From the author’s website: “Shameless use of cute baby to promote book”
When a baby is born, parents are often awed and alarmed to find themselves responsible for this tiny new person, and they desperately want to do their very best to keep their infant safe and healthy. New mothers worry about everything from SIDS to vaccines, from feeding practices to sleep hygiene, and they are bombarded with conflicting advice about caring for their babies. Myths and misinformation abound. Finally someone has written a truly science-based guide to the first year of life: The Science of Mom. The author, Alice Callahan, is a research scientist with a PhD in nutritional biology. When her first child was born, she had a lot of questions, and thanks to her background she knew how to look for reliable answers in the scientific literature. She started writing the Science of Mom blog and eventually turned her findings into a book.
Her first chapter covers the important concepts for understanding how to think about scientific studies:
- Good science is a process that takes lots of experiments, time, and people.
- Good science is peer-reviewed.
- One study on its own isn’t worth much, but scientific consensus is trustworthy.
- Some studies are more valuable than others (here she covers the various types of study from animal studies through observational studies in humans to RCTs and meta-analyses).
- Numbers matter (sample sizes).
- Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet (here she gives some practical tips for evaluating whether a website is reliable).
- Correlation is not causation (she uses my favorite example of the correlation between autism diagnoses and the sales of organic food).
- We can’t eliminate risks (but science can quantify the risks and benefits and families can use the information to decide what risks they are personally willing to take).
- Find smart allies (experts and providers you can trust).
- Forget about perfection and pay attention to your baby.
The “Hubbard protocol” is Scientology’s religion-based, pseudoscientific “detoxification” treatment used in its Narconon program to treat drug addiction. It was dreamed up by a science fiction writer with no medical training. Now it is being studied as a treatment for veterans suffering from Gulf War illness. Our limited public money for research is being wasted on a study with no scientific merit. Whether or not you consider this a church/state conflict, the study is clearly ill-advised.
The study: $600K worth of sweat
A description of the study is available online in the government’s clinical trials registry. The DOD funded this study to the tune of $633,677. The subjects are veterans with Gulf War illness characterized by persistent memory and concentration problems, headaches, fatigue, and muscle and joint pain. The illness has not been well defined, and its cause has not been determined; but the researchers are working on the assumption that toxins are the cause and that the treatment will relieve symptoms by removing toxins from the body.
The control group will get only “usual care.” The experimental group will get:
A four to six week regimen consisting of daily, supervised, mild-moderate exercise as tolerated for 20 minutes, supervised, intermittent Finnish saunas (at about 140’F) sauna time with breaks and showers, gradually increased as tolerated to approximately 4 hours, dietary supplements including immediate release niacin in gradually increasing doses from 100 mg to a maximum of 5000 mg per day, salt and water, other vitamins, minerals and oils per Hubbard protocol.
An appendix, mid-appendectomy.
My title doesn’t refer to alternative medicine, it refers to an alternative within medicine: treating appendicitis with antibiotics instead of surgery. You may be surprised to learn that patients with appendicitis don’t always automatically need an appendectomy. A recent randomized controlled trial in Finland compared surgery to medical treatment.
History of appendicitis treatment
There is an excellent, detailed history of appendicitis available online, complete with anecdotes illustrating its importance. The appendix was not mentioned in early anatomical studies, probably because they were done on animals that didn’t have an appendix. The organ was first described in 1521. The existence of appendicitis (called “typhlitis” until 1886) was gradually recognized during the 19th century, and by the end of that century surgical removal of the appendix had become the standard treatment. Walter Reed, the yellow fever researcher for whom the Army hospital was named, died of a ruptured appendix. King Edward VII’s coronation was delayed while he underwent a life-saving appendectomy.
Appendectomy predated antibiotics, and it was believed that appendicitis would invariably progress to perforation. Once antibiotics were available, doctors experimented with treating appendicitis with them instead of with surgery, starting as early as 1956. The published trials had limitations, so the new study was done to try to get a more definitive answer to the question of whether the antibiotic approach was as effective as the surgical approach.
“Dr. Joe” (from the title of his radio show) has done it again. He keeps putting out books faster than I can take them in; this one is titled Monkeys, Myths, and Molecules. It is packed with pithy analyses of health-related subjects that should be of particular interest to SBM readers.
Dr. Joe is Joseph Schwarcz, a chemistry professor and science popularizer based at McGill University. I’ve reviewed two of his many previous books before, Is that a Fact? here on SBM and The Right Chemistry over at Skeptic.com, as well as his free online chemistry lectures, “Food for Thought“, over at edX.org. As usual, this new book is a compendium of short (four-page) articles on a variety of subjects, written in a humorous, accessible style, and larded with intriguing trivia like where to see the largest illuminated advertising sign in the world.
If you read this book, you will:
- Learn that Mozart only had seven teeth when he died.
- Learn what was the first synthetic drug ever given to a human, and who administered it.
- Learn that Popeye really ate spinach for the vitamin A, not for the iron, and how myths about myths about spinach (no, that’s not a typo) led to ever-increasing misinformation.
- Hear the story of American military experts in WWII who had the bright idea of turning bats into weapons by attaching small incendiary devices to them. In an experiment hilariously gone wrong, the flaming bats set fire to a general’s car. (Remember that saying about military intelligence?)
- Learn the role of coprolites (fossilized animal poop) in the development of modern agriculture.
- Learn why Greek yogurt is not friendly to the environment.
Dr. Joe is a packrat for tidbits like these. I wonder where he finds them all. He seems to have a bottomless supply. (more…)
Homeopathy is full of crap! Click to embiggen.
Borrowed with loving attribution from Hell’s News Stand. Go to He…go there!
“A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy” by Levy et al. was recently published in an ethics journal. A full-text preprint is available online. They say:
Utilitarian critiques of homeopathy that are founded on unsophisticated notions of evidence, that adopt narrow perspectives on healthcare assessment, and that overstate the personal, social and ontological harms of homeopathy, add little to our understanding of the epistemology of medicine. But when they are used to denounce the ethics of homeopathy – they are not only ill-considered and counterproductive, but philosophically and socially perverse.
I found their arguments unconvincing. (more…)
An example of Ormus powder. Ormusmanna.com: “Ormus could be the source of all metals. Therefore, we identify the Ormus elements in relationship to the metal they can unfold into (e.g. Ormus copper, Ormus gold, Ormus rhodium, etc.)”
I got an e-mail from a woman who had read my article on ASEA, a multilevel marketing diet supplement that I characterized as an expensive way to buy water. She had not tried ASEA products but was applying for a position as an accountant with the company, and she chastised me for not doing my due diligence and researching the new science of ORMUS.
First she dismissed science, saying “science as we know it is no longer valid and quantum physics clearly shows this.” Then she claimed there was valid science that would support ASEA’s claims. She had personally done a sea salt cleanse with good results. If ASEA is only salt water, that doesn’t negate its validity, since ORMUS material is from sea salt and when minerals are rearranged they no longer register as the original element. Alchemy is not a myth, and the “quantum non-mainstream sciences” prove it is real. Quantum physics “explains that particles can interact without actually being on contact, this is a form or property of superconductivity.” She thinks ORMUS material is superconductive and constitutes a percentage of the human brain mass, allowing transmission of thoughts to others who tune in to these superconductive energy transmissions.
But wait, there’s more! She went on to tell me about an experiment where a dog’s entire blood volume was replaced by seawater. She shared her belief that the power of the mind can heal all disease, and she explained that she relies on a natural knowing within herself and only uses outside evidence to confirm her beliefs. She has been studying subjects like sacred geometry, Vedic mathematics, the golden ratio, quantum physics, and extraterrestrials.
Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements
This woman is obviously misguided and misinformed, but what is this ORMUS she’s talking about? I’d never heard of it, so I started with Rational Wiki:
ORMUS, also called ORMEs (Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements) and m-state materials, is a fictitious group of substances exhibiting many miraculous properties, such as healing powers and superconductivity at room temperature. They were supposedly discovered in 1975 by David Hudson, a cotton farmer from Arizona.
Get started…for as little as $14,000!
Hands On Learning Solutions, a business in Gig Harbor, Washington, evaluates and treats children for learning disabilities and claims to identify the underlying causes and help eliminate the symptoms. Much of what they do is questionable, and at least one of their methods is clearly bogus. Their program is reminiscent of the Brain Balance program that I wrote about in 2010. I’ll describe one child’s encounter with Hands On Learning Solutions and let you decide for yourself whether it sounds like a legitimate, helpful service.
Billy (not his real name) is an 11-year-old boy who is in the fifth grade at a Catholic school. He didn’t learn to talk until age 3, but he got speech therapy and is currently doing well in school, with a GPA of 86%. On his last report card, the section on “Successful Learner” rated him above average on working cooperatively with others, and satisfactory in all other categories, such as organizational skills, using time well, listening attentively, following directions, and completing work on time. His mother took him to Hands On Learning Solutions on the recommendation of a friend. On the intake questionnaire she expressed concerns about his written/oral expression, organization, study skills, attention focus, and motivation/behavior. She did not check the boxes for concerns about reading, spelling, comprehension, letter reversals, graphomotor skills, math, memory, poor grades, or slow work. (more…)
NOTE: I get a lot of emails asking me whether treatment X is evidence-based or a scam. This one was different. Zachary Hoffman had done his homework and had already answered the question for himself (at least, as well as it could be answered with the existing published evidence). I asked him to write up his findings as a guest post for SBM. This is a great example of how a layman can figure things out for himself using little more than google-fu and critical thinking skills. I hope it will be an inspiration to others who may not have thought they were qualified to do what we do on SBM.
Recently a friend alerted me to something called “Whole-Body Cryotherapy” which has been making the rounds on Facebook and is being promoted by many athletes and celebrities. I had only heard of cryotherapy in the context of freezing off a wart, but I was about to find out there was so much more. She explained that subjecting your entire body to extreme cold (-200˚F!) for a few minutes a day was a virtual panacea, with weight-loss, tissue repair, and beauty treatments as the target market. My limited background in biology hadn’t quite prepared me for understanding why subjecting oneself to cold air could possibly help treat any illness.
For instance, up here in Boston, I ride my bike all winter long, and on a particularly cold day, after a 5 degree ride, no one has commented that I seem particularly trim, or that my face is looking unusually beautiful. Unfortunately, a few days ago while riding my bike, I took a spill and mushed my hand pretty good. However, the cold winter air hasn’t done much to alleviate that pain or stop my right hand from being twice the size of the left. In any case, it seemed to me that I’d have to give this a closer look before I made any comments.
A quick search on Google led me to a website, Cryohealthcare, Inc. The website is aesthetically pleasing and has plenty of information about how this treatment can transform your life. To top it off, there are lots of endorsements from professional teams and athletes. It appears that for about $65 a pop you can subject yourself to unfathomably low temperatures and enjoy a whole-body tingle when you step out (when I was younger I used to jump in the snow and then get into a hot tub, so I get the appeal). A quick scroll down and we see indications for injury recovery, pain mitigation, and athletic performance, among others, followed nicely by the FDA quack Miranda warning. (more…)
The statin hypothesis is that statins reduce cardiac risk more than can be explained by the reduction in LDL cholesterol. That hypothesis has been overturned by a new study.
The consensus of mainstream medicine is that a high blood level of LDL cholesterol is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and that lowering high levels can help with prevention and treatment. Statins have been proven effective for lowering cholesterol levels and for decreasing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. I recently wrote about the new guidelines for statin therapy.
Currently half of American men between the ages of 65 and 74 are taking statins, and 71 percent of adults with heart disease and 54 percent of adults with high cholesterol take a cholesterol-lowering drug.
There is still a fringe group of a few maverick “cholesterol skeptics” who think lowering cholesterol is useless or counterproductive, but the evidence shows they are wrong.