment with antibiotics usually eliminates the symptoms, but delayed treatment can result in more serious problems. (more…)