Articles

Archive for Public Health

Reclassifying thyroid cancer and the willful misunderstanding of overdiagnosis

NOTE: Anyone who has seen several derogatory articles about me on the web and is curious about what the real story is, please read this, this, and this.

This is a panel showing some of the pathologic criteria for distinguishing invasive encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma from noninvasive. This is real science. Sayer Ji's rant is not.

This is a panel showing some of the pathologic criteria for distinguishing invasive encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma from noninvasive. This is real science. Sayer Ji’s rant is not.

If there’s one lesson that we here at Science-Based Medicine like to emphasize, it’s that practicing medicine and surgery is complicated. Part of the reason that it’s complicated is that for many diseases our understanding is incomplete, meaning that physicians have to apply existing science to their treatment as well as they can. The biology of cancer, in particular, can be vexing. Some cancers appear to progress relentlessly, meaning that it’s obvious that all of them must be treated. Others, particularly when detected in their very early stages through screening tests, have a variable and therefore difficult to predict clinical course if left untreated. Unfortunately, some people, such as Sayer Ji, don’t understand that. They like their medicine black and white, and if physicians ever change guidelines in order to align them more closely with scientific understanding, they write blisteringly ignorant articles like “‘Oops… It Wasn’t Cancer After All,’ Admits The National Cancer Institute/JAMA.”

Not exactly. An expert panel recommended reclassifying a specific thyroid lesion as not cancerous based on recent science. It’s called medicine correcting itself. Admittedly, this reclassification was probably long overdue, but what would Mr. Ji rather have? Medicine not correcting itself in this situation? In any case, when last I met Mr. Ji, he was happily abusing the science of genetics to argue that Angelina Jolie and other carriers of deleterious cancer-causing mutations don’t need prophylactic surgery because lifestyle interventions will save them through epigenetics, which to “natural health” enthusiasts like Mr. Ji seems to mean the magical ability to prevent any disease. Most recently, he has appeared on the deeply dishonest “documentary” about alternative medicine cancer cures, The Truth About Cancer, to expound on how chemotherapy is evil. His rant about the reclassification of a non-encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer as not cancer is more of the same, as you will see.
(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Politics and Regulation, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

Statins for everyone? Not so fast.

In rosuvastatin we trust?

In rosuvastatin should we trust?

People love the idea of preventive medicine. Preventing a disease, before it occurs, seems intuitively obvious. But when it comes to taking medicine to prevent a disease before it occurs, people tend to be much less comfortable. Not only are there the concerns about the “medicalization” of healthy people, there are good questions about benefits, risks, and costs. Cardiovascular disease will kill many of us, so there’s been decades of research studying how to prevent that first heart attack or stroke. But even if you’re born with good genes and do everything possible to prevent heart disease (e.g., don’t smoke, exercise regularly, eat a healthy diet, moderate your alcohol, and keep your weight down) you’re still at risk of heart disease. And if you have one or more risk factors for disease, your lifetime risk goes up dramatically. Once you’ve had your first heart attack or stroke, the effectiveness of medical therapy is clear. Drug therapy with medication like the “statins” class of cholesterol-lowering drugs reduces deaths from cardiovascular disease. Given their unambiguous effectiveness, and the high likelihood that many of us will eventually have cardiovascular disease of some sort, the idea of “pre-treating” otherwise-healthy people with drug therapy to possibly prevent that first event has been held out as a potential public health strategy. There’s new evidence that tests this hypothesis, and the results are surprising. (more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

Why Antibiotic Use Scares Me

Editor’s note: Today we present a guest post from fourth-year medical student Joshua Horton, about the looming problem of antibiotic resistance. Welcome!

Antibiotic sensitive (left) and resistant (right) bacterial colonies. They probably shouldn't be that close together.

Antibiotic sensitive (left) and resistant (right) bacterial colonies. They probably shouldn’t be that close together.

I read a study recently that alarmed me: acute bronchitis is a condition that rarely requires antibiotics, but three quarters of patients presenting with this condition receive a prescription for antibiotics. Even more worrisome, this statistic has not changed in 20 years. To those of us on the cusp of a career in medicine – I am a fourth year medical student – this is terrifying because we are going to have to deal with the consequences. Antibiotic overuse leads to:

  • Increased morbidity and mortality for patients infected with resistant bugs
  • Unnecessary and exorbitant healthcare expenditures
  • The potential to cultivate multi-resistant bacteria that could spread to pandemic proportions

We still take them for granted, but antibiotics are a finite resource. Each time we breed a bug that is resistant to a particular drug, we are forced to relinquish that gun from our armamentarium. With fiscal impetus for pharma to develop new antibiotics waning, we may have reached a point of no return. That’s why this study scared me. Hopefully, clever techniques based on behavioral theory designed to reduce antibiotic prescribing may pull us back from that edge – read on to learn more. (more…)

Posted in: Pharmaceuticals, Public Health, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

American Journal of Public Health article touts “potential public health benefits” of homeopathy

Homeopathy: It's just water.

Homeopathy: It’s just water.

An article in the April, 2016 issue of the American Journal of Public Health caught my eye: “Homeopathy Use by US Adults: Results of a National Survey.” I was pleased to see that homeopathy use is actually quite low. The 2012 National Health Survey found that only 2.1% of U.S. adults used homeopathy in the last 12 months, although that was a 15% increase over 2007. Users were mostly young, white, well-educated women, the typical CAM consumer.

Even fewer saw a homeopathic practitioner (only 19% of all users), although those who did perceived a greater benefit from homeopathic remedies. This difference, speculate the authors, could be due to several factors, one of which is

a more individualized and effective homeopathic prescription by the provider.

What? Are the authors suggesting that the series of off-the-wall questions asked by homeopaths leads to a prescription of an “effective” homeopathic remedy?

They certainly seem to be. Who are these authors, anyway?

They are Michelle L. Dossett, MD, PhD, MPH, Roger B. Davis, ScD, Ted J. Kaptchuk, and Gloria Y. Yeh, MD, MPH. All are, or were, with the Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. All are also connected with Harvard and work, in various ways, in “integrative medicine” research. The article was funded, in part, by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and in part by Harvard. (more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Homeopathy, Medical Academia, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

The claim that Gardasil causes premature ovarian failure: Ideology, not science

It's amazing how, to antivaccine activists, it just so happens that a vaccine that targets a sexually transmitted virus must also destroy a girl's ovaries.

It’s amazing how, to antivaccine activists, it just so happens that a vaccine that targets a sexually transmitted virus must also destroy a girl’s ovaries. It must be a coincidence, right?

When you’ve been blogging for over 11 years on your own blog and 8 years on a blog like Science-Based Medicine, particularly when what you blog about is skepticism and science-based medicine, with a special emphasis on rationally and scientifically discussing quackery, inevitably you see the same misinformation and lies pop up again and again. Indeed, those of us in the biz not infrequently refer to such stories as “zombie lies,” because no matter how often you think they’ve been killed they always come back. Personally, I like to refer to them as Jason, Michael Myers, or Freddy Krueger lies (or just slasher or monster lies), for basically the same reason. You kill them with facts, evidence, science, and reason, but sooner or later they always come back. Always. That’s why trying to refute them is like playing Whac-A-Mole. This time around, a group called the American College of Pediatrics (ACP) is claiming that Gardasil is causing infertility in girls, a claim that showed up last week on that repository of quackery, NaturalNews.com. Oddly enough, despite the article’s hysterical tone, it wasn’t written by NN’s big macher himself, Mike Adams.

The reason that slasher lies keep coming back is because they never really go away completely. They only look that way because they recede for a while until someone new discovers them or their originators decide the coast is clear and they can repeat them again. There’s one particular slasher lie that keeps coming up about the HPV vaccine, usually Gardasil (mainly because that’s the brand of HPV vaccine most commonly used in the US) but not restricted to Gardasil. Sometimes Cervarix falls prey to the same lies, mainly overseas where it is the predominant version of HPV vaccine used. Given that I was in Boston at the annual meeting of the Society of Surgical Oncology over the weekend and was also busy hanging out with Kimball Atwood and Clay Jones one night, surgical colleagues another night, and the Boston Skeptics on Saturday, it seemed to me to be a good time to revisit this topic, particularly given that it hasn’t been covered on SBM before. If this post looks familiar, it’s because it has appeared before, but it was in a different form. Consider this a beefed up version of the prior post, because even when I recycle material I can’t just recycle it unchanged. I have to tinker, add, and, of course, customize for the blog. It’s what I do.
(more…)

Posted in: Public Health, Religion, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

Are the recommended childhood vaccine schedules evidence-based?

The vaccine schedule: Safe and efficacious.

The vaccine schedule: Safe and efficacious.

We write about vaccines a lot here at SBM, and for a very good reason. Of all the medical interventions devised by the brains of humans, arguably vaccines have saved more lives and prevented more disability than any other medical treatment. When it comes to infectious disease, vaccination is the ultimate in preventive medicine, at least for diseases for which vaccines can be developed. We also know that when vaccination rates fall, it opens the door for diseases once controlled to come roaring back. We saw this phenomenon with the measles a year ago in the Disneyland measles outbreak. We’ve seen it around the country, with measles outbreaks occurring in areas where a lot of antivaccine and vaccine-averse parents live. Perhaps the most spectacular example occurred in the UK, where prior to Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent case series in The Lancet that was used to link the MMR vaccine to autism, measles was under control; it came roaring back as MMR uptake plummeted in the wake of the publicity his research engendered. By 2008, ten years after Wakefield’s case series was published, measles was again endemic in the UK. Measles outbreaks flourished. Although MMR uptake is improving again in the UK, there remains a reservoir of unvaccinated children aged 10-16 who can transmit the virus.

Thanks, Andy.

Fortunately, Wakefield has been relegated to sharing the stage with crop circle chasers, New World Order conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizen cranks, and other antivaccine cranks like Sherry Tenpenny. Unfortunately, the damage that he has done lives on and has metastasized all over the developed world. Given the persistence of the antivaccine movement, which fuels concerns about vaccines in parents who are not themselves antivaccine but are predisposed to the antivaccine message because they distrust government and/or big pharma or have a world view that overvalues “naturalness,” I was quite interested in an article that appeared in The BMJ last week. Basically, it asked the question “Is the timing of recommended childhood vaccines evidence based?
(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Epidemiology, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

Air Pollution and Public Health

airpollution

Public health measures are those not aimed at individuals but at society as a whole, or subgroups within society. Physicians are charged not only with promoting the health of their own patients, but as a profession we (and health care professions in general) are charged with promoting the public health.

Public health measures, however, are highly likely to cross into politically charged areas. This should not deter the promotion of public health.

Issues that we deal with regularly involving public health include vaccination programs and laws surrounding vaccine requirements, fluoridation of public water supplies, helmet laws, and even gun laws. We have never, however, written about air pollution as a public health concern (except for dubious claims that air pollution is linked to autism).

The health risk of air pollution

Air pollution as a health risk is nothing new, but several recent studies are focusing attention on this issue. Recently the Royal College of Physicians produced a report in which they claim that 40,000 deaths per year in the UK can be attributed to poor air quality, both indoors and outdoors. (more…)

Posted in: Epidemiology, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

Update on the Zika Virus

zika-virus-mosquitoA new word has been added to the public’s vocabulary – the Zika virus. It seems we have one more infectious agent to worry about. Here are the facts as we currently understand them regarding the recent Zika epidemic, and also some rumors and conspiracy theories that need debunking.

Zika virus

The Zika virus (of the viral family Flaviviridae, an Arthropod-Borne or arbovirus) is spread through Aedes mosquito bites, the same mosquitoes that also spread dengue fever, West Nile, and yellow fever. The infections themselves are usually mild, causing fever, rash, joint pain, and conjunctivitis. Many of those infected (about 80%) may even have a subclinical infection, meaning they do not notice any symptoms.

According to the World Health Organization:

Zika virus is diagnosed through PCR (polymerase chain reaction) and virus isolation from blood samples. Diagnosis by serology can be difficult as the virus can cross-react with other flaviviruses such as dengue, West Nile and yellow fever.

(more…)

Posted in: Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

Laws Limiting Vaccine Exemptions Work

VaccineIt’s nice when a question can be resolved with objective numbers of unequivocal outcomes. Subjective outcomes give scientists a headache.

In this case we are talking about the effect of vaccine exemption laws on vaccine compliance rates. The question here is not the ethical one, the rights of parents to determine the fate of their children vs the right of the state to protect the health of children and the public health. I think the latter trumps the former, but some disagree.

Regardless of what you feel about the ethical question, we need to know if the laws we pass to achieve our goals actually work, or if they don’t work, or even have unintended consequences. Having an admirable goal is not enough; when you make actual decisions (practice decisions, policy decisions, healthcare decisions for you and for family) you want to know that those decisions are having the desired effect.

(more…)

Posted in: Legal, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

Science-based medicine versus the Flint water crisis

This is exactly the sort of cover story you don't want to see about your city in TIME.

This is exactly the sort of cover story you don’t want to see about your city in TIME.

One aspect of science-based medicine that is not covered frequently on this blog, aside from vaccines and antivaccine pseudoscience, but perhaps should be, is the intersection of SBM and public health. Unfortunately, living as I do in southeast Michigan right now, I’ve been on the receiving end of an inescapable lesson in what happens when the government fails in its mission to enforce science-based public health issues. I’m referring, of course, to what has become known worldwide as the Flint water crisis. The Flint water crisis has become so famous that unfortunately it now has its very own Wikipedia page. That is not an “honor” I like to see for my state, and I’m sure the residents of Flint, which is an hour’s drive north of where I live, would agree. This crisis provides an unfortunate illustration of what can easily happen when multiple layers of government fail in a science-based public health task as basic as providing clean water to the citizens they ostensibly serve.

For those of you who haven’t heard of it yet, the Flint water crisis refers to the ongoing contamination of the tap water in Flint, MI with unacceptably high levels of lead that resulted from change in its water supply nearly two years ago to Flint River water. Because river water is more corrosive than the previous supply that came from Lake Huron (why I’ll explain later) and Flint river water was not properly treated to decrease that corrosiveness, the new water leached lead from old pipes. This resulted in the contamination of the drinking water with dangerous levels of lead in many homes in the city. In addition, there has been a marked increase in the number of cases of Legionnaires’ disease thought to be linked to the new water supply.

I was born and raised in Detroit. My parents didn’t move to the suburbs until I was ten years old, and I stayed in southeast Michigan until I graduated from medical school and ended up in Cleveland for my surgical residency and, ultimately, my PhD work. From there I bounced to Chicago and New Jersey. Then, in 2008, nearly twenty years after I had left my hometown, I ended up back in the Detroit area. The point of this story is that my roots in the Detroit area run deep. Michigan is my state, for better or for worse, which is why I get annoyed when bad things happen here. I particularly become outraged when a preventable tragedy occurs here, one that science told us how to prevent but the government went ahead and did anyway. It’s a horrific tale of how science was basically ignored because of politics, and legitimate scientific concerns about a policy that changed the water source for an entire city were downplayed, derided, and even denied by state officials at every level of government. The story has now gone international. Indeed, our state and the city of Flint are featured on the cover of this week’s TIME Magazine.
(more…)

Posted in: Politics and Regulation, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 28 12345...»