In the category of potentially dangerous complementary or alternative medicine, I can think of few products worse than ones claimed to relieve asthma, yet don’t actually contain any medicine. Yet these products exist and are widely sold. Just over a year ago I described what might be the most irresponsible homeopathic treatment ever: A homeopathic asthma spray. If there was ever a complementary or alternative product that could cause serious harm, this is it:
Among the different treatments and remedies that are considered “alternative” medicine, homeopathy is the most implausible of all. Homeopathy is an elaborate placebo system, where the “remedies” lack any actual medicine. Based on the idea that “like cures like” (which is sympathetic magic, not science), proponents of homeopathy believe that any substance can be an effective remedy if it’s diluted enough: cancer, boar testicles, crude oil, oxygen, and skim milk are all homeopathic “remedies”. (I think Berlin Wall may be my favorite, though vacuum cleaner dust is a runner-up). The dilution in the case of homeopathy is so significant that there’s mathematically no possibility of even a trace of the original ingredient in the typical remedy – they are chemically indistinguishable from a placebo. To homeopaths, this is a good thing, as dilution is claimed to make the medicine-free “remedy” more potent, not less. As would be expected with inert products, rigorous clinical trials confirm what basic science (and math) predicts: homeopathy’s effects are placebo effects. Recently Steven Novella blogged about the Australian Government’s National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) comprehensive report on homeopathy which concluded the following: (more…)
The western black-legged tick, carrier of the Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria which causes Lyme disease.
The practice of infectious disease (ID) is both easy and difficult. If you read my ID blog on Medscape you are aware of my trials and tribulations in diagnosing and treating infections.
ID is easy since, at least in theory, diseases have patterns and an infecting organism has a predictable epidemiology and life cycle. So if you can recognize the pattern and relate it to the life cycle and exposure history, you can often make a diagnosis before the cultures come back.
My favorite story is the time I was asked to see a young girl with endocarditis. The history was she had a week of fevers, headache and myalgia that went away for five days, returned for a week, went away for five days and returned yet again.
So I asked her “How was your vacation at Black Butte?”
The look of astonishment on her face as she asked how I knew she had been to Black Butte was so satisfying. (more…)
Coming soon, to a chiropractor’s office near you?
Chiropractors are once again engaged in intra-fraternal warfare over the chiropractic scope of practice, a saga we’ve chronicled before on SBM. (See the references at end of this post.) Every time it looks like the warring factions have buried their differences, they come rising to the surface like zombies.
The International Chiropractors Association (ICA), representing the “straight” faction, wants chiropractic to continue as a drugless profession. They are happy to detect and correct subluxations, thereby removing “nerve interference” and “allowing the body to heal itself” in the tradition of Daniel David Palmer. But the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) has bigger fish to fry.
This time, the ICA is upset that the ACA House of Delegates up and decided to establish a “College of Pharmacology and Toxicology,” which would operate under the auspices of the ACA Council on Diagnosis and Internal Disorders. The ACA’s announcement of the “College” is rather vague on details:
The purpose of the College is to further educate the chiropractic profession on clinical matters related to the widespread use of both prescription and over-the-counter medications and nutritional supplements.
I e-mailed the ACA several days ago asking for more information but have yet to receive a reply.
The ICA sees this move as yet another attempt by:
forces at work within some organizations actively promoting incorporating drugs into the chiropractic scope of practice.
In an effort to expand the Gorski empire almost to the level of the Crislip empire and to try to make it to somewhere within two or three orders of magnitude of the Novella empire, I’ve published an article on Slate.com about Prince Charles’ visit to our fine country entitled “Prince of Pseudoscience“. Consider this the mandatory shameless self-promotion that all SBM bloggers take advantage of from time to time to publicize their activities elsewhere.
Enjoy! (I hope.)
I’m told that Dana Ullman has made an appearance in the comments. I might have to head on over after work tonight…
Editors’ note: With this guest post, we welcome Britt Marie Hermes to the SBM blog. Her new blog NaturopathicDiaries.com was mentioned by Jann Bellamy last week. Hermes is a former naturopath who came to doubt naturopathy. Through her contact with Jann, she has agreed to contribute occasional blog posts to us. Her insights into the pseudoscientific medical system of naturopathy, her reasons for becoming a naturopath, her reasons for leaving naturopathy, and, most importantly, her inside knowledge of naturopathy, will provide compelling reading. See also ND Confession, Part II: The Accreditation of Naturopathic “Medical” Education.
In 2011, I graduated from Bastyr University with a doctorate in naturopathic medicine. I passed the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination (NPLEX) and landed a competitive, one-year residency in family medicine and pediatrics at an out-patient clinic in Seattle. When I completed my residency, I remained at this clinic for a brief time before moving to Arizona to practice until 2014.
During my time in Arizona, I realized that my profession had severely misled me. Naturopathic medicine is marketed as a “distinct form of primary health care.” This phrase is ubiquitous: it appears on the websites of naturopathic medical schools, on materials published by practicing naturopaths, and on lobbying documents to promote the unfettered licensure of naturopaths and to expand eligibility for federal loan repayment programs. Based on my educational and professional experience as an accomplished member of the naturopathic community, I can say that naturopathic medicine might be a distinct form of something, but it is not any form of primary health care. I am saddened to report that not only was I misled, but so were hundreds of legislators, thousands of students, and tens of thousands of patients.
Historical image of a patient undergoing hydrotherapy treatment. Image from the History of Medicine (NLM).
Given my journey through naturopathic medical school, I can provide strong evidence and testimony of the quality and quantity of training at Bastyr University. I base what follows on my academic transcript, course syllabi, course catalog, and the student clinician’s handbook in addition to my personal experiences. It should come as no surprise to readers of ScienceBasedMedicine.org that naturopathic training is not as the profession presents. I’ll say it anyway: naturopathic education is riddled with pseudoscience, debunked medical theories, and experimental medical practices.
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.
Given the ongoing (and increasing) measles outbreak linked initially to Disneyland, it’s hard for me not to revisit the topic from time to time. This time around, there are two issues I wish to discuss, one political and one that is a combination of medical and political. After all, it was just one week ago when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie stepped in it by advocating parental choice in vaccines, as if parents don’t already have a choice. He rapidly had to walk it back, and his ill-considered remarks were almost certainly not evidence that he is antivaccine. They are, however, evidence that he doesn’t understand that we do not have “forced vaccination” in this country (we have school vaccine mandates). Parents already have choice in 48 states, given that only two states (Mississippi and West Virginia) do not allow belief-based non-medical exemptions, be they religious exemptions, personal belief-exemptions, or both, to school vaccine mandates. It also came out that in 2009 while running for Governor, Christie met with Louise Kuo Habakus (who is antivaccine) and the NJ Coalition for Vaccine Choice, a very vocal NJ antivaccine coalition whose member organization list reads like a who’s who of the national antivaccine movement and includes Life Health Choices, the antivaccine organization founded by Habakus. He even wrote a letter promising that as governor he would stand with them in “their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children.”
It’s also evidence that vaccine mandates are becoming even more politicized. Indeed, Senator Rand Paul, on the very same day, provided more such evidence when he claimed on a conservative talk radio show that he’s seen children with severe neurological problems after vaccination, the implication being that he believed these children’s problems were linked to vaccination. Later, in a testy exchange with a CNBC reporter, who asked him whether he had really said that he thought vaccines should be voluntary, Paul sarcastically replied, “I guess being for freedom would be unusual.” Later in the exchange, after repeating the same antivaccine talking points that he had related earlier in the day, he said, “The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.” You get the idea. He, too, ultimately had to back off a bit, famously showing himself getting vaccinated for hepatitis A, but given that Paul has had a long history of making similar comments, this was almost certainly strategic.
All states try to protect children from neglect, abandonment and mistreatment, such as deprivation of clothing, shelter, food and medical care. This includes civil laws which permit the removal of a child from the home and other protective interventions. Criminal laws protect children as well by, for example, making nonsupport a misdemeanor or criminal neglect a felony.
Washington State law prohibits criminal mistreatment of children and other vulnerable persons, such as the frail elderly, by their caregivers. Criminal mistreatment is defined as the “deprivation of the basic necessities of life:”
food, water, shelter, clothing, and medically necessary health care, including but not limited to health-related treatment or activities, hygiene, oxygen, and medication.
Mistreatment can be either a misdemeanor or felony, depending on whether the defendant’s conduct amounts to criminal negligence or recklessness and the degree of harm caused to the victim. Punishment ranges from 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine to 10 years in jail and a $20,000 fine.
Unfortunately, parents and other caregivers in Washington have what amounts to an almost literal “get out of jail free” card if the mistreatment takes the form of “treatment” by “duly accredited” Christian Science practitioner: (more…)
I joined Professor Chris MacDonald at Ryerson University earlier this week to participate in Ryerson’s business ethics speaker series. The topic was CAM:
Is it ethical to market complementary and alternative medicines? Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are medical products and services outside the mainstream of medical practice. But they are not just medicines (or supposed medicines) offered and provided for the prevention and treatment of illness. They are also products and services – things offered for sale in the marketplace. Most discussion of the ethics of CAM has focused on bioethical issues – issues having to do with therapeutic value, and the relationship between patients and those purveyors of CAM. This presentation — by a philosopher and a pharmacist — aims instead to consider CAM from the perspective of commercial ethics. That is, we consider the ethics not of prescribing or administering CAM (activities most closely associated with health professionals) but the ethics of selling CAM.
If it’s not embedded above, you can watch the whole presentation on CAM and business ethics with this link.
It was great to see so many public members attend and participate. There was an extended Q&A afterwards, with some very thoughtful audience questions. Outside of blogs like this, and those of CAM critics like Edzard Ernst, the practical ethics of CAM provision are rarely discussed. Watch for more on this topic in the future.
Editor’s note: I met Dr. Paul Knoepfler online in the wake of my two posts on Gordie Howe and his stem cell treatment for stroke. I was impressed by his posts on the topic and what I saw at his own blog. Given that he’s a stem cell researcher, I wanted him to write a post on stem cell clinics like the one that treated Gordie Howe, and, I’m happy to say, he accepted my invitation and agreed to write this post. I hope to persuade him to write more for us in the future, even though he has his own blog.
When I started blogging in 2010 the stem cell arena was a very different place.
Back then the hot topic was the battle over the legality of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. That battle is over, or at least in hibernation, with a 2013 federal court ruling allowing such funding to continue. The stem cell debate of today, which in its own way is just as fierce as the old one, is focused on how best to regulate the clinical translation and commercialization of innovative stem cell technologies.
The stakes in this new stem cell battle on the regulatory front are very high both for the stem cell field and for patients. Too little regulation could lead to harm to patients and damage to the stem cell field at a crucial juncture in its history, while too much regulation could stifle stem cell and regenerative medicine innovations.
Stem cell clinics should be better-regulated than a Starbucks
The goal of stem cell advocates, including myself, is to find a regulatory sweet spot where science-based, innovative stem cell medicine can advance expeditiously. On the other side we have largely physicians and lawyers along with some patients arguing for drastically-reduced regulation and acceleration of for-profit stem cell interventions to patients, even without concrete data supporting safety or efficacy.
The latter group is a key part of a rapidly-proliferating stem cell clinic industry in the US. It consists of for-profit stem cell clinics that collectively have already conducted stem cell transplants on potentially thousands of patients without federal regulatory approval. These clinics have in effect thrown down the gauntlet to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with their use of non-FDA approved stem cell products on patients. (more…)