Retcon (shortened form of RETroactive CONtinuity; first made popular in the comic book world):
- (original meaning) Adding information to the back story of a fictional character or world, without invalidating that which had gone before.
- (more common usage) Adding or altering information regarding the back story of a fictional character or world, regardless of whether the change contradicts what was said before.
Archive for 2014
Gayle DeLong has been diagnosed with what she refers to as “autism-induced breast cancer”. She’s even given it an abbreviation, AIBC. Unfortunately, as you might be able to tell by the name she’s given her breast cancer, she is also showing signs of falling into the same errors in thinking with respect to her breast cancer as she clearly has with respect to autism. As a breast cancer surgeon, regardless of my personal opinion of DeLong’s anti-vaccine beliefs, I can only hope that she comes to her senses and undergoes science-based treatment, but I fear she will not, as you will see. Her brief post announcing her diagnosis and blaming it on autism, however, does provide what I like to call a “teachable moment” about cancer.
We’ve met DeLong before on this blog. For instance, she published an execrably bad study that—of course!—tried to link vaccine to autism and failed miserably, despite doing some amazing contortions of analysis, combining diagnoses willy-nilly, all in the service of the discredited vaccine-autism hypothesis. As I said at the time, it just goes to show that someone who is an associate professor of economics and finance shouldn’t be doing epidemiological research. As I also described at the time, if the sorts of analytical techniques she used in her study are acceptable in the world of economics and finance, no wonder our economy has been so screwed up for so long. Another time, DeLong wrote a broadside against the regulatory machinery that oversees vaccine development and safety that was full of the usual antivaccine misinformation, tropes, and pseudoscience and hugely exaggerated perceived “conflicts of interest” among the various parties.
During my first clinical rotation in medical school, I found myself at the pediatric nurse station one afternoon waiting for a patient to arrive from the emergency department. An adorable older infant was there sitting in a bouncy chair, smiling and drooling as babies tend to do, and looking rather well for an inpatient. The nurse watching her explained that she had come a long way since first being transported to the facility by ambulance after being admittedly shaken (and almost certainly also beaten) by her mother’s new boyfriend one evening when she wouldn’t stop crying.
Now, cortically blind and facing a lifetime of disability, the child was awaiting placement by social services. I had experienced my first exposure to child abuse, a scourge of pediatric medicine that I hadn’t thought of at that point despite having decided on a career in pediatrics well before being accepted into medical school. I’ve since had many more opportunities to care for abused children, some of which involved considerably more visually disturbing findings and a couple that resulted in a child’s death. But I will never forget her and the feeling of utter revulsion I felt that day.
Child abuse is common and it comes in many forms that can involve physical abuse as well as neglect. Children under the age of 4 years are the most frequently affected, but children under a year tend to suffer the most severe manifestations. Head injuries make up the bulk of physical abuse in this age group, and they are often fatal. Roughly 40% of child abuse-related deaths occur in the first year of life and there is frequently both a history of abuse prior to the fatal event as well as missed opportunities for medical professionals to have intervened.
The head injuries that children suffer at the hands of abusive caregivers, if not fatal, are frequently still devastating. It is not uncommon for these children to suffer permanent neurologic injury which can include persistently altered mental status, cognitive impairment, cerebral palsy, blindness and recurring seizures. In addition to the child’s injuries, the psychosocial impact on the family can also be quite severe. I’ve seen families torn apart because of guilt and anger. (more…)
This is another in an irregular series of posts that puts the statements of naturopaths up against the scientific evidence
How are you feeling today? Tired? Lethargic? Chilled? Lacking energy? Is it the nature of life – or is it something more serious? If you consult with a naturopath, you could walk out diagnosed with something called Wilson’s Temperature Syndrome. But the naturopath would be wrong, because Wilson’s Temperature Syndrome is a fake disease.
One of the hallmarks of alternative medicine is the “fake disease”. Fake diseases don’t actually exist – they are invented without any objective evidence showing that they are real. Fake diseases tend to emerge from vague symptoms which can’t be attributed to a specific medical diagnosis. This is not to say what patients are experiencing isn’t real – the issue is the diagnosis, and the practitioner making the call. As has been pointed out by other SBM contributors, it’s understandable to want reasons and answers when you have debilitating symptoms. But symptoms need to be studied in rational and objective ways in order to understand the underlying illness – call it the “root cause” if you prefer. The diagnosis guides the treatment plan, so getting a diagnosis right is essential. While a group of vague symptoms might lead a medical doctor to run tests to rule out serious illness, alternative medicine providers already know the underlying problem. It’s your Chi. Your energy fields. Your diet. Whatever it is, it’s usually your fault. Adrenal fatigue is a fake disease. So is multiple chemical sensitivity, and Morgellons (delusional parsitosis). “Chronic” Lyme disease is another fake disease. Rather than offer a guide to proper care, a fake disease is a distraction from the truth. (more…)
It is disheartening that we have to return to pseudosciences that have been debunked decades ago, because they continue to linger despite being eviscerated by scientific scrutiny. Belief systems and myths have incredible cultural inertia, and they are difficult to eradicate completely. That is why belief in astrology, while in the minority, persists.
Professions, however, should be different. A healing profession should be held to a certain minimum standard of care, and that standard should be based upon something real, which means that scientific evidence needs to be brought to bear. Professionals are not excused for persisting in false beliefs that have long been discredited.
The 1980s saw the peak of an idea that was never based on science, the notion that people can suppress memories of traumatic events, and those repressed memories can manifest as seemingly unconnected mental health issues, such as anxiety or eating disorders. The idea was popularized mostly by the book The Courage to Heal (the 20th anniversary edition was published in 2008), in which the authors took the position that clients, especially women, who have any problem should be encouraged to recover memories of abuse, and if such memories can be dredged up, they are real.
A correspondent asked me to look into Airrosti because her employer’s insurance company had started covering it, and she was skeptical. She had tried to look up its effectiveness and safety record on the Internet and hadn’t found much. The information on their website didn’t tell me what I wanted to know, so I did a little digging. Like my correspondent, I am skeptical of their claims.
The name Airrosti stands for Applied Integration for the Rapid Recovery of Soft Tissue Injuries. One writer jokingly renamed it Owwwrosti because his first treatment was so excruciatingly painful. They say, “Wherever you hurt, we can help.” They claim to have special knowledge about the underlying cause of soft tissue injuries and pain problems and how to treat them; they claim they can resolve the problems of most of their patients in only 3 visits. The providers are chiropractors who have been trained by the company in their special methods…whatever they are. Their website is vague about what their modality actually consists of. I was able to piece together some of what they are doing from discussion groups and patient reports. There are plenty of testimonials, and the treatments are described as painful but effective. They offer quality 1-on-1 care for an entire hour, with detailed examination, hands-on soft tissue therapy, foam rolling, instruction in exercise and rehabilitation, and Kinesio Taping. Their main competitors are said to be the Graston technique and Gua Sha technique, and their treatment appears to be centered on myofascial release (MFR). In other words, it’s a mixed bag.
Yesterday, I spiffed up a post that some of you might have seen, describing how a particular medical conspiracy theory has dire consequences in terms of promoting non-science-based medical policy. Specifically, I referred to how the myth that there are all sorts of “cures” for deadly and even terminal diseases that are being kept from you by an overweening fascistic FDA’s insistence on its approval process is an important driving force behind ill-advised “right to try” legislation that’s passed in four states and likely to pass in Arizona by referendum tomorrow. I’m not exaggerating, either. If you have the stomach to delve into the deeper, darker recesses of alternative medicine and conspiracy theory websites, you’ll find words far worse than that used to describe the FDA, such as this little gem from everyone’s favorite über-quack Mike Adams basically portraying the FDA as Adolf Hitler. Even more “mainstream” advocates, such as Reason.com’s Ronald Bailey and Nick Gillespie, are not above using a version of this myth stripped of the worst of its conspiracy mongering for public consumption, claiming that the FDA is killing you.
Unfortunately, this sort of medical conspiracy theory is very common. Like all conspiracy theories, medical conspiracy theories tend to involve “someone” hiding something from the public. I like to refer to this as the fallacy of “secret knowledge.” That “someone” hiding the “secret knowledge” is usually the government, big pharma, or other ill-defined nefarious forces. The “secret knowledge” being hidden comes invariably in one of two flavors. Either “they” are hiding cures for all sorts of diseases that conventional medicine can’t cure, or “they” are hiding evidence of harm due to something in medicine. Although examples of the former are common, such as the “hidden cure for cancer,” it is examples of the latter that seem to be even more common, in particular the myth that vaccines cause autism and all sorts of diseases and conditions, that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are dangerous, or that radiation from cell phones causes cancer. In these latter examples, invariably the motivation is either financial (big pharma profits), ideological (control, although descriptions of how hiding this knowledge results in control are often sketchy at best), or even some seriously out there claims, such as the sometimes invoked story about how mass vaccination programs are about “population control” or even “depopulation.” Either way, “The Truth” needs to be hidden from the population, lest they panic and revolt.
Perhaps the most pervasive medical conspiracy theory of all involves stories that there exist out there all sorts of fantastic cures for cancer and other deadly diseases but you can’t have them because (1) “they” don’t want you to know about them (as I like to call it, the Kevin Trudeau approach) and/or (2) the evil jackbooted thugs of the FDA are so close-minded and blinded by science that they crush any attempt to market such drugs and, under the most charitable assessment under this myth, dramatically slow down the approval of such cures. The first version usually involves “natural” cures or various other alternative medicine cures that are being “suppressed” by the FDA, FTC, state medical boards, and various other entities, usually at the behest of their pharma overlords. The second version is less extreme but no less fantasy-based. It tends to be tightly associated with libertarian and small government fantasists and a loose movement in medicine with similar beliefs known as the “health freedom” movement, whose members posit that, if only the heavy hand of government were removed and the jack-booted thugs of the FDA reined in, free market innovation would flourish, and the cures so long suppressed by an overweening and oppressive regulatory apparatus would burst the floodgates. Under this views, these cures, long held back by the dam of the FDA, would flow immediately to the people, and there would be much rejoicing. (Funny how it didn’t work out that way before the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.) Of course, I can’t help but note that in general, in this latter idea, these fantastical benefits seem to be reserved only for those who have the cash, because, well, the free market fixes everything. At least, that seems to be the belief system at the heart of many of these conspiracy theories.
The idea that the FDA is keeping cures from desperate terminally ill people, either intentionally or unintentionally, through its insistence on a rigorous, science-based approval process in which drugs are taken through preclinical work, phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 testing before approval is one of the major driving beliefs commonly used to justify so-called “right-to-try” laws. These bills have been infiltrating state houses like so much kudzu, and the Ebola outbreak has only added fuel to the fire based on the accelerated use of ZMapp, a humanized monoclonal antibody against the Ebola virus, in some patients even though it hadn’t been tested in humans yet (more on that later). Already four of these laws have been passed (in Colorado, Missouri, Louisiana, and now Michigan) with a referendum in Arizona almost certain to pass next week to bring the total to five states with such laws. Basically, these laws, as I’ve described, claim to allow access to experimental drugs to terminally ill patients with a couple of major conditions: First, that the drug has passed phase I clinical trials and second that the patient has exhausted all approved therapies. As I’ve explained before more than once, first when the law hit the news big time in Arizona and then when a right-to-try bill was introduced into the legislature here in Michigan, they do nothing of the sort and are being promoted based on a huge amount of misinformation detailed in the links earlier. First, having passed phase 1 does not mean a drug is safe, but right-to-try advocates, particularly the main group spearheading these laws, the Goldwater Institute, make that claim incessantly. Second, they vastly overstate the likelihood that a given experimental drug will help a given patient. The list goes on.
Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale. Her infinite variety.
– William Shakespeare
This is not a typical post for me, but something I have been meaning to do to satisfy my own curiosity. I have wondered, how many variations of acupuncture are there? I suspected a lot, but I thought I would go looking and make a list. Since acupuncture is not based in reality but is instead a collection of pseudo-knowledge, there is no reason for acupuncture to have fidelity to fundamental concepts. I suspect in the US that in the future acupuncture will become less heterogenous as schools start teaching to the test that allows for acupuncture licensure. For now variation rules.
So this will be a list, with description and commentary. If a missed form of acupuncture is noted by others, and I am sure I have, I will expand the list in an addendum. (more…)
Who would you guess authored a 250-page report which begins with this Preface?
This report marks the culmination of an intensive four-year review of quackery and its impact on the elderly. . . As this report details, quackery has traveled far from the day of the pitchman and covered wagon to emerge as big business. Those who orchestrate and profit from the sale and promotion of these useless and often harmful “health” products are no longer quaint and comical figures. They are well organized, sophisticated and persistent. [We estimate] the cost of quackery – the promotion and sale of useless remedies promising relief from chronic and critical health conditions – exceeds $10 billion a year. The costs of quackery in human terms, measured in disillusion, pain, relief forsaken or postponed because of reliance on unproven methods, is more difficult to measure, but nonetheless real. All too frequently, the purchaser has paid with his life. While the impact of quackery on our lives has been increasing and growing in sophistication, public and private efforts designed to address and control this problem have diminished, been redirected or disbanded.