Archive for Medical Academia

The Weekly Waluation of the Weasel Words of Woo #2

You Can’t Foo’ Stu with Woo!

A Spitzerian (“pointed”) analysis

Last week’s inaugural game elicited several amusing and penetrating analyses, including that of the hands-down Gold Medal Winner, Stu. His was the first entry, introduced in a concise and alliterative imperative, and was both hilarious and timely. It implied most of the points discussed by others. This distinctive combination has moved me to grant Stu a legacy here at the W^5. In the future there may be, undoubtedly no more than once in a very long while, entries that live up to the Soaring Standard of Stu®. If so, they will be Duly Acknowledged. (more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic, Humor, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics

Leave a Comment (11) →

The ultimate in “integrative medicine”: Integrating the unscientific into the medical school curriculum

For the second week in a row I find myself throwing out the original post that I had planned on doing in favor of a different topic. The reason this week is, quite simply, having read Dr. Atwood’s excellent two part post Misleading Language: The Common Currency of “CAM” Characterizations (Part I; Part II). I don’t at this time intend to expand on what Dr. Atwood said, although I may do so at one future time. What caught my attention in his lengthy deconstruction was his segment on the “woo-ification” of health care, which very much echoed my post a while back in which I lamented the creeping infiltration of non-science-based modalities into academic medical centers, as well as the credulous teaching of such modalities in medical schools. What I wanted to explore was just how far this might go and what the end result might be. It turns out that we are already witnessing an experiment in just such a thing.

About a year and a half ago, I first became aware of just how far this infiltration of unscientific “medicine” has infiltrated academia when I saw this brochure published by the Georgetown University School of Medicine. If you’re scientifically inclined, as I am, it ought to make you shudder. Reading this brochure, I truly have to worry whether woo really is the future of American medicine, as has been suggested in some quarters. Certainly, if other medical schools start following Georgetown’s lead, it will be. Not content to offer so-called complementary and alternative medicine (“CAM”) modalities as part of electives that interested students can take if they are so inclined, Georgetown is taking the next logical step that I feared: It’s dedicating significant educational resources and time to teaching “CAM” in its mandatory general medical curriculum, where every student has to learn it:

Posted in: Medical Academia, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (65) →

Misleading Language: the Common Currency of “CAM” Characterizations Part II


I promised readers the “Advanced Course” for this week, which undoubtedly has you shaking in your boots. Fear not: you’ve already had a taste of advanced, subtle, misleading “CAM” language, and most of you probably “got” it. That was R. Barker Bausell’s analysis of how homeopathy is “hypothesized to work.” In the interest of civility, let me reiterate that I don’t think of Bausell as a horrible person or an ignorant boor for having written that statement. Rather, I think of him as having been so steeped in the de rigueur “CAM” language distortions of the 1990s that he is largely unaware of their insidious power. I suspect too that he, like most of us who grew up when schools no longer stressed the rigors of English composition, has an underdeveloped sense of the relation between the craft of writing and the integrity of its content. That doesn’t excuse him from writing honest prose, of course.

Last week’s post cited blatant language distortions of “CAM”—euphemisms, slogans, and outright falsehoods—and some that were more subtle: question-begging, misrepresentation, and derogation. It would require a semester’s worth of seminars to delve into the overlapping categories of misleading “CAM” language, but here we can consider a few. Then, perhaps, we’ll engage in an amusing diversion—more about that at the end of this post. (more…)

Posted in: Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (34) →

Misleading Language: the Common Currency of “CAM” Characterizations. Part I

The Best Policy

From time to time I have been reiterating that correct use of the language has much to do with logic; I should add that it entails also honesty. I use the word “honesty” in its broadest sense…

Concision is honesty, honesty concision—that’s one thing you need to know.

—John Simon. Paradigms Lost: Reflections on Literacy and its Decline. New York, NY: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc.;1980. pp. 48, 52


In 1983, a naturopath in Alberta inserted balloons into the nostrils of a 20 month-old girl and inflated them. The child died of asphyxiation. Subsequently, a judge described the treatment—dubbed “bilateral nasal specific” by the chiropractor who had invented it—as “outright quackery.” [1] Fast-forward 15 years: a woman presented to the otolaryngology clinic at the University of Washington in Seattle “complaining of severe midface pain and epistaxis” (nosebleed). She had suffered nasal septal fractures caused by a similar treatment, by then renamed “NeuroCranial Restructuring” (NCR). In their case report, the surgeons who had treated the woman at U. Wash discussed the claims of NCR and explained that the relevant anatomy predicts that it is implausible and risky. They also reported that it is expensive: “$2000 to $4800 for a standard course (of 4 treatments).” They concluded:

This case report of a complication after a CAM procedure called NCR highlights the wide range of treatment options available to patients. It is important for otolaryngologists to be aware of the spectrum of CAM therapies that patients may pursue and be aware of potential complications from these procedures.

An accompanying editorial used similar language.

How is it that in 1983 a judge could offer a concise summary of the essence of such a method, whereas scarcely a generation later 5 highly-trained medical doctors, even after presenting the sordid facts, could only obscure it with bland euphemism? (more…)

Posted in: Health Fraud, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (17) →

Prior Probability: the Dirty Little Secret of “Evidence-Based Alternative Medicine”—Continued Again

After the previous posting on the Bayesian approach to clinical trial data, several new comments made it clear to me that more needed to be said. This posting addresses those comments and adds a few more observations regarding the unfortunate consequences of EBM’s neglect of prior probability as it applies to “complementary and alternative medicine” (“CAM”).†

The “Galileo Gambit” and the Statistics Gambit

Reader durvit wrote:

A very interesting example, for a number of people, might be estimating the prior probability for Marshall and Warren’s early work on Helicobacter pylori and its impact on gastroduodenal management. I frequently have Marshall quoted to me as a variation on the Galileo gambit, so establishing whether he and Warren would have been helped or hindered by Bayesian techniques would be useful.

This suggestion raises a couple of issues. First, the “Galileo gambit” regarding Marshall and Warren’s discovery is a straw man (as durvit seems to have surmised). (more…)

Posted in: Homeopathy, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (17) →

Prior Probability: the Dirty Little Secret of “Evidence-Based Alternative Medicine”—Continued

This is an addendum to my previous entry on Bayesian statistics for clinical research.† After that posting, a few comments made it clear that I needed to add some words about estimating prior probabilities of therapeutic hypotheses. This is a huge topic that I will discuss briefly. In that, happily, I am abetted by my own ignorance. Thus I apologize in advance for simplistic or incomplete explanations. Also, when I mention misconceptions about either Bayesian or “frequentist” statistics, I am not doing so with particular readers in mind, even if certain comments may have triggered my thinking. I am quite willing to give readers credit for more insight into these issues than might be apparent from my own comments, which reflect common, initial difficulties in digesting the differences between the two inferential approaches. Those include my own difficulties, after years of assuming that the “frequentist” approach was both comprehensive and rational—while I had only a cursory understanding of it. That, I imagine, placed me well within two standard deviations of the mean level of statistical knowledge held by physicians in general.


Posted in: Clinical Trials, Medical Academia, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (29) →

Homeopathy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Back to the Future Part V

Homeopathy and Science: Discussion, Summary and Conclusions

I was not surprised by a couple of the dissenting comments after Part IV of this blog. One writer worried that I had neglected, presumably for nefarious reasons, to cite replications of Benveniste’s results; another cited several examples of “positive” homeopathy studies that I had failed to mention. I answered some of those points here. I am fully aware of such “positive” reports, including those seeming to support Benveniste. I didn’t cite them, but not in some futile hope of concealing their existence from the watchful eyes of the readership. I also didn’t cite several “negative” reports, including an independent, disconfirming report of one of the claims of David Reilly, whose words began this series,* and the most recent of several reviews (referenced here) to conclude that “the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.” I didn’t cite those reports for the same reasons that I didn’t cite the “positive” studies: they are mere footnotes to the overwhelming evidence against homeopathy.

To explain why, it will be necessary to discuss some of the strengths and weaknesses of the project known as “Evidence-Based Medicine.”


Posted in: Basic Science, Clinical Trials, Homeopathy, Medical Academia, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (33) →

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM): Your tax dollars hard at work

What’s an advocate of evidence- and science-based medicine to think about the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, better known by its abbrevation NCCAM? As I’ve pointed out before, I used to be somewhat of a supporter of NCCAM. I really did, back when I was more naïve and idealistic. Indeed, as I mentioned before, when I first read Wally Sampson’s article Why NCCAM should be defunded, I thought it a bit too strident and even rather close-minded. At the time, I thought that the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff was to apply the scientific method to the various “CAM” modalities and let the chips fall where they may.

Two developments over the last several years have led me to sour on NCCAM and move towards an opinion more like Dr. Sampson’s. First, after its doubling from FY 1998-2003, the NIH budget stopped growing. In fact, adjusting for inflation, the NIH budget is now contracting. NCCAM’s yearly budget remains in the range of $121 million a year, for well over $1 billion spent since its inception as the Office of Alternative Medicine in 1993. Its yearly budget contains enough money to fund around 75 to 100 new five year R01 grants, give or take. In tight budgetary times my view is that it is a grossly irresponsible use of taxpayer money not to prioritize funding for projects that have hypotheses behind them that have a reasonable chance of being true. Scarce NIH funds should not be for projects that have as their basis hypotheses that are outlandishly implausible from a scientific standpoint. Second, I’ve seen over the last few years how NCCAM is not only funding research (most of which is of the sort that wouldn’t stand a chance in a study section from other Institutes or Centers)) but it’s funding training programs. Indeed, that was the core complaint against NCCAM: that it facilitates and promotes the infiltration of nonscience- and nonevidence-based treatments falling under the rubric of so-called “complementary and alternative” or “integrative” medicine into academic medicine. However, NCCAM cannot do otherwise, given its mission:

  • Explore complementary and alternative healing practices in the context of rigorous science.
  • Train complementary and alternative medicine researchers.
  • Disseminate authoritative information to the public and professionals.

If, in fact, NCCAM actually did devote itself solely to “rigorous science” with regard to “alternative” healing practices, I would have much less problem with it than I do. However, it broadly interprets the second and third parts of its mission. For example, it views part of its mission as promotion, rather than study: “Supporting integration of proven CAM therapies. Our research helps the public and health professionals understand which CAM therapies have been proven to be safe and effective.” This would be all well and good if NCCAM had as yet actually proven any CAM therapies to be at least effective, but it has not. Worse, it has not even managed to demonstrate any of them to be ineffective, either, thus leading to endless studies of modalities that either do not work or at the very least would have marginal efficacy.

Still, I thought; All questions of promotion of CAM modalities aside, least there’s the science. Surely, under the auspices of the NIH, NCCAM must be funding some high-quality studies into CAM modalities that couldn’t be done any other way. That thought died when NCCAM announced last week the studies that it had funded during FY 2007.

Posted in: Basic Science, Clinical Trials, Medical Academia, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (53) →

Annals of Questionable Evidence: a new study reveals substantial publication bias in trials of anti-depressants

Part IV of the ongoing Homeopathy series will have to wait a day or two, because it is superceded by a recent, comment-worthy publication. Nevertheless, “H series” fans will find here a bit of grist for that mill, too.

An important role for this blog is to discuss problems of interpreting data from clinical studies. Academic medicine has committed itself, on the whole, to scientific rigor—to the extent that this is possible in messy, clinical (especially human) trials. Several tools have been proposed, and to a varying extent used, to enhance the rigor of clinical research and the reporting of clinical research. One of those tools is the registering of clinical trials prior to recruiting subjects. Registration would stipulate a trial’s a priori hypothesis(es), design, planned endpoints, and planned statistical methods, among other things. This would guard against several problems: publication bias—the tendency for some trials, usually “negative” ones, to go unreported; selective reporting of the results of a trial, if some are pleasing but others are not; and post hoc data analysis—finding data after the fact to suggest a novel hypothesis that will falsely be portrayed as an a priori hypothesis. Publication bias is also known as “selective publication” or the “file drawer problem”; post hoc analysis is also known as “data dredging” or “HARKing” (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known).

An article in the Jan. 17 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrates the usefulness of a trial registry:

Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy

Erick H. Turner, M.D., Annette M. Matthews, M.D., Eftihia Linardatos, B.S., Robert A. Tell, L.C.S.W., and Robert Rosenthal, Ph.D.


Posted in: Clinical Trials, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (5) →

The infiltration of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and “integrative medicine” into academia

A few years back, my co-blogger Wally Sampson wrote a now infamous editorial entitled Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Should Be Defunded. When I first read it, I must admit, I found it to be a bit harsh and–dare I say?–even close-minded. After all, plausibility aside, I believed at the time that the only way to demonstrate once and for all in a way that everyone would have to accept that many of these “alternative” therapies were no more effective than a placebo would be to do high-quality randomized clinical trials to test whether they worked, and NCCAM seemed to be the perfect funding agency to see that this occurred. Yes, this attitude in retrospect was quite naïve, as I have since learned the hard lesson over several years that no amount of studies will convince advocates of complimentary and alternative medicine (CAM) that their favored therapy doesn’t work, be it chelation therapy for autism or cardiovascular disease, homeopathy, reiki, or various other “energy” therapies that invoke manipulation of qi as a means of “healing,” such as acupuncture, but that is what I believed at the time.

Posted in: Basic Science, Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine, Medical Academia, Public Health, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (81) →
Page 18 of 19 «...101516171819