It appears that we are near the beginning of a new modality in medicine – the use of computer controlled and powered robotics for therapeutic purposes. At present such technology is in its infancy, but is giving us a glimpse of what it will become.
Recently Vanderbilt University announced that its team at the Center for Intelligent Mechatronics has developed an exoskeleton that paraplegics can wear on their legs to allow them to sit, stand, and walk. This is essentially a mechanized orthotic that paraplegics can wear on their legs. The researchers describe it as a “Segway with legs” – referring to the computer technology that controls the exoskeleton, which responds to the user’s movement. If the user leans forward, then the legs will walk. If they lean back, then they will sit.
Like any technology, you can take either a glass half-full or half-empty view of this device. I will cover both – first the good.
Their system has some advantages over previous systems. It is about half the weight, coming in at 27 pounds while other lower extremity exoskeletons weigh 45 pounds. The exoskeleton is also small enough to fit in a standard wheelchair while being worn, and can be put on and taken off by the user alone. As described above, this system also incorporates intelligent control technology. Users with partial paralysis can have their own movements augmented, while for those with complete plegia the exoskeleton can do all the work.
I was asked to write an article for Slate, the on-line magazine, about Andrew Weil’s selection as the keynote speaker for the 2012 AAFP annual scientific assembly. The science and health editor, Laura Helmuth, was initially enthusiastic about what I wrote, but eventually decided not to publish it. Here is the initial draft of my article. My comments follow.
Original Draft of Article for Slate
The American Academy of Family Physicians picked Andrew Weil to be the keynote speaker at its annual scientific assembly October 16-20 in Philadelphia. What were they thinking? That’s like having an astrologer give the keynote speech at an astronomy meeting.
The AAFP stands for the best in conventional medicine, for the standard of care as determined by physicians and scientists. Weil doesn’t. The AAFP stands for evidence-based medicine. Weil doesn’t. (more…)
Editor’s note: Because of Dr. Gorski’s appearance at CSICon over the weekend, he will be taking this Monday off. Fortunately, Dr. Coyne will more than ably substitute. Enjoy!
NIH is funding free training in the delivery of the Cancer to Health (C2H) intervention package, billed as “the first evidence-based behavioral intervention designed to patients newly diagnosed with cancer that is available for specialty training.” The announcement for the training claims that C2H “yielded robust and enduring gains, including reductions in patients’ emotional distress, improvements in social support, treatment adherence (chemotherapy), health behaviors (diet, smoking), and symptoms and functional status, and reduced risk for cancer recurrence.” Is this really an “empirically supported treatment” and does it reduce risk of cancer recurrence?
Apparently the NIH peer review committee thought there was sufficient evidence fund this R25 training grant. Let’s look at the level of evidence for this intervention, an exercise that will highlight some of the pseudoscience and heavy-handed professional politics in promoting psychoneuroimmunological (PNI) interventions.
Preamble: When my book Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism [full text] was published in 1963, renouncing chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory and recommending that chiropractic be developed as a subspecialty of medicine in the treatment of mechanical-type back pain, the chiropractic profession refused to acknowledge or review the book. I was labeled “an enemy of chiropractic.” If it had not been for the support I received from the science-based community, I might have had doubts about my mind set and my motives. Favorable reviews by members of the science-based community sustained me over the years; for that, I am deeply grateful. Today, still unheard by the chiropractic profession, the message of my Bonesetting book remains relevant in describing the problems of chiropractic. Although out of print, the entire book can be read online on Chirobase.org.
The Aftermath of Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism, 1963
In view of the absence of any extensive histories of chiropractic, this book has a place in medical collections and reference libraries. ─ Eric Meyerhoff, Director, The Medical Library Center of New York, N.Y.C., Library Journal, February 1, 1964
In regard to your recent application for membership in the American Chiropractic Association and insurance in the National Chiropractic Insurance Company, please be advised that the ACA membership committee has rejected your application. ─ H.W. Pruitt, D.C., Executive Secretary, American Chiropractic Association, May 17, 1965
I purchased your book some months ago on Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism. I found it to be a most intriguing and enlightening publication which has been of value to me in some of my own studies in medical anthropology. ─ James G. Roney, M.D., Ph.D., Stanford Research Institute, November 11, 1965
Plenty of new drugs, but few that are truly innovative. Growing costs from their use. Physicians deemed “Dupes of Big Pharma” for their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. A call to produce better information on which drugs work best. Finally, shoddy drug manufacturing is injuring and even killing patients. These stories could be lifted from today’s headlines — but they’re actually from 1962. Problems with the behavior of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, and our relationship with it, are not new. Nor are they restricted to one country. Every developed country’s health-care system is different, but one feature is near-universal: none have a public pharmaceutical industry. Ever nation relies on for-profit, private companies to supply its population with drug products.
Blog posts here can get pretty wonkish about health policy, as many of the substantial challenges to science-based medicine have their roots in regulation — whether it’s DSHEA which implemented a regulatory double-standard for supplements, or the state-by-state legislative alchemy that Jann Bellamy has documented, which transforms magical thinking and pseudoscientific practices into registered and regulated health practitioners. Federal food and drug regulations have also come under some scrutiny (and praise). The FDA’s under fire again; this time over its responsibility to oversee pharmaceutical manufacturing. But in this case, it’s not Big Pharma that’s the villan — it’s pharmacies. (more…)
A study recently published in PLOS one (Catechol-O-Methyltransferase val158met Polymorphism Predicts Placebo Effect in Irritable Bowel Syndrome) purports to have found a gene variant that correlates strongly with a placebo response in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The study is small and preliminary, but the results are interesting and do raise important questions about placebo responses.
Researchers are increasingly trying to tease apart the various components of “the placebo effect.” In reality we should use the term “placebo effects” as it is demonstrably multifactorial. “The placebo effect” really refers to whatever is measured in the placebo arm of a clinical trial – everything other than a physiological response to an active intervention. Within that measured response there are many potential factors that would cause an outcome from a fake treatment to be different from no treatment at all. These include statistical effects like regression to the mean and the natural course of symptoms and illness, reporting bias on the part of the subject, and a non-specific response to the therapeutic interaction with the practitioner.
It is also critical to realize that placebo responses vary greatly depending on the disease or symptom that is being treated and the outcome that is being measured. Placebo response is greatest for subjective symptoms of conditions that are known to be modified by things like mood and attention, while it is virtually non-existent for objective outcomes in pathological conditions. So there is a substantial placebo response for pain and nausea, but nothing significant for cancer survival.
In 2011, chiropractor J.C. Smith published The Medical War Against Chiropractors: The Untold Story from Persecution to Vindication. He promises an exposé comparable to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s exposé of slavery in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. His thesis is that the AMA waged a shameless attack on competition, motivated only by money. I think the reality is closer to what he quoted from Dr. Thomas Ballantine, Harvard Medical School:
The confrontation between medicine and chiropractic is not a struggle between two professions. Rather it is more in the nature of an effort by an informed group of individuals to protect the public from fraudulent health claims and practices.
The book is self-published, long-winded, repetitive, and flawed. It is a vicious screed crammed with bias, half-truths, insulting language, and innumerable references to Nazis and racial prejudice. In my opinion, Smith not only fails to make his case but degrades chiropractic.
There’s a saying in medicine that we frequently hear when a newer, more effective therapy supplants an older therapy or an existing therapy is shown not to be as efficacious as was once thought, and it has to do about how long it takes for the use of that therapy to decline. The saying basically says that the therapy won’t die out until the current generation of established physicians retire and are replaced by the new generation coming up through medical schools. From my perspective, it’s a bit of an exaggeration, because in the mere 13 years that I’ve been a real doctor (i.e., an attending physician) our practices in breast cancer surgery has changed markedly. Although certain core principles of breast cancer care remain the same, there have been major changes in terms of how we deal with the axillary lymph nodes, our use of hormone therapy and chemotherapy, and our very understanding of the different subtypes of breast cancer. Of course, I have spent my entire career as faculty at two different NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers; so my experience is not representative of that of most physicians, particularly given that I’m super subspecialized. It’s generally expected that if you’re faculty in an academic medical center you will be at the very least up to date, if not beyond at the cutting edge.
Even so, there is some truth to the observation that it takes the rise of a new generation of physicians to force out certain old ideas, which means that how we train our medical students is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, these days, it is medical students who have become a major force for promoting the “integration” of quackery into medicine (which these days is known as, appropriately enough in a way unintended by its proponents, “integrative medicine”). No, I’m not saying that all or even most medical students are prone to the blandishments of quackademic medicine, but rather that there is a large enough contingent of medical students who have gone beyond being shruggies to become activists for unscientific medicine. There are CAM clubs, CAM interest groups, and student-driven CAM electives.
And then there’s the American Medical Students Association (AMSA), specifically its various initiatives in “integrative medicine.” I fear that each successive generation of medical students is more prone to embracing unscientific medicine than the last.
Do not use this to try to boost your immune system.
Topics, as I noted a fortnight ago in my uniquely misspelled and ungrammatical way, never die.* Or even fade away. There are popular ideas that persist in the world that have little to do with reality. In the reality based world of medicine there are concepts that refuse to die. Atelectasis causing fever or the need to ‘double cover’ Pseudomonas. Neither are true, yet every year medical students tell me that is what they have been taught. It is said the only way new ideas take hold is for those that hold the old ideas to die off. So maybe 50 years from now those medical myths will be gone.
Popular culture also its myths. Take the immune system. Please. It is not a bicep that can be made stronger with a little exercise. It is a complex network of cells and proteins. There are antibodies (IgG with various subtypes, as well as IgM, IgA, IgE, etc.), the complement pathway, polymorphonuclear cells, monocytes, and lymphocytes in a profusion that rivals beetles. God, I think, has an inordinate fondness for lymphocytes. There is the Toll system, the cytokines and lymphokines, the non-specific defenses like cilia and mannose-binding lectin and on and on and on. (more…)
In a previous post, we looked at how so-called “complementary and alternative medicine” (or “CAM”) might fit into the definition of “essential health benefits,” which must be covered by insurers pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare,” or the “ACA”). In another, we contemplated what it might mean for insurers to “discriminate” against CAM providers, which is prohibited by the ACA. In both posts, the conclusion reached was that these provisions of Obamacare might not incorporate CAM practices into health care at the level CAM providers were hoping for. Here again we examine how the great expectations of CAM promoters may not be met in health care reform.
This time, we take a look at some additional provisions of the ACA that CAM lobbyists and their friends in Congress managed to insert into the healthcare overhaul. Of course, whether the ACA is around for much longer will depend on the outcome of the November elections, although Gov. Romney’s promise to “repeal Obamacare” if elected president will happen only if his party wins a majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate. (more…)