Author Archive

The Institute for Science in Medicine enters the health care reform fray

I’ve been writing about the attempts of proponents of various pseudoscience, quackery, and faith-based religious “healing” modalities to slip provisions friendly to their interests into the health care reform bill that will be debated in the Senate beginning today. If you want to know what’s at stake, check out the first press release of a newly formed institute designed to promote science-based medicine in academia and public policy, the Institute for Science in Medicine.

It’s an embryonic institute, only recently formed by 42 physicians and scientists, several of whose names will be quite familiar to regular readers of SBM, but it’s jumping right into the fray. This is what the ISM is:

The ISM is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to promoting high standards of science in all areas of medicine and public health. We are a watchdog group of medical professionals who believe the best science available should be used to determine health policy and establish a standard of care that protects and promotes the public health. We oppose legislation that seeks to erode the science-based standard of care and expose the public to potentially fraudulent, worthless, or harmful medical practices or products.

Given how when faced with science going against them purveyors of unscientific medicine and medical beliefs try to win in politics where they can’t win in science (as my earlier post today describes for naturopaths in Ontario and the anti-vaccine movement in Oregon), just as we do on SBM, those of us who have helped to form the ISM have our work cut out for us.

Steve Novella has more.

Posted in: Announcements, Herbs & Supplements, Politics and Regulation, Public Health

Leave a Comment (3) →

Naturopaths and the anti-vaccine movement: Hijacking the law in service of pseudoscience

Time and time again, we’ve seen it. When pseudoscientists and quacks can’t persuade the scientific and medical community of the validity of their claims, they go to the law to try to gain the legitimacy that their claims can’t garner through proving themselves by the scientific method. True, purveyors of pseudoscience and unscientifically-derived medical practices do crave the respectability of science. That’s why they try so hard to take on the trappings of science. The problem is that they just can’t do it right, try as they might, or when they do it right their methods are shown to be no more effective than a placebo, aside from the occasional seeming “positive” results that would be expected based on random chance alone. However, failing to achieve the respectability that the mantle of science provides, practitioners and advocates of pseudoscience frequently try to codify their woo into the law.

The reason that they would do this is not too hard to discern. Few legislators and politicians are scientists, and even fewer are scientifically inclined. Back when I still lived in New Jersey, I may have been lucky enough to have had a Congressional Representative who really was a rocket scientist (well, a physicist, actually), but now that I live in Michigan I’ve gone from having a scientifically inclined Congressional representative to having one of the dimmest bulbs in Congress representing me. What that means is that it’s far easier to persuade politicians that this woo or that woo deserves to be permitted or even licensed. That’s how we now have many states licensing acupuncturists, naturopaths, and even “homeopathic physicians,” as Arizona does. The pressure for this sort of acceptance of unscientific medical modalities is building, as well, as Kimball Atwood has documented. Another example is the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which was passed in 1994 and in essence ties the FDA’s hands when it comes to regulating most supplements. Indeed, the very existence of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is a testament to the success of this approach, as a powerful Senator (Tom Harkin, D-IA) almost single-handedly foisted this scientific atrocity on the NIH against the desires of scientists. The results have included a $30 million scientific boondoggle of a trial to test chelation therapy and a profoundly unethical trial of Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez’s “protocol” for pancreatic cancer patients that a recent clinical trial has shown to be worse than useless. The most recent example of this trend is the way that CAM supporters have tried to hijack President Obama’s health insurance reform initiative to insert coverage for everything from any licensed “alternative medicine” practitioner to Christian Science prayer healing.

Recently, two new fronts have been opened up in this battle. One is disturbingly close to me, as it involves the Canadian province of Ontario whose north shore on the Detroit River is less than two and a half miles from my office, the other in Oregon, which, although it’s happening nearly 2,000 miles away from where I live and practice, could portend a new and disturbing tactic of the anti-vaccine movement to do what various other purveyors of pseudoscience have done before and try to win in state legislatures where they can’t win in science or the courts. Of course, in a democratic republic, it is the right of everyone, even supporters of quackery, to try to petition his or her legislators, but it is equally the responsibility of those of us supporting science-based medicine to try to educate legislators why allowing them to alter the law to protect their pseudoscience has the potential to result in great harm.

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Politics and Regulation, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (20) →

The autism “biomed” movement: Uncontrolled and unethical experimentation on autistic children

Ever since I first discovered the anti-vaccine movement, first on Usenet, specifically on a Usenet newsgroup devoted to discussing alternative medicine (, or m.h.a. for short) and then later on web and on blogs, there have been two things that have horrified me. First, there are the claims that children suffer all sorts of harm from vaccines, be it being made autistic (with the attendant “autism epidemic” caused by vaccines), suffering neurological damage, immune system damage, and all manner of other adverse consequences. There is no good evidence for these claims (although, as has been documented right here on this very blog time and time again, anti-vaccine activists will trot out all manner of awful studies to support their contentions), but that doesn’t keep useful celebrity idiots like Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, Don Imus, or Bill Maher from repeating the same myths over and over again. Worse, the permeation of society with these myths about vaccines has led to declining vaccination rates and the resurgence of potentially deadly vaccine-preventable diseases. It began first in the U.K. in the wake of Andrew Wakefield’s trial lawyer-funded, incompetent, and possibly fraudulent “research,” and has spread to the U.S., thanks to Jenny McCarthy and her ilk, who won’t take responsibility for their words and actions.

Even worse, the myth that vaccines cause autism has led to ideas. Dangerous ideas, and not because they “challenge” medical orthodoxy. These ideas are dangerous because they have direct consequences for children with autism. These consequences take the form of subjecting children to unscientific treatments that are ineffective at best and harmful at worst, sometimes even life-threatening. Indeed, I have written about case histories in which children were subjected to injections of “stem cells” into their cerebrospinal fluid by lumbar puncture and various other “treatments,” as well as chemical castration in combination with chelation therapy. That latter bit of quackery is something I wrote about years ago, but that the mainstream press only just noticed earlier this year. Better late than never, I guess. Even better than that, though, the same reporting team at the Chicago Tribune that reported on Mark and David Geier’s advocacy of Lupron to treat autistic children back in May. Sadly, the result of that story does not appear to have been actions by the State of Maryland to take away Dr. Mark Geier’s medical license or to go after his son David for practicing without a license. Neither does it appear to have resulted in insurance companies going after them for prescribing an expensive drug for an indication for which it is not appropriate. What it does appear to have done, however, is to inspire the same journalist, Trine Tsouderos, along with another journalist from the Chicago Tribune, Patricia Callahan, to pursue an even bigger target that Mark and David Geier, namely the entire “autism biomed movement,” which is for the most part rank quackery, in the following articles:

This is another rare case of excellent reporting on this issue, and I hope that this report (another installment of which was published early this morning after I had written this post) will grab the attention of more reporters and news outlets, leading to shining a light on the dark underbelly of the autism biomed movement.

Posted in: Health Fraud, Herbs & Supplements, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (46) →

The USPSTF recommendations for breast cancer screening: Not the final word

Preface: On issues such as this, I think it’s always good for me to emphasize my disclaimer, in particular:

Dr. Gorski must emphasize that the opinions expressed in his posts on Science-Based Medicine are his and his alone and that all writing for this blog is done on his own time and not in any capacity representing his place of employment. His views do not represent the opinions of his department, university, hospital, or cancer institute and should never be construed as such. Finally, his writings are meant as commentary only and are therefore not meant to be used as specific health care recommendations for individuals. Readers should consult their physicians for advice regarding specific health problems or issues that they might have.

Now, on to the post…

“Early detection saves lives.”

Remember how I started a post a year and a half ago starting out with just this statement? I did it because that is the default assumption and has been so for quite a while. It’s an eminently reasonable-sounding concept that just makes sense. As I pointed out a year and a half ago, though, the question of the benefits of the early detection of cancer is more complicated than you think. Indeed, I’ve written several posts since then on the topic of mammography and breast cancer, the most recent of which I posted a mere two weeks ago. As studies have been released and my thinking on screening for breast cancer has evolved, regular readers have had a front row seat. Through it all, I hope I’ve managed to convey some of the issues involved in screening for cancer and just how difficult they are. How to screen for breast cancer, at what age to begin screening, and how to balance the benefits, risks, and costs are controversial issues, and that controversy has bubbled up to the surface into the mainstream media and public consciousness over the last year or so.

This week, all I can say is, “Here we go again”; that is, between downing slugs of ibuprofen for the headaches some controversial new guidelines for breast cancer screening are causing many of us in the cancer field.

Posted in: Cancer, Diagnostic tests & procedures, Politics and Regulation, Public Health

Leave a Comment (50) →

Cancer prevention: The forgotten stepchild of cancer research?

The New York Times has been periodically running a series about the “40 years’ war” on cancer, with most articles by Gina Kolata. I’ve touched on this series before, liking some parts of it, while others not so much. In particular, I criticized an article one article that I thought to be so misguided about how the NIH grant system leads researchers to “play it safe” and how we could cure cancer if we could just fund “riskier” research that I had to write an extended screed about the misconceptions in the article. The latest installment, Medicines to Deter Some Cancers Are Not Taken, also by Kolata, is much better in that it discusses a problem at the heart of cancer, namely that we have developed drugs that can decrease the risk of specific cancers but they are not as widely used as they could be.

The first part of the article contrasts a seeming incongruity:

Many Americans do not think twice about taking medicines to prevent heart disease and stroke. But cancer is different. Much of what Americans do in the name of warding off cancer has not been shown to matter, and some things are actually harmful. Yet the few medicines proved to deter cancer are widely ignored.

Take prostate cancer, the second-most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, surpassed only by easily treated skin cancers. More than 192,000 cases of it will be diagnosed this year, and more than 27,000 men will die from it.

And, it turns out, there is a way to prevent many cases of prostate cancer. A large and rigorous study found that a generic drug, finasteride, costing about $2 a day, could prevent as many as 50,000 cases each year. Another study found that finasteride’s close cousin, dutasteride, about $3.50 a day, has the same effect.

This is indeed a contrast. Think about it. Millions of Americans take statins, for instance, to lower their cholesterol and thereby try to prevent the complications of elevated cholesterol, such as heart disease, vascular disease, and strokes. Yet, for at least two common cancers, there are proven effective drugs that will lower the risk of cancer considerably with a side effect profile at least as favorable as that of statins.

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Herbs & Supplements, Nutrition, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (8) →

Conflicts of interest in science-based medicine

The topic of conflicts of interest among medical researchers has recently bubbled up to the public consciousness more than usual. The catalyst for this most recent round of criticism by the press and navel-gazing by researchers is the investigation of Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) of nine psychiatric researchers, one of which held $6 million in stock in a company formed to bring a drug for depression to market, but had allegedly concealed this, even though he was an investigator on an NIH grant to study the drug he was developing. From my perspective, there is more than a little politics going on in this story, given that for the last decade federal law, specifically the Bayh-Dole Act, and policy have actually encouraged investigators and universities to co-develop drugs and treatments with industry, but it does bring into focus the issue of conflicts of interest, in particular undisclosed conflicts of interest. There are two articles of note that recently appeared in the scientific literature discussing this issue, one in Science in July (about the Grassley investigation) and an editorial in the Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience by Simon N. Young, PhD, the Co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal and faculty at McGill University. I was more interested in the latter article because it takes a much braoder view of the issue. Science-based medicine (SBM) depends upon the integrity of the science being done to justify treatments; so it’s useful to discuss how conflicts of interest intersect medical research.

In most public discussions of conflicts of interest (COIs), Young notes, the primary focus is on payments by pharmaceutical companies to investigators. Make no mistake, this is a big issue, but COIs are not just payments from drug companies. Indeed, I’ve written about just such COIs that have arguably impacted patient care negatively right her on this very blog, for example seeding trials (in which clinical trials are designed by the marketing division of pharmaceutical companies), a case of fraud that appeared to have been motivated by COIs. What needs to be understood is that every single scientific and medical investigators have COIs of one sort or another, and many are not financial. That’s why I like Young’s introduction to what COIs are:

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Medical Academia, Politics and Regulation, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (24) →

Pseudo-expertise versus science-based medicine

I am a skeptic.

My support for science-based medicine, as important as it is and as much time, sweat, and treasure I spend supporting it, is not the be-all and end-all of my skepticism, which derives from a scientific world view. That’s why, every so often, I like to step back from medicine a bit and look at the broader picture. It’s a good idea to do this from time to time, because to me, many of the topics that I and my fellow SBM bloggers write about are not just manifestations of anti-science and pseudoscience in medicine, but rather of a broader problem of anti-science and pseudoscience in society at large. I concentrate on medicine because it’s what I do and because manifestations of pseudoscience in medicine have the potential to harm or even kill large numbers of people.

Look no further than the anti-vaccine movement if you don’t believe me. Already, a mere decade after Andrew Wakefield’s lawyer-funded, incompetent, and perhaps even fraudulent “study” about a supposed relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism, uptake of MMR vaccines have plummeted throughout the U.K., with some areas of London reporting only 50% uptake, far too low for effective herd immunity. Thanks to J.B. Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, and the know-nothing band of celebrities and activists, we are in serious danger of having the same sort of thing happen right here in the U.S. Indeed, Jenny McCarthy herself has even acknowledged that, although in her characteristically self-absorbed and vulgar manner, she refused to take responsibility for her part in this impending public health debacle, dismissing her role by saying, “I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their fucking fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s shit. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism.” Meanwhile autistic children suffer from the quackery to which they are subjected in a futile attempt to “recover” them from “vaccine injury”-induced autism.

But it’s not just the anti-vaccine movement. It’s cancer quackery, promoted by “luminaries” such as Suzanne Somers and Bill Maher, given aid and comfort by doctors gone bad such as Dr. Rashid Buttar and Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, “bioidentical hormone” woo promoted by the aforementioned Suzanne Somers and Dr. Christiane Northrup. It’s all manner of other faith-based and definitely non-science-based medicine so called “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM, which is neither complementary nor medicine, although there is no doubt that it’s “alternative”) or “integrative medicine” (which “integrates” pseudoscience with effective medicine to the detriment of patients) finding its way into our academic medical schools, even to the point of being mandatory at at least one medical school and being a strongly touted option at many others. Meanwhile, the misbegotten behemoth of woo, funded by your tax dollars and mine, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) promotes remedies based on a prescientific understanding of how the body works and what causes diseases, even going so far as to promote “integrative medicine” residencies. Meanwhile science-based medical students face a serious dilemma: Go with the flow or fight.

Posted in: Politics and Regulation, Public Health, Science and the Media, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (53) →

The Skeptical O.B. joins the Science-Based Medicine crew

I’m very pleased to announce that Dr. Amy Tuteur, otherwise known as The Skeptical O.B., has joined Science-Based Medicine. Dr. Tuteur will fill in an area where we are lacking, namely an expert in women’s health and childbirth. For those of you who don’t know Dr. Tuteur, she is an obstetrician-gynecologist. She received her undergraduate degree from Harvard College and her medical degree from Boston University School of Medicine. Dr. Tuteur is a former clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School. Her book, How Your Baby Is Born, an illustrated guide to pregnancy, labor and delivery was published by Ziff-Davis Press in 1994. She runs the website and has her own iPhone app, the Ask Dr. Amy Am I Pregnant Quiz. Dr. Tuteur blogs at The Skeptical OB.

We expect great things from Dr. Tuteur, and hope you will join us in welcoming her to the fold. She will begin tomorrow and will post new material every Thursday. Finally, with the addition of Dr. Tuteur, it should also be noted that, due to the demands of her day job, Dr. Val Jones will decrease her posting frequency from every Thursday to every other Thursday. She will thus not be posting this week, and her next post will be on Thursday, November 12.

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (36) →

The cancer screening kerfuffle erupts again: “Rethinking” screening for breast and prostate cancer

I see that the kerfuffle over screening for cancer has erupted again to the point where it’s found its way out of the rarified air of specialty journals to general medical journals and hence into the mainstream press.

Over the last couple of weeks, articles have appeared in newspapers such as the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, radio networks like NPR, and magazines such as TIME Magazine pointing out that a “rethinking” of routine screening for breast and prostate cancer is under way. The articles bear titles such as A Rethink On Prostate and Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Society, in Shift, Has Concerns on Screenings, Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How?, Seniors face conflicting advice on cancer tests: Benefit-risk questions lead some to call for age cutoffs, and Rethinking the benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening. These articles were inspired by an editorial published in JAMA last month by Laura Esserman, Yiwey Shieh, and Ian Thompson entitled, appropriately enough, Rethinking Screening for Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer. The article was a review and analysis of recent studies about the benefits of screening for breast and prostate cancer in asymptomatic populations and concluded that the benefits of large scale screening programs for breast cancer and prostate cancer tend to be oversold and that they come at a higher price than is usually acknowledged.

For regular readers of SBM, none of this should come as a major surprise, as I have been writing about just such issues for quite some time. Indeed, nearly a year and a half ago, I first wrote The early detection of cancer and improved survival: More complicated than most people think. and then followed it up with Early detection of cancer, part 2: Breast cancer and MRI. In these posts, I pointed out concepts such as lead time bias, length bias, and stage migration (a.k.a. the Will Rogers effect) that confound estimates of benefit due to screening. (Indeed, before you continue reading, I strongly suggest that you go back and read at least the first of the aforementioned two posts to review the concepts of lead time bias and length bias.) Several months later, I wrote an analysis of a fascinating study, entitling my post Do over one in five breast cancers detected by mammography alone really spontaneously regress? At the time, I was somewhat skeptical that the number of breast cancers detected by mammography that spontaneously regress was as high as 20%, but of late I’m becoming less skeptical that the number may be somewhere in that range. Even so, at the time I did not doubt that there likely is a proportion of breast cancers that do spontaneously regress and that that number is likely larger than I would have guessed before the study. Of course, the problem is that we do not currently have any way of figuring out which tumors detected by mammography will fall into the minority that do ultimately regress; so we are morally obligated to treat them all. My most recent foray into this topic was in July, when I analyzed another study that concluded that one in three breast cancers detected by screening are overdiagnosed and overtreated. That last post caused me the most angst, because women commented and wrote me asking me what to do, and I had to answer what I always answer: Follow the standard of care, which is yearly mammography over age 40. This data and these concerns have not yet altered that standard of care, and I am not going to change my practice or my general recommendations to women until a new consensus develops.

Posted in: Cancer, Diagnostic tests & procedures, Public Health, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (10) →

When homeopaths attack medicine and physics

I must admit, it is possible that our fearless leader Steve has a more robust constitution than I do. I say this because he actually managed to sit through an entire video full of the most bizarre pseudoscience and mangling of physics and medicine that I’ve seen in quite some time.

And that’s saying a lot.

So, behold, Dr. Charlene Werner, an optometrist (apparently) and a homeopath. I warn you, however. If you have any understanding of physics or chemistry whatsoever or if you’ve ever read (and liked) Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time (or anything else he’s ever written), sit down now. Take a deep breath. Heck, crack open a bottle of wine and down at least half of it before you watch this video. I’m serious. You’ll need it. You might need to lie down, too. In fact, you might need to lie down with a cool washcloth across your eyes.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you:

Truly, the woo doth flow. Like a river. Like the energy from a supernova. From Bozeman, Montana, where, apparently they don’t have enough woo and have to import it from Texas. I haven’t seen such a massive pseudoscientific abuse of physics and chemistry in quite a long time.

Posted in: Homeopathy, Humor

Leave a Comment (74) →
Page 40 of 54 «...1020303839404142...»