Articles

Chiropractors, Blind Pigs, and Acorns

Sometimes you need to help the blind pig.

Sometimes you need to help the blind pig.

When people are at the end of their life they like to pass on their life lessons. One thing I have never had a patient say is “Doc, I sure wish I had spent more time at work.”

I try and keep that in mind, but then there are those work commitments that are hard to avoid. I need to have a talk with Drs. Gorski and Novella. No one should have write a blog entry any week their team is in the play-offs. The Blazers were not meant to win more than 25 games, much less be the 5th seed in the West with a chance to make the conference finals. I know. Trailblazers fans are not always grounded in reality. But we are up on the Clippers 3–2 and heading home to close out the series tonight. For the record I wrote the preceding sentence during the game 5 tip-off. I really should not have to do any work this week. Basketball is simply more important.

Take this case report. Anywhere else.

Case reports are a tradition in medicine. Usually they are unique or unusual cases, diseases you are likely to see but once in a career, if that. There are all sorts of medical curiosities that need to be reported. I have a blog over at Medscape devoted to Infectious Disease case reports.

Some case reports, however, inspire eye rolls and sniggers. Why are these even reported? (more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic, Clinical Trials, Humor

Leave a Comment (0) →

What (if anything) does “natural” mean?

"When I use a word," said Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more, nor less." Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

“When I use a word,” said Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more, nor less.”
Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking Glass”

What does the term “natural” mean on a label? Does it mean anything? Should it mean anything? Good questions. And complicated ones, judging from the list of questions the FDA needs your help in answering.

The FDA has resisted defining “natural” in food product labeling, including whether foods that are genetically engineered, or contain genetically engineered ingredients, can use the term. Back in 1991, the agency set out to issue regulations but abandoned the effort and has since held to an informal policy that “natural” means

nothing artificial or synthetic (including color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.

The only official legal requirement for using the description “natural” on a food label is that it not be misleading or false, which is forbidden by the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act of 1938. In that appetite-suppressing way of statutory language, “food” is defined by the Act as

articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, chewing gum, and articles for used for components of any such article.

For regulatory purposes, dietary supplements are also considered foods in most cases. (more…)

Posted in: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Legal, Nutrition, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Parents Convicted in Death of Toddler

Stephans

David and Collet Stephan, parents to the now-deceased Ezekiel Stephan.

This is a very sad and tragic case, and I have great sympathy for the extended family of Ezekiel Stephan, the 19-month-old who died of meningitis four years ago. In my opinion, there are many victims in this case.

The jury, apparently, agreed. Yesterday they returned a guilty verdict for Ezekiel’s parents, David and Collet Stephan, who now face sentencing for failing to provide the basic necessities of life to their son. It is reported that many of the jurors were crying when the verdict was given – clearly this was a difficult and emotional case.

Just the facts

As is often the case, there are different narratives of what happened, depending on your perspective. It is likely the jury had access to more facts than the public, and so their verdict, which was clearly difficult, needs to be taken seriously. Here are the basic facts as being reported:

In March of 2012 Ezekiel became ill with flu-like symptoms. His parents report that they thought this was a normal childhood illness and would pass. His mother reported to police that she thought he had croup. They treated him with natural remedies, mostly supplements. (more…)

Posted in: Ethics, Herbs & Supplements, Naturopathy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Is the Annual Physical Unnecessary?

Quality

I was approached by The Wall Street Journal to write an article for their Big Issues in Health Care debate series. The subject was “Is the annual physical unnecessary?” I was to take the “yes” side and an internist was to take the “no” side. I wrote the following article. The editor wrote me a couple of times with questions. The internist pointed out the value of preventive medicine, developing a personalized healthcare plan, and developing a meaningful doctor-patient relationship. I said I wholeheartedly agreed, but I thought those goals could be accomplished just as well (arguably even better) with a periodic health maintenance interview or consultation. I pointed out that the traditional “physical” exam with stethoscope, routine lab tests, etc. provides no further advantages and can be counterproductive, with false positive or harmless findings leading to unnecessary worry, further testing, and expense. I said there was nothing magical about the interval of a year. I don’t know what the optimum interval would be; that could be studied. I suspect it would vary with the patient’s age, medical conditions, risk factors, and other considerations, and might be left up to the judgment of patient and doctor deciding together.

Finally I got an e-mail with apologies, saying they had decided not to continue with the debate because the internist and I agreed on too many important details. While I understand that stirring up a fight is good for selling newspapers, I think it’s a much better thing when people on two sides of a debate reach an agreement. It reassures me that they are converging on the truth. So I thought it would be worthwhile to publish my article here on SBM. (more…)

Posted in: Commentary, Diagnostic tests & procedures

Leave a Comment (0) →

Reclassifying thyroid cancer and the willful misunderstanding of overdiagnosis

NOTE: Anyone who has seen several derogatory articles about me on the web and is curious about what the real story is, please read this, this, and this.

This is a panel showing some of the pathologic criteria for distinguishing invasive encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma from noninvasive. This is real science. Sayer Ji's rant is not.

This is a panel showing some of the pathologic criteria for distinguishing invasive encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma from noninvasive. This is real science. Sayer Ji’s rant is not.

If there’s one lesson that we here at Science-Based Medicine like to emphasize, it’s that practicing medicine and surgery is complicated. Part of the reason that it’s complicated is that for many diseases our understanding is incomplete, meaning that physicians have to apply existing science to their treatment as well as they can. The biology of cancer, in particular, can be vexing. Some cancers appear to progress relentlessly, meaning that it’s obvious that all of them must be treated. Others, particularly when detected in their very early stages through screening tests, have a variable and therefore difficult to predict clinical course if left untreated. Unfortunately, some people, such as Sayer Ji, don’t understand that. They like their medicine black and white, and if physicians ever change guidelines in order to align them more closely with scientific understanding, they write blisteringly ignorant articles like “‘Oops… It Wasn’t Cancer After All,’ Admits The National Cancer Institute/JAMA.”

Not exactly. An expert panel recommended reclassifying a specific thyroid lesion as not cancerous based on recent science. It’s called medicine correcting itself. Admittedly, this reclassification was probably long overdue, but what would Mr. Ji rather have? Medicine not correcting itself in this situation? In any case, when last I met Mr. Ji, he was happily abusing the science of genetics to argue that Angelina Jolie and other carriers of deleterious cancer-causing mutations don’t need prophylactic surgery because lifestyle interventions will save them through epigenetics, which to “natural health” enthusiasts like Mr. Ji seems to mean the magical ability to prevent any disease. Most recently, he has appeared on the deeply dishonest “documentary” about alternative medicine cancer cures, The Truth About Cancer, to expound on how chemotherapy is evil. His rant about the reclassification of a non-encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer as not cancer is more of the same, as you will see.
(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Politics and Regulation, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

Separating Fact from Fiction in the Not-So-Normal Newborn Nursery: Chiropractic and Brachial Plexus Injury

Thanks to a hot tip from a follower on Twitter, I’ve once again found myself neck deep in chiropractic propaganda involving the care of a pediatric patient. The case as presented involves, among numerous specious assumptions, claims of successfully treating an infant’s paralyzed arm using chiropractic philosophy and spinal adjustment techniques. As I will explain in detail, this “miracle” is just another in a seemingly endless stream of emotional but worthless anecdotes being used for marketing purposes.

I’ll be discussing two videos, uploaded to YouTube by a father who wants to tell the world about the miracle of chiropractic. He uses that word a lot, in fact, assigning the label to no less than four outcomes and clearly setting the bar lower than my own personal threshold. The videos are a few years old, but have over 150,000 views and can still be found linked to on numerous websites and discussed in interviews. If you’re feeling generous, they serve as excellent examples of how the mind of the believer works when facing uncertainty regarding the health of a loved one.

I will provide a general synopsis of the events in question, but I do recommend watching the videos despite the fact that you will never get those 18 minutes back. They contain the details of the case and, particularly in the second video, some great examples of typical chiropractic tactics and buzzwords. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

The Brown M&M’s of Science-Based Medicine

David Lee Roth. Quality Guru.

David Lee Roth. Quality Guru.

Medicine is constantly changing, and like most health professionals, I am required to maintain my competency to practice. I doubt pharmacists are unique in being inundated with offers of continuing medical/pharmacy education. Some courses are free, some cost hundreds of dollars, and it can be difficult to distinguish the high-quality programs from the biased or low-quality education that furthers a agenda, rather than seeking to truly educate. You can consider the reputation of the provider, or the author, and sometimes the sponsorship gives a clue. When it comes to determining if a program’s content is science-based or not, I find the learning objectives may be all I need to read. One program I saw recently referred to “integrative” approaches to the treatment of an illness. Another claimed it would teach you a  “holistic” approach to managing complex medical condition. Both programs set off skeptical alarm bells. I realized then I’d found the science-based medicine equivalent of a brown M&M. And I have the band Van Halen to thank for that association. (more…)

Posted in: Commentary, Humor, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Behold my power, quacks, and despair! Mike Adams publishes several defamatory articles about yours truly…

Mike Adams seems to view me this way. It started out funny, but isn't so funny any more.

Mike Adams seems to view me this way. It started out funny, but isn’t so funny any more. Of course, Galadriel was offered The One Ring and its great power, but declined it because she was afraid of what she would become. Maybe I am like Galadriel after all.

I decided to write this post for Science-Based Medicine because I’ve taken notice of recent posts Mike Adams has written about me, mainly because they are riddled with misinformation, fabrications, and lies. Even though at least two of his claims about me made me laugh out loud because of their utter ridiculousness, much of the rest of his recent writing about me has been downright defamatory, libelous even.

The stupid stuff

Before I get into the really nasty stuff, let’s look at the stupid stuff. It’s not that the nasty stuff isn’t also stupid, but here I arbitrarily decide to divide the discussion into parts about when Adams amuses me and when he disgusts me. If there’s one lesson I’ve learned from Adams’ attacks on me, it’s that, apparently, I have incredible power—possibly even superhuman! I mean, seriously. Adams really does seem to think that I have massive power over what Wikipedia does and does not publish about vaccines and medicine! Indeed, as I thought last night about what to write and even ended up staying up until 2 AM to do so (mainly because I was so exhausted after a day in the operating room that I crashed on the couch between 8 and 11 PM), I was half-tempted not to disabuse him of his apparent delusions about my overwhelming power. After all, if Adams really does think that I have so much power, why would I want to reveal to him the truth that I do not? On the other hand, far less amusing are Adams’ attempts to link Karmanos Cancer Center and me to the criminal Dr. Farid Fata, a lie by insinuation that is despicable even by his low standards. What should I expect, though, from someone who’s been running scams since Y2K and posting threats against GMO scientists?

Of course, I am not naïve enough to believe that Adams doesn’t actually know damned well that I don’t have that level of influence on Wikipedia. Rather, it’s all a sham, a con man’s patter, to convince his readers that I’m a major player in a conspiracy to manipulate health articles on Wikipedia from behind the scenes. He uses such fabricated stories as tools to fire up his gullible and stupid followers. Does Adams even realize how ridiculous his articles come across with their overwrought language? In fact, I laughed out loud when I read that Arianna Huffington and I “are not directly murdering children, but they are doing everything in their power to kill any truthful discussion about vaccine damage (that might save children)” and then this:
(more…)

Posted in: Announcements, Health Fraud

Leave a Comment (0) →

The “It Worked for Me” Gambit

Placebo effects help you feel better, they don't make you actually better.

Placebo effects help you feel better, they don’t make you actually better.

It is almost inevitable that whenever we post an article critical of the claims being made for a particular treatment, alternative philosophy, or alternative profession, someone in the comments will counter a careful examination of published scientific evidence with an anecdote. Their arguments boils down to, “It worked for me, so all of your scientific evidence and plausibility is irrelevant.”

Both components of this argument are invalid. Even if we grant that a treatment worked for one individual, that does not counter the (carefully observed) experience of all the subjects in the clinical trials. They count too – I would argue they count more because we can verify all the important aspects of their story.

I want to focus, however, on the first part of that statement, the claim that a treatment “worked” for a particular individual. Most people operationally define “worked” as, they took a treatment and then they improved in some way. This, however, is a problematic definition on many levels.

Placebo effects

Much of the disagreement about how to define “works” comes down to placebo effects. The generally-accepted scientific approach is to conclude that an intervention works when the desired effect is greater than a placebo. When all other variables are controlled for, the intervention as an isolated variable is associated with an improved outcome. That is the basic logic of a double-blind placebo controlled trial.

(more…)

Posted in: Commentary

Leave a Comment (0) →

Questioning the Evidence for Breastfeeding

Breastfeeding_baby
Six years ago I wrote about the evidence for breastfeeding. I questioned an article that claimed 900 babies’ lives could be saved every year in the US if 90% of mothers breastfed for at least 6 months. I didn’t think that was true, but I did think the evidence supported the claim that breastfeeding was clearly better for babies. Now I’m not so sure we can trust that evidence.

A new study reevaluated the evidence from previous studies and found that the studies hadn’t adequately ruled out significant confounders. There are social, cultural and economic factors that contribute to the choice to breastfeed, factors that may have skewed the results of those studies to favor breastfeeding. The new study tried to correct for these issues.

Results from standard multiple regression models suggest that children aged 4 to 14 who were breast- as opposed to bottle-fed did significantly better on 10 of the 11 outcomes studied. Once we restrict analyses to siblings and incorporate within-family fixed effects, estimates of the association between breastfeeding and all but one indicator of child health and wellbeing dramatically decrease and fail to maintain statistical significance. Our results suggest that much of the beneficial long-term effects typically attributed to breastfeeding, per se, may primarily be due to selection pressures into infant feeding practices along key demographic characteristics such as race and socioeconomic status.

(more…)

Posted in: Nutrition

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 257 12345...»