When I was pregnant, I obediently took the iron pills and prenatal vitamins prescribed by my obstetrician. And I prescribed them for every pregnant patient I took care of as a family physician. I never questioned the practice. It seemed intuitively obvious that it was a good thing; we know pregnancy makes extra nutritional demands and depletes iron stores. It never occurred to me to question what I had been taught, because it seemed perfectly logical. I did question other things I was taught that didn’t seem so logical. In my internship, we were ordered to do episiotomies on every patient (the rationale was that it made birth less traumatic for the baby and prevented uncontrolled perineal tearing in the mother). I was severely chastised for omitting an episiotomy on a patient who begged me not to do one. She had had several babies and was stretchy enough to deliver easily without an episiotomy. In this case, my common-sense clinical judgment was vindicated by further research in the years after my internship; new evidence showed that routine episiotomies were of no benefit, practice changed in response to the new evidence, and episiotomies are no longer done routinely.
That was a long time ago. I have long since learned that even the most reasonable assumptions can be wrong. I happened to be right about episiotomies, but I might just as well have been wrong; and the only way to know whether a belief is true is to test it in controlled scientific trials. As Will Rogers said, “It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.” It turns out that routine multivitamin and iron supplementation is not supported by any convincing evidence from scientific studies. And practice is changing. Recently, when one woman asked her OB what she should do about prenatal vitamins he pulled his wastebasket out from under his desk and said “put them there.” (more…)
What’s the best route to this happy outcome?
Doctors used to insist “once a C-section, always a C-section.” Today it is standard practice to allow vaginal births after C-section (VBAC) for appropriately selected patients. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has issued a Practice Bulletin to guide obstetricians in determining which patients are appropriate candidates for VBAC.
We frequently hear criticisms of practice guidelines like these. The doctors who write the guidelines are accused of conflict of interest, turf protection, and biased evaluation of the evidence. For those who believe doctors put profits before patients, this should be an eye-opener. It would presumably be in the best financial interests of obstetricians to do as many C-sections as possible, since they can charge more for them than for vaginal births. It would have been easy for the ACOG to put a spin on the data to make repeat C-sections look like a better choice. The fact that they offer VBACs despite their conflict of interest makes me think that their evaluation of the evidence was probably fair and unbiased.
So just how safe is VBAC? What are the pros and cons? What does the evidence say? (more…)
Oregon Health Plan (OHP), the state’s Medicaid insurer, will no longer cover planned home and birth center births for women whose pregnancies aren’t classified as low risk, based on newly-established criteria. The Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC), a group of experts designated by the state, came up with criteria that will exclude women with a substantial list of conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, previous cesarean section, multiple gestation (more than one fetus), and various complications in previous pregnancies. Feelings ran high on both sides of the issue, which was described as the most contentious ever to come before the HERC.
The HERC’s decision was based on an exhaustive 100-page evidence review; a review, according to them, hampered by the low quality of the evidence on the safety of planned out-of-hospital births. Actually, there is a paucity of evidence altogether. Studies and statistics from other countries, like the Netherlands, were of limited utility because those countries have more stringent midwifery education and training requirements and non-hospital births are better integrated into the health care system.
Most planned out-of-hospital births in Oregon are attended by what are known as direct-entry midwives (DEM), as opposed to nurse midwives, and a few naturopathic doctors. (We’ll look at the many variations of midwifery in a minute.) Since OHP pays for 23% of Oregon births, the economic impact on direct-entry midwives could be substantial. This effect will be amplified when other insurers, who are expected to follow OHP’s new criteria, change their own coverage rules. (more…)
Naturopathic catnip for patients.
Naturopaths, along with some chiropractors, acupuncturists and a few “integrative” physicians, are advising patients that they should be tested for MTHFR genetic mutations. Typically, the naturopath will start with the pitch that “conventional” medical doctors are ignoring your genes as a possible source of your health problems. (And it is mostly naturopaths who are doing this – just Google “naturopath MTHFR genetic mutation” and see what comes up.) NDs know better, of course – it could be a MTHFR genetic mutation causing your maladies.
Just what is the MTHFR gene? Allow me to introduce some actual scientific information here. According to Genetics Home Reference, a service of the National Library of Medicine,
the MTHFR gene provides instructions for making an enzyme that plays a role in processing amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. This particular enzyme is important for a chemical reaction involving forms of the vitamin folate (also called vitamin B9), a reaction required for the multistep process that converts the amino acid homocysteine to another amino acid, methionine. The body uses methionine to make proteins and other important compounds.
Back to pseudoscience. Next comes the scare tactic: telling you how a MTHFR mutation might affect your health: anxiousness, adrenal fatigue, brain fog, cervical dysplasia, increased risk of many cancers (including breast and prostate), low thyroid, leaky gut, high blood pressure, heart attacks, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, and miscarriages. (more…)
Flowers of the bloodroot plant, Sanguinaria canadensis. You’re welcome, I could have used a very different image (warning: gross bordering on horrifying; click on image to see it).
Cervical dysplasia is a precancerous condition picked up by Pap smears. It is most often caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Mild cases may resolve spontaneously and can be followed by observation with frequent Pap smears, but cervical dysplasia can progress to cancer. The standard treatment is to remove the abnormal cells with a cone biopsy (using a knife) or a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP) using a wire loop heated by electricity. Those procedures not only treat the disease, but they provide a pathology specimen that can be examined to rule out more serious or invasive disease. Both LEEP and cone biopsy are 85-90% effective in removing all the abnormal cells. If cancer is suspected, a cone biopsy is preferable because LEEP may damage the edges of the specimen and make it more difficult to interpret. Otherwise, LEEP is often preferred because it is less expensive and doesn’t require anesthesia or an operating room. I have discussed misguided attempts by alternative medicine practitioners to treat cervical dysplasia before.
Surgery is often perceived as scary and not “natural,” so it’s not surprising that a “natural” treatment has been devised to replace surgery. Escharotics are corrosive salves that get their name from the thick dry scab that they can produce called an eschar. The “natural” escharotic treatment alternative for cervical dysplasia involves applying a solution of bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis) and zinc chloride. They claim that the solution selectively kills abnormal cells of the cervix while leaving healthy cells unaffected. That claim is almost certainly false, and the efficacy and safety of escharotic treatment has not been properly tested or compared to conventional treatment. (more…)
This cover picture is scientifically inaccurate. See explanation below.
José Jarimba believes that our bodies are physically molded into an asymmetric form by our mothers’ sleeping positions during pregnancy, that this has lifelong adverse impacts on health, and that shoe inserts can eliminate pain and other health problems by realigning the body. This is a silly untested hypothesis by a single individual. As such, it would be too minor to merit mention on SBM; but it is worth analyzing as a teaching opportunity. Jarimba attempts to bypass the scientific process; he provides a prime example of self-deception, confirmation bias, scientific ignorance, and the “Unpersuadables” I recently wrote about.
Much of alternative medicine originated with a “lone genius” who had an epiphany, thought he had discovered something no one had ever noticed before, extrapolated from a single observation to construct an elaborate theory that promised to explain all or most human ills, and began treating patients without any attempt to test his hypotheses using the scientific method. Some of them were uneducated laymen, others were scientifically trained medical doctors who should have known better. I wrote about one of them here, Dr. Batmanghelid, inventor of the Water Cure, who attributed a great variety of illnesses to dehydration after he thought he had cured a prisoner’s peptic ulcer disease by giving him a glass of water. Similar paths were followed by many others. Hahnemann invented homeopathy after he thought a malaria remedy gave him symptoms of malaria. Palmer invented chiropractic after he thought he had restored a man’s hearing by repositioning an out-of-place bone in his back. Nogier invented ear acupuncture after he imagined that the external ear looked sort of like a fetus. Shapiro invented EMDR after she noticed during a walk in a park that moving her eyes seemed to reduce the stress of disturbing memories. Bach invented Bach flower remedies after a walk in the country revealed his intuitive psychic connection to various plants. Jose Jarimba follows in their footsteps. (more…)
Chiropractor “adjusting” an infant.
Who would you invite to speak at your conference if you wanted to show the world you are firmly in the anti-vaccination camp? Barbara Loe Fisher, head of the National Vaccine (Mis) Information Center (NVIC)? How about Andrew Wakefield, the thoroughly disgraced British physician who, having been stripped of his medical license, continues his despicable anti-vaccination campaign? How about both?
The International Chiropractic Pediatric Association sprang for both. Fisher and Wakefield will be keynote speakers at the ICPA’s upcoming conference, “Celebrating the Shift to Conscious Choice.” The conference offers the mutually exclusive opportunities of participating “in the discussion of the latest evidence-based holistic research” while at the same time exploring “the vitalistic perspectives of conception, pregnancy and birth through family wellness.” I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you can embrace evidence-based research or you can embrace vitalism, but not both at the same time. There will also be an opportunity for the requisite bashing of “conventional” medicine.
It’s hard to decide who’s slumming whom here. On the one hand, the ICPA is a small group (3,000 members). They are straight, subluxation-based chiropractors and they don’t need convincing that vaccination is “bad.” Fisher and Wakefield will be preaching to the choir. Wakefield, with his medical education and training, is most certainly aware that their subluxation-based “theory” is nonsense and they are incompetent to diagnose and treat pediatric patients. And this is a far cry from Fisher’s former gigs as an advisor to the government.
In 1850, one in four American babies died before their first birthday, and people of all ages died of bacterial infections that could have been successfully treated today with antibiotics. Unfortunately, treatments that have effects usually have side effects, and we are seeing problems due to the overuse of antibiotics. They are given to people with viral infections for which they are useless and to food animals to improve their growth. As a result, antibiotic-resistant organisms are evolving and the development of new antibiotics is not keeping up with the threat. This is common knowledge, but we’re starting to realize that there may be other problems with antibiotics even when they are used correctly to save lives.
The rates of obesity, diabetes, asthma, food allergies, hay fever, eczema, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, acid reflux disease, and esophageal cancer are all on the rise. Martin Blaser, MD, director of the Human Microbiome Program at NYU, thinks antibiotics may be to blame, either as a causal or a contributing factor. In his book Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, he describes some of the fascinating research he and others have been doing to elucidate the role of the more than 100 trillion microbes that live on and in each of us, and the possibility that antibiotics may have a causal role in several of the so-called diseases of civilization. (more…)
Ladies, how would you like a chiropractor to deliver your baby? How about perform your annual well-woman exams, such as breast exam, bi-manual pelvic exam, speculum exam, recto-vaginal exam and Pap smear?
Sound out of their league? I thought so too. Way out. But, in some parts of the U.S., the law allows chiropractors to do all of these things and a great deal more. Including “adjusting” your basset hound.
A 2011 survey asked chiropractic regulatory officials whether their jurisdictions (all states, plus D.C., Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, but I’ll refer to them collectively as the “states”) allowed 97 different diagnostic, evaluation, and management procedures. The results were recently reported and interpreted in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, in an article authored by Mabel Chang, DC, MPH, who was primarily responsible for the survey. Missouri allows the most procedures (92) and Texas, the fewest (30). A handful of states did not respond or did not respond to all questions, but the overall response rate was 96%. Results from a survey of Canada, Australia and New Zealand will be reported in a separate article. (more…)
Note: I had just finished writing this article when I discovered Dr. Jones had beat me to the punch with his March 28th article on the same subject. He did an excellent job, and of course reached the same conclusions I did (it’s not that great minds think alike, but that we base our conclusions on the same body of evidence). Rather than let my efforts go to waste, I decided to go ahead and publish my shorter, more idiosyncratic article. If it’s worth saying, it’s worth saying twice; and different approaches may appeal to different readers.
“Humani nihil a me alienum puto.”
Nothing human should be alien to me, and I can understand why people do most of the strange things they do, but water birth is something I have really had difficulty with. Why would anyone want a baby to be born underwater? Why would they want to buy a special pool, set it up in the living room, fill it with water, keep the water at the right temperature, and then have to deal with emptying the pool and cleaning up afterwards? I read about it and tried to understand, and now I have some insight into their reasons; but I think they are poor reasons, and the whole concept remains pretty alien to my mind.
I found a fuzzy feel-good rationale on the Waterbirth International website. Mothers feel it is the gentlest of gentle births. Warm, luxurious water cradles you and gives you complete freedom to move during the greatest achievement of your life. “The women who have experienced the support and comfort of water for their labors and held their newborns in their arms speak more than any scientific article or paper on the subject.” In other words, “We don’t need no stinkin’ science!” (more…)