Sometimes, weird things happen when I’m at meetings. For example, I just got home from the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) meeting in Houston over the weekend. Now, one thing I like about this meeting is that, unlike so many other meetings these days—cough, cough, ASCO, I’m looking at you—at the SSO there wasn’t a single talk I could find about “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) or, as its proponents like to call it now, “integrative medicine.” It’s also a great chance to get caught up on new science and clinical guidelines in cancer surgery, as well as to see people I tend only to see at these meetings.
However, I must admit that by the last day I tend to be “meeting-ed” out and sometimes my attention wanders. Unfortunately, there are ample ways to indulge that attention deficit. Actually, it’s my iPhone. And it’s Twitter. So it was an odd coincidence that right after a talk by Dr. Deanna Attai about whether surgical oncologists can or should offer genetic counseling services to their patients, when I somehow let myself get into an exchange with Sayer Ji, the “natural health expert” responsible for GreenMedInfo, over BRCA1 mutations and the risk of breast and ovarian cancer, in other words, exactly the sort of thing that Dr. Attai had just discussed. For example:
After a bit of back-and-forth, I got fed up:
This minor Twitter exchange came about because of Angelina Jolie’s announcement in a New York Times op-ed last week entitled “Diary of a Surgery” that she had had her ovaries removed to prevent ovarian cancer due to her being a carrier of a high-risk mutation in BRCA1. As you might recall, I wrote about Jolie’s case two years ago, when she first announced in a NYT op-ed entitled “My Medical Choice” that she had undergone a bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction to decrease her BRCA1-related risk of breast cancer. Although I had discussed the story before, I thought it worth doing again here in a bit more detail. (more…)
Note: I wrote two posts today to alert readers to two upcoming television events in time for them to plan their viewing. See the second post for an announcement about a film on scientology, along with an article about Scientology’s War on Medicine that I wrote for Skeptic magazine.
Filmmaker Ken Burns
Ken Burns has made a lot of outstanding films. His The Civil War has been listed as second only to Nanook of the North as the most influential documentary of all time. I was delighted to learn that he had applied his exceptional skills to a topic that is very important to us on the Science-Based medicine blog, cancer. His film is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book by Siddhartha Mukherjee, The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer.
I reviewed Mukherjee’s book in 2010. He is an oncologist and cancer researcher and also a superb writer. I characterized his book as:
a unique combination of insightful history, cutting edge science reporting, and vivid stories about the individuals involved: the scientists, the activists, the doctors, and the patients. It is also the story of science itself: how the scientific method works and how it developed, how we learned to randomize, do controlled trials, get informed consent, use statistics appropriately, and how science can go wrong.
I continue to think it is the best book ever written on cancer.
The film interviews Mukherjee and many of the researchers and patients whose stories appear in the book. If you haven’t read the book, it will give you an idea what it’s about. If you have read the book, you will enjoy it even more as you meet the people you have read about. It covers the history of cancer as well as the most recent scientific developments and is very optimistic about the future.
The movie is scheduled to premiere March 30 – April 1 at 9 PM EST on PBS, in 3 parts with a total duration of 6 hours. You can watch the trailer online. The producers sent me a press preview 1-hour highlight reel and I was very impressed. I can’t wait to watch the whole thing. I hope you will be able to watch it too.
It’s been a while since I discussed medical marijuana, even though it’s a topic I’ve been meaning to come back to since I first dubbed medical marijuana to be the equivalent of herbalism and discussed how the potential of cannabinoids to treat cancer has been, thus far, unimpressive, with relatively modest antitumor effects. The reason I refer to medical marijuana as the “new herbalism” is because the arguments made in favor of medical marijuana are very much like arguments for herbalism, including arguments that using the natural plant is superior to using specific purified cannabinoids, appeals to how “natural” marijuana is, and claims of incredible effectiveness against all manner of diseases, including deadly diseases like cancer, based on anecdotes and testimonials. Now, as I pointed out before, not only am I not opposed to the legalization and regulation of marijuana for recreational use, even though I’ve never tried it myself, but I support it. What I do not support are claims for medical effects that are not backed up with good scientific evidence, and for medical marijuana most claims fall into that category. That’s why I tend to view medical marijuana as a backdoor way to get marijuana legalized. Personally I’d rather advocates of marijuana legalization drop the charade, argue for legalization, and stop with the medical nonsense.
The last time around, I discussed the evidence supporting claims that “cannabis cures cancer” and found them to be wanting based on science. I didn’t however, discuss the “cannabis cures cancer” testimonial machine that drives the claim that marijuana is useful for treating cancer; at least, I only touched on it by discussing briefly Rick Simpson, who claims that his hash oil cures approximately 70% of patients with terminal cancer and a published anecdote in which it was claimed that hemp oil was effective in treating acute lymphoblastic leukemia. (It wasn’t. At least, the evidence presented was not convincing.) Since then, I’ve wanted to revisit the topic of “cannabis cures cancer” testimonials, and, for whatever reason, now seems like a good time to do it.
Screenshot of the Hippocrates Health Institute’s website
Note: Also posted today is a brief profile of a new blog, Naturopathic Diaries: Confessions of a Former Naturopath, by Britt Marie Deegan Hermes, a trained naturopath who became disillusioned with her profession. I encourage you to have a look!
The State of Florida has finally taken action against Brian Clement.
David Gorski, Orac, and the Canadian media, especially the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), have done an excellent job of chronicling the activities of “Dr.” Clement. All have reported on Florida’s taking action against Clement. I’ll give a brief background here, most of which comes from Dr. Gorski’s most recent post, as well as add some information and observations to theirs.
Hippocrates Health Institute, located in West Palm Beach, Florida, is licensed as a massage establishment by the state and run by Brian Clement and his wife, Anna Maria Gahns-Clement. Clement and Hippocrates came to the attention of the Canadian media when, last year, the families of two Canadian aboriginal girls withdrew their children from conventional cancer treatment, including chemotherapy. Prior to that, Clement had basked in the glory of fawning reports from local media, one of which described him as having an “inimitable, engaging style.” Another described him as coming “fresh from a detoxifying sauna” to the interview.
Had they completed conventional treatment, both girls had a very good chance of survival. The families opted instead for traditional medicine as well as “alternative medicine” at Hippocrates. Each paid a reported $18,000 for participation in a “Life Transformation Program” there. This included, for at least one of the girls, cold laser therapy, vitamin C injections and a strict raw vegetable diet.
The Wellness Warrior website now redirects to this photo.
Less than four days ago, a young Australian woman died of a very rare type of cancer. Most of my American and probably many of my European readers have never heard of her, but in Australia she had become quite famous over the last seven years as a major proponent of “natural health.” Her name was Jess Ainscough, but, like a certain American woman who has become famous for promoting dubious science, she was better known by her “brand” name. That brand name was The Wellness Warrior.
I first encountered Ms. Ainscough about a year and a half ago and have been intermittently following her career ever since. I’ve even blogged about her three or four times during that period over at my not-so-super-secret other blog. However, for whatever reason, even though it was my intent to write about her here on Science-Based Medicine, I never got around to it. Her death prodded me to write now, because her tale is a cautionary one important enough that I believe there should be something written here about it. Given that, those of you who follow my cubical other self will find some of this post repetitive. However, think of it as the first opportunity I’ve had to tell the story from beginning to end, along with a major deconstruction of the Gerson protocol. (Yes, unfortunately the Gerson protocol figures heavily in this story.) It’s a story that has led to the deaths of at least two people, and whose harm to others is impossible to quantify, given that the reach of The Wellness Warrior was long, at least in Australia.
This is a screenshot from the website of the Hippocrates Health Institute, showing how high end its grounds and facilities are.
I first came across Brian Clement, the proprietor of the Hippocrates Health Institute in West Palm Beach, Florida, a little more than a year ago based on the story of Stephanie O’Halloran. Ms. O’Halloran was—word choice unfortunately intentional—a 23-year-old mother of an 18 month old child from Ireland who was diagnosed with stage IV breast cancer in 2013, with metastases to her lymph nodes, liver, lung, and leg. Unfortunately for her, she found Brian Clement at the Hippocrates Health Institute, who gave her false hope with his claims that a raw vegan diet and wheatgrass can treat just about everything. Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, Ms. O’Halloran died in June 2014, less than nine months after having been diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.
I didn’t write about Stephanie O’Halloran at the time (at least not here), but I did write about Brian Clement and the Hippocrates Health Institute (HHI) twice over the last several months in the context of the cases of two 11-year-old Aboriginal girls in Canada with cancer, specifically lymphoblastic leukemia. One was —word choice again unfortunately intentional—named Makayla Sault and the other is referred to as “JJ” in news reports to protect her privacy in her parents’ legal proceedings to assert their right to use traditional medicine to treat their daughter’s cancer rather than curative chemotherapy, which was estimated to have a 75% chance of curing Makayla Sault and an 85% to 90% chance of curing JJ. Unfortunately, both girls and their parents fell under the spell of Brian Clement and his cancer quackery. The result was one unnecessarily dead girl (Makayla Sault, who died last month) and one likely to be dead by the end of this year or not much longer (JJ). Such is the price of cancer quackery. In this case, even more puzzlingly, these girls’ parents seemed quite content to conflate the quackery of Brian Clement, a white man practicing in Florida, with “traditional Aboriginal medicine,” the sort of practices they were claiming to have a right to.
Note: Atul Gawande and his book will be featured on a Frontline episode airing on PBS tonight.
We’re all going to die. (There’s nothing like starting on a positive note! ) We’re all going to die, and if we are fortunate enough to survive long enough to become old, we’re all going to experience a decline of one sort or another before we die: reduced hearing and vision, less strength, poorer memory, etc. As a society, and as a medical profession, we have been reluctant to confront those issues head on. Dr. Atul Gawande faces them unflinchingly in his thought-provoking new book Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End.
In a simpler time, there were fewer old people; they were respected for their knowledge and were cared for by their families who supplied their increasing needs as age made them more dependent on others; they died at home surrounded by supportive loved ones. Today we warehouse our elders in nursing homes, where they are denied the independence of even making simple everyday choices like when to get up and when to eat. We consign them to a regimented, less enjoyable, less meaningful life; and they frequently die alone in hospitals, connected to tubes and machines.
Doctors are not always good at making it clear to terminally ill patients that they are going to die soon. They are not always good at discussing end-of-life issues and securing advance directives. They often treat end-of-life diseases so aggressively that they end up causing more suffering or even shortening lives. (more…)
One of the most contentious questions that come up in science-based medicine that we discuss on this blog is the issue of screening asymptomatic individuals for disease. The most common conditions screened for that we, at least, have discussed on this blog are cancers (e.g., mammography for breast cancer, prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer, ultrasound screening for thyroid cancer), but screening goes beyond just cancer. In cancer, screening is a particularly-contentious issue. For example, by simply questioning whether mammography saves as many lives lost to breast cancer as advocates claim, one can find oneself coming under fire from some very powerful advocates of screening who view any questioning of mammography as an attempt to deny “life-saving” screening to women. That’s why I was very interested when I saw a blog post on The Gupta Guide that pointed me to a new systematic review by John Ioannidis and colleagues examining the value of screening as a general phenomenon, entitled “Does screening for disease save lives in asymptomatic adults? Systematic review of meta-analyses and randomized trials.”
Before I get into the study, let’s first review some of the key concepts behind screening asymptomatic individuals for disease. (If you’re familiar with these concepts, you can skip to the next section.) The act of screening for disease is based on a concept that makes intuitive sense to most people, including physicians, but might not be correct for many diseases. That concept is that early intervention is more likely to successfully prevent complications and death than later intervention. This concept is particularly strong in cancer, for obvious reasons. Compare, for example, a stage I breast cancer (less than 2 cm in diameter, no involvement of the lymph nodes under the arm, known as axillary lymph nodes) with a stage III cancer (e.g., a tumor measuring greater than 5 cm and/or having lots of axillary lymph nodes involved). Five year survival is much higher for treated stage I than for treated stage III, and, depending on the molecular characteristics, the stage I cancer might not even require chemotherapy and can be treated with breast conserving surgery (“lumpectomy” or partial mastectomy) far more frequently than the stage III cancer. So it seems intuitively true that it would be better to catch a breast cancer when it’s stage I rather than when it’s stage III.
An economic analyst, Mike “Mish” Shedlock, wrote a blog post to describe how he beat prostate cancer. When laymen and patients write about cancer, they are likely to get some things wrong. Mish’s story is full of typical misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
He interpreted his experience in his own way and did his own research into the medical literature, something he was not qualified to do. Prostate cancer is a very complex subject, and understanding the implications of published studies for treating patients can be difficult even for experts. In typical Dunning-Kruger fashion, he rejected the advice of his doctors, thinking he could do better.
One topic that keeps recurring and obligating me to write about it consists of critically analyzing stories of children with cancer whose parents, either on their own or at the behest of their child, stop or refuse chemotherapy or other treatment. It is, sadly, a topic that I’ve been discussing for nearly a decade now, starting first on my not-so-super-secret other blog and continuing both there and here. Indeed, the first post I wrote about this problem was in November 2005, a fact that depressed me when I went back through the archives to find it because so little has changed since that time.
I was painfully reminded of this last week when stories started circulating in the media about the death of Makayla Sault, an Ojibwe girl and member of the New Credit First Nation in Ontario:
The entire community of New Credit is in mourning today, following the news of the passing of 11 year old Makayla Sault.
The child suffered a stroke on Sunday morning and was unable to recover. Friends and family from across the province travelled to New Credit First Nation today to offer condolences, share tears and pay their respects.