Chiropractic Gynecologist Offers Dangerous Treatments and Misinformation


Yes, you can have a chiropractor for a gynecologist, but it’s not a good idea.

Over a year ago I wrote about escharotic treatments for cervical dysplasia. It is offered not by MD gynecologists but by chiropractors and naturopaths, along with inconsistent and unproven diet recommendations and supplements. A corrosive agent similar to “black salve” is applied repeatedly to the cervix; it works by destroying tissue. There are no controlled studies evaluating it for safety and effectiveness. One major drawback is that there is no surgical specimen to submit to pathology to determine if there is invasive cancer. I urge you to read my first article for further details. Escharotic treatment is decidedly not a good idea.

In that article I focused on the treatment itself. I recently revisited the website of the chiropractor I mentioned in that article, Nick LeRoy, and I want to comment on some other issues raised by this individual who is offering the treatment.

Who is Nick LeRoy?

On one website he is listed as a Chicago holistic medicine physician and primary care physician for an HMO, Alternative Medicine Incorporated, which he says is underwritten by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. When I googled for Alternative Medicine Incorporated, I found a company in England, but none in America with that name. On his other website he claims to have “post-doctoral medical training in gynecology and internal medicine and to be a credentialed primary care physician (PCP) for Blue Cross of IL.” I phoned Blue Cross of Illinois, and they told me he was not listed as a provider in their records. They suggested I contact him directly to ask for clarification. I did, by email. He didn’t answer.

He has taken courses in acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine, and got “private breast thermography training.” It’s not clear how much training he has in gynecology. On one page of his website he says his “integrative medicine training included gynecology, internal medicine, acupuncture, chiropractic, and nutrition.” In a video, he says he has been specializing in gastrointestinal disorders for twenty years, and he describes how he does unconventional food allergy testing for 154 different foods.

He lists himself as “DC, MS, AcT,” but he calls himself “doctor” and readers are likely to assume he is an MD. The testimonials all refer to “Dr. LeRoy.” He sells his books and supplements through his “doctor’s supplement store.” (more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Chiropractic, Obstetrics & gynecology

Leave a Comment (0) →

German alternative cancer clinics: Combining experimental therapeutics with rank quackery and charging big bucks for it

Pauline Gahan in front of the Hallwang Private Oncology Clinic
A couple of months ago, I discussed patient deaths at an alternative medicine clinic in Europe, where a naturopath named Klaus Ross had been administering an experimental cancer drug (3-bromopyruvate, or 3-BP) to patients outside the auspices of a clinical trial. 3-BP is a drug that targets the Warburg effect, a characteristic of cancer cells first reported in the 1920s by Otto Warburg in which the cancer cell changes its metabolism to shut off oxidative phosphorylation (the part of glucose metabolism requiring oxygen that produces the most energy) to rely almost exclusively on glycolysis and anaerobic metabolism. From a cancer cell evolution standpoint, one can understand why cancer cells would behave this way, as this change allows them to survive in environments with much less oxygen than normal cells, but the side effect of the Warburg effect is that cancer cells consume a lot of glucose for their energy needs. Indeed, positron emission tomography (PET scanning) takes advantage of this characteristic of cancer cells to use glucose labeled with a positron-emitting isotope that accumulates in cells. The result is that cancer cells, which in general use a lot more glucose than normal cells, light up compared to the surrounding tissue, allowing the identification of areas suspicious for cancer. Targeting the Warburg effect is therefore a strategy to attack cancer cells preferentially.

Since I wrote about the tragic deaths of those cancer patients, I’ve been seeing stories about German alternative medicine cancer clinics popping up in my newsfeed over and over again. Intuitively, you’d think that a scientifically advanced economic powerhouse like Germany would have stricter regulations over the practice of medicine, but, the more I looked into these clinics, the more I realized that there are a lot of quack clinics in Germany every bit as quacky as any clinic in Tijuana, but with a twist. Like Mexican alternative medicine clinics, German clinics often charge enormous sums of money for treatments that range from the unproven to the dubious to pure quackery. However, in addition to the rank quackery, German cancer clinics include legitimate experimental drugs that are as yet unproven and might even only have cell culture or animal evidence supporting its potential efficacy. Indeed, 3-BP is just such an example. It is a legitimate candidate cancer drug that’s in the pipeline, having shown promise in cell culture and animal experiments, but that has no human data from systematic clinical trials yet, just a handful of anecdotes when it was tried in humans under desperate circumstances. Not surprisingly, Klaus Ross’ main clinic is in Germany, and, like so many other clinics there, he was administering an as-yet-unapproved drug to humans.

So, prodded by a couple of recent stories from the UK, I decided to take another look at these German cancer clinics.

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Health Fraud

Leave a Comment (0) →

An Update on FDA Concerns Over Homeopathic Teething Products


Steven Novella recently wrote a post discussing an FDA warning against the use of homeopathic teething products over safety concerns related to the possibility of toxic amounts of belladonna. He goes into the hypocrisy of the FDA regulation of homeopathic products, a topic covered numerous times here on Science-Based Medicine, as well as the misleading initial response from Hyland’s, producers of the most popular homeopathic teething remedies in the United States and Canada. There have been some updates over the past two weeks that I’ll cover in this post. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Natural Health Products: Loosely regulated, little evidence of benefit, and an industry intent on preserving the status quo

Shouldn't you know that the pills you are paying for are safe, and actually do something?

Shouldn’t you know that the pills you are paying for are safe, and actually do something?

This week’s post will revisit a topic I recently covered, but it’s time-sensitive and needs your input. Health Canada, the Canadian equivalent to the US Food and Drugs Administration, is considering revisions to the way in which it regulates dietary supplements, which are called “natural health products” in Canada. It is rare that a regulator acknowledges that a regulatory system isn’t working, and publicly expresses a commitment to being more science-based. There is a time-limited opportunity for the public (including all of you non-Canadians!) to provide comment on how supplement regulation could be more closely aligned around scientific principles, rather than the supplement industry’s priorities. Whether you take dietary supplements or not, we can probably all agree that consumers should have access to safe products as well as credible, relevant information about these products, in order to make informed health decisions. It will likely not surprise you that these ideas are seen as threats to supplement manufacturers, who benefit from little regulatory oversight and few restrictions on what can currently be claimed about any product’s effectiveness. Since my last post, there have been some new reactions to the consultation that are worth discussing. (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Legal, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Is Ageing a Disease That Can Be Cured?


There is an ongoing debate that has come to the fore recently about the ultimate limits of human longevity. The ultimate goal of medicine is to optimize health, with the result of maximizing the duration and quality of life. This is accomplished through health promotion, disease prevention, and disease treatment.

There is no question that this approach has increased life expectancy, which is the number of years one can statistically expect to live. The longevity debate is about life span – how long could a human theoretically live if they enjoyed optimal health? What is the ultimate limit of the human biological system?

A recent study by Dong, Milholland, and Vijg concludes that we are already reaching the maximal human lifespan, which they calculate at about 115 years. They looked at two statistical trends. First they looked at the age of the oldest person to die in each country, and found that this age increased from 1970 to 2000, reaching an average of about 115 years. From 2000 to present, however, this figure has peaked, and in fact trended down slightly.

They also looked at the age that had the greatest annual increase in survival. If both life expectancy and lifespan were increasing then this number should be increasing. They found that this number was also increasing from 1920 to about 1980, but then plateaued at around 100 years, and has only slightly crept up since then (101 for men, 102 for women).


Posted in: Epidemiology

Leave a Comment (0) →

Dr. Richard Rawlins Reveals the Real Secrets of Alternative Medicine

Dr. Richard Rawlins reveals the secrets of alternative medicine in a new book

Dr. Richard Rawlins

Dr. Richard Rawlins, an orthopedic surgeon in the UK who is also a magician and member of the Magic Circle, has written an exhaustive review of alternative medicine, Real Secrets of Alternative Medicine: An Exposé.

“A conversation with Mrs. Smith”

A conversation with Mrs. Smith bookends the text. She comes to Dr. Rawlins for hip replacement surgery and asks if there is any alternative medicine she could try first. He tells her some patients say they have benefited, but personal experience is no substitute for critical analysis of evidence. He explains that there is no evidence to support those alternatives but that if she wants to try them, she can go ahead and try. Then she asks which one is most likely to help her. He tells her he can’t recommend one because he has not studied them in any detail. She says perhaps he should study them, and then write a book. So he does.

At the end of the book, he tells Mrs. Smith what he has learned: that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) “works” but only as a placebo; it does not affect disease outcomes and can sometimes do harm. He quotes cancer researcher David Grimes:

By clinging to delusion, belief in alternative medicine denigrates the very wonder of science and medicine and the massive strides we as a species have made over the last century or so in understanding the world around us, and how our bodies work.

Rawlins ends the book by telling Mrs. Smith “Conventional practitioners care more than you may think. That is the real secret.”

In between those conversations is a 370-page tour de force that covers the entire history of medicine and CAM, stresses the importance of scientific evidence, reviews how good the brain is at deluding itself, explains the placebo effect and the attractions of CAM, and argues that society should not pay for it. (more…)

Posted in: Book & movie reviews

Leave a Comment (0) →

Mammography and overdiagnosis, revisited

Reading mammograms
[Editor Note: This is a greatly expanded version of my initial thoughts on a study about mammography published in the New England Journal of Medicine last week on my not-so-super-secret other blog. It’s such an important topic that I thought SBM should see my discussion too, and I couldn’t just cut and paste it. You deserve original material.]

I knew it. I just knew it. I knew I couldn’t get through October, a.k.a. Breast Cancer Awareness Month, without a controversial mammography study to sink my teeth into. And I didn’t. I suppose I should just be used to this now. I’m referring to the latest opus from H. Gilbert Welch and colleagues that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine last week, “Breast-Cancer Tumor Size, Overdiagnosis, and Mammography Screening Effectiveness.” Yes, it’s about overdiagnosis, something I’ve blogged about more times than I can remember now, but it’s actually a rather interesting take on the issue.

Before 2008 or so, I never gave that much thought to the utility of mammographic screening as a means of early detection of breast cancer and—more or less—accepted the paradigm that early detection was always a good thing. Don’t get me wrong. I knew that the story was more complicated than that, but not so much more complicated that I had any significant doubts about the overall paradigm. Then, in 2009, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) dropped a bombshell with its recommendation that mammographic screening beginning at age 50 rather than age 40 for women at average risk of breast cancer. Ever since then, there have been a number of studies that have led to a major rethinking of screening, in particular screening mammography and PSA testing for prostate cancer. It’s a rethinking that affects discussions even up to today, with advocates of screening arguing that critics of screening are killing patients and skeptics of screening terming it useless. Depending on the disease being screened for, the answer usually lies somewhere in between. Basically, screening is not the panacea that we had once hoped for, and the main reason is the phenomenon of overdiagnosis. Before I go on, though, remember that we are talking about screening asymptomatic populations. If a woman has symptoms or a palpable lump, none of this discussion applies. That woman should undergo mammography.

Posted in: Cancer, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

Stem Cell Tourism for Eye Disease: No Passport Required


Stem cell clinics outside the United States, and outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. regulations, have flourished and the pursuit of treatment at these centers has been called “stem cell tourism.” Seekers of unproven stem cell therapies no longer need to look outside the U.S. Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell researcher and leading advocate for the responsible use of stem cell technology, wrote an SBM post on the regulatory aspects of stem cell treatment, a highly recommended read. He also coauthored an article highlighting the direct-to-consumer stem cell industry in the United States. For now, the article is behind a paywall. Fortunately, David Gorski summarized the article here. The authors found a shocking 351 businesses advertising stem cell treatment at 570 locations in the U.S. The problem is that the proliferation of for-profit facilities far outpaces the science on stem cell therapies. Most of these facilities are selling treatments without proven value and with mostly unknown safety.

Clearly, there is no shortage of “experts” prepared to sell you expensive, unproven stem cell treatments for a multitude of diseases. So who can you trust? If I wanted a source of reliable information about stem cell treatment, I might be tempted to seek out the world’s leading homeopathic ophthalmologist!

Introducing: the World’s Leading Homeopathic Ophthalmologist

How do I know Dr. Edward Kondrot is the world’s leading homeopathic ophthalmologist? It says so, right on his website. But it would be an injustice to simply characterize Dr. Kondrot as a homeopathic ophthalmologist. Dr. Kondrot is a Renaissance man of alternative medicine. He is a Board Certified Ophthalmologist, author, radio show host, Fellow of the College of Syntronics, Research Chairman for the College of Syntronics, Adjunct Professor Department of Research at Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, President of the Arizona Integrative and Homeopathic Medical Association and member American Academy of Ozonotherapy, just to name a few of the credentials listed on his bio. If you Google Dr. Kondrot’s name you will find he has quite a presence on the internet. I find this video to be particularly endearing. (more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

R&D and the High Cost of Drugs

Would I lie to you?

Would I lie to you?

Until a year ago very few people had ever heard of Martin Shkreli. In 2015 the then-32-year-old CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals LLC became the poster boy for Big Pharma eXXXcesses when Turing acquired rights to Daraprim, an antiparasitic drug used widely to treat toxoplasmosis. The acquisition itself wasn’t particularly controversial. Raising the price of Daraprim from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill was.

And so another round of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing over health care costs began. There was a Congressional hearing where Shkreli preened and smirked and refused to answer questions, later asserting that he had been subpoenaed “unethically” and that it is, “hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government.” Benjamin Brafman, Shkreli’s attorney, clarified afterward that, “he meant no disrespect…” He wouldn’t want to leave the wrong impression. (more…)

Posted in: Ethics, Pharmaceuticals, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 271 12345...»