Back in 2004, data from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) appeared in a report titled “Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among Adults: United States, 2002.” It showed a whopping 62% of adults had used CAM in the past 12 months, but only if prayer for health reasons was included. With prayer excluded, the percentage was substantially lower, at 35%.
“CAM” was defined as:
a group of diverse medical and health care systems, therapies, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine.
The authors noted that, in earlier surveys of CAM use, “CAM has been operationally defined in a variety of ways” and the lists of CAM interventions/therapies included “varied considerably among the surveys.”
The most commonly used CAM therapies (excluding prayer) were non-vitamin, non-mineral natural products (18.9%), deep breathing exercises (11.6%), chiropractic care (7.5%), yoga (5.1%), massage (5.0%) and diet-based therapies (3.5%). CAM was most often used to treat back pain or problems, head or chest colds, neck pain or problems, joint pain or stiffness, and anxiety or depression. Most CAM use was self-prescribed. Rebranding things like exercise (yoga) as “CAM” was in the mix from the get-go.
Stick-and-ball model of the glucosamine molecule (from the Wikimedia Commons, image by Benjah-bmm27)
Osteoarthritis, the “wear-and-tear” type of arthritis, affects a great many of us as we grow older. Knee pain is a common symptom. The diet supplements glucosamine and chondroitin have been proposed as a more “natural” treatment than pharmaceuticals, and they are components of a number of proprietary “joint health” formulations like Osteo Bi-Flex. The GAIT study (Glucosamine/Chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial), compared glucosamine, chondroitin, a combination of the two, and a pharmaceutical (celecoxib) to a placebo in patients with knee pain from osteoarthritis. The only one that worked better than placebo was celecoxib. I wrote about the GAIT trial in 2008. The study was reported in the media as both negative and positive. The positive reports emphasized the subgroup analysis: in one of ten subgroups, patients with moderate to severe pain, the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin outperformed placebo. But in the subgroup of patients with mild to moderate pain, it did not. The authors themselves commented that their study was not powered to draw any conclusions from subgroups and that further studies would be required. (The “power” of a study is a measure of its ability to show an association or relationship between two variables if such a relationship exists.) Now a further study with sufficient power claims to have confirmed the subgroup findings. This may encourage some people to try glucosamine/chondroitin, but I remain skeptical.
Is what’s on the label really in the capsule?
Most of us are fortunate to live in countries where we don’t have to worry about counterfeit drugs. We can be confident that the prescription we receive, or the drugs we purchase from the pharmacy, are of high quality and contain exactly what’s on the label. But in these same countries, there’s another group of products where the risks of counterfeits are very real – it’s among the dietary supplements that are often found on the same shelves. Dietary supplements are not regulated in the same way as drug products. The American supplement industry is a multi-billion dollar free-for-all with little meaningful safety or quality regulation. Supplement quality and safety issues are in the media regularly as a result. The most recent example comes from the New York State attorney general’s office. It has accused four large retailers of selling supplements that failed to contain labelled ingredients. Testing the products with a technology called “DNA barcoding”, the AG’s office concluded that most of the products contained little to none of the labelled ingredient. And they also found ingredients that were not disclosed on the label. The AG’s office has demanded these products be removed from store shelves, and the stores stand accused of fraud. (more…)
I thought I’d written my final post on the Dr. Oz-fueled green coffee bean extract (GCBE) diet supplement fad. But now there’s another appalling chapter, one that documents just how much contempt The Dr. Oz Show seems to show for its audience, and how little Dr. Oz seems to care about providing advice based on good science. This week it was revealed that the “naturopath” that Dr. Oz originally featured in his GCBE segment, Lindsey Duncan, didn’t disclose a direct conflict of interest when he spoke. After inaccurately describing the supplement’s effectiveness, he directed consumers, using keywords, to web sites that he owned or operated. The infamous “Dr. Oz Effect” worked, with Duncan selling $50 million in GCBE supplements in the following months and years. This week it was announced that Duncan and his companies have been fined $9 million by the Federal Trade Commission. The documentation released by the FTC [PDF] gives remarkable insight into how a scam to make millions was launched, and how the Dr. Oz Show is a platform for the routine promotion of dubious “experts” and worthless supplements. (more…)
The Dunning-Kruger effect, leading to false beliefs about nearly everything since the dawn of humanity.
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.
Some apparently rather useless Lactobacillus acidophilus
I always cringe when I see an acupuncture headline with ‘needle’ or ‘point’ in the title. Can’t the writer avoid the clichéd pun? I had an editor who commented that the titles of my essays are often obtuse. Probably true. In going back over my essays on SBM I often can’t tell from the title what I have written about until I read the article. It is a fine line between (what I think) is a clever title and obscurity. So gut check it is.
Time flies when you are having fun. I wrote about probiotics back in 2009.
My conclusion at the time:
Probiotics are useful for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Probiotics may be helpful in preventing other overgrowth syndromes or diseases associated, and perhaps with perturbations of the gut microbial flora such as IBS and colic.
Probiotics are foreign bacteria that are not a normal part of your GI tract; they do not enhance your immune system and, in normal people do not promote the nebulous bowel health.
If you are a normal human, with a normal diet, save your money. Probiotics have nothing to offer but an increased cost.
Medicine is not static and there have been interesting advances in the understanding of the human microbiome in health and disease since 2009, so for SBM and my own medical understanding, I thought it would be a good opportunity to review the topic. Although with over 12,000 references on the PubMeds, I will only touch on a smattering of the papers. My ID attending in medical school always referred to reading the medical literature as drinking from a fire hose. Indeed. (more…)
SBM frequently receives questions from readers asking for more information or even challenging our position on various topics. We make extensive efforts to answer such questions, since engaging with the public is one of the primary purposes of this blog. In fact, I specifically chose the blog format because of its interactive nature and the ability to rapidly respond to items in the news or being discussed publicly.
Sometimes it’s helpful to provide answers to questions in the form of its own post. I do this when the questions are common or explore some new or interesting angle of a topic. I am also more likely to engage when the questions are polite and genuine.
We recently received the following e-mail which meets all these criteria, so here is my response. I will reprint the e-mail in sections as I address each question.
I have the utmost respect for the scientific method, and we subscribe to the Skeptical Inquirer. I respect much of what your organization does, and I do not believe that Reiki or Therapeutic Touch is effective, unless the person receiving these therapies believe they work. However, your organization seems to go out of its way to disprove things like the benefit of organic produce which has less pesticides than conventional produce. You claim that natural pesticides could be just as harmful. Here are some examples of these natural pesticides: apply 1 tablespoon of canola oil and a few drops of ivory soap to the leaves of plants and vegetables to repel insects. Also, apply 2 TBSPS of hot pepper sauce with a few drops of ivory soap to leaves, use baking soda and water or pureed onions to repel insects. How can you claim that these innocuous substances are as harmful as conventional pesticides?
I am happy to report some good news: chiropractors, naturopaths, acupuncturists and assorted other practitioners of pseudo-medicine didn’t fare too well in the 2013-2014 state legislative sessions.
We’ve been following their legislative efforts all year over at the Society for Science-Based Medicine. Some state legislatures meet in yearly sessions. At the end of the year, pending bills die with the session. Some meet only every other year. Others meet in two-year sessions and, in some of these, legislation introduced in one year carries over to the next year. All states with two-year sessions ended these sessions at the close of 2014, except New Jersey and Virginia. If you want to see how your state operates, several websites can help you: MultiState Associates, National Conference of State Legislatures and StateScape.
Chiropractors are already licensed in all 50 states and all of their practice acts permit the detection and correction of the non-existent subluxation. Having achieved that goal, the focus of chiropractic legislative efforts is to expand their scope of practice (the holy grail, for some, being primary care physician status), turf protection and mandates requiring insurance reimbursement or their inclusion in various activities, such as sports physicals, concussion treatment, and scoliosis detection programs.
The most interesting chiropractic bill, one from Oklahoma, didn’t fall into any of those categories:
Chiropractic physicians in this state shall obtain informed, written consent from a patient prior to performing any procedure that involves treatment of the patient’s cervical spine and such informed consent shall include the risks and possible side effects of such treatment including the risk of chiropractic stroke.
Happy New Year! Today’s post was some old material, dusted off, repackaged, and updated for 2015.
New Year, New You, right? We’re just into 2015, and you’ve resolved to finally get serious about your health. Starting today. But first need to cleanse yourself, eliminating last year’s lifestyle and dietary sins. You’ve seen the ads and the Facebook links, all suggesting you need a “detox”, “cleanse” or “flush” to be healthy. Supplements, tea, homeopathy, coffee enemas, ear candles, and footbaths promise you a detoxified body. Amazon has entire detox and cleansing categories in supplements and books. The descriptions all suggest detoxing will deliver a renewed body and better health — it’s only seven days and $49.95 away. Dr. Oz has several detox plans — you just need to decide which one. The local naturopath sells detoxification protocols, including vitamin drips and chelation. Even your pharmacy probably has a wall of products for sale. Wouldn’t a purification from your sins of 2014 be a good idea to start the year? Unfortunately, there’s something very important that detox promoters aren’t telling you. (more…)
Vitamin D, the so-called sunshine vitamin, has generated a lot of attention in recent years. It has been claimed to benefit a wide variety of diseases, everything from cancer to multiple sclerosis. It is widely used along with calcium for bone health. It is added to milk and prenatal vitamins and is prescribed for breastfed babies. Some doctors are recommending everyone take it for prevention. Some CAM advocates are recommending it as a more natural way to prevent the flu than getting a flu shot.
It has been touted as a panacea; Michael Holick even wrote a book titled The Vitamin D Solution: A 3-Step Strategy to Cure Our Most Common Health Problems. Christiane Northrup praised it, saying “This information can save your life. Really.” (Really? I’m skeptical, and her recommendation is not enough to make me want to read the book.) Then there’s Jeff Bowles’ book The Miraculous Results of Extremely High Doses of the Sunshine Hormone Vitamin D3 My Experiment With Huge Doses of D3 From 25,000 To 50,000 Iu A Day Over A 1 Year Period. That one’s not on my reading list either; the tolerable upper intake level is 4,000 IU a day.
It’s hard to avoid the hype and just examine the actual scientific evidence without any bias. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has tried to do just that. It recently evaluated screening for vitamin D deficiency and concluded that the current evidence is insufficient to recommend either for or against screening. Predictably, their announcement has already led to misunderstandings and protests.