Public Health

Archive for Public Health

Michigan HB 5126: Who thought it was a good idea to make it easier for parents to obtain nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates and harder for local county health officials to do their jobs?

The Michigan House of Representatives: Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

The Michigan House of Representatives: Not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

We have a problem with antivaccinationists here in Michigan. It’s a problem that’s been going on a long time that I first started paying attention to in a big way a few years ago when we started seeing pertussis outbreaks again due to low vaccine uptake. It’s a problem that’s persisted as last year we suffered from outbreaks of pertussis and measles, again because of pockets of low vaccine uptake. And what is the reason for these pockets of low vaccine uptake? Well, consistent with what we already know, namely that the risk of pertussis outbreaks is elevated in states where exemptions to school vaccine mandates are easier to get, it’s because our state is one of the worst in the country when it comes to nonmedical exemptions to vaccines. Indeed:

Michigan has one of the highest vaccine-waiver rates for kindergartners in the country, three times the national median, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the number of kindergartners getting vaccine waivers is growing. In five years, it’s increased 23 percent, the CDC says.

(more…)

Posted in: Politics and Regulation, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

Home birth tragedies lead to changes in Oregon

Pregnant1
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…)

Posted in: Guidelines, Legal, Naturopathy, Obstetrics & gynecology, Politics and Regulation, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

“Electromagnetic hypersensitivity” and “wifi allergies”: Bogus diagnoses with tragic real world consequences

Is there such a thing as an "allergy to wifi"? Lots of people claim there is; science, not so much.

Is there such a thing as an “allergy to wifi”? Lots of people claim there is; science, not so much.

I debated about writing about this topic, given that I just wrote about it last week on my not-so-super-secret other blog. However, as I thought about it during the weekend, I realized that the tragic story that so saddened and disturbed me to prod me to discuss so-called “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or “electro-hypersensitivity” (EHS) was so horrific that a more detailed, SBM-level discussion was indicated, particularly in light of a similar case electromagnetic hypersensitivity that didn’t end so tragically discussed by Harriet Hall in September. I’m referring, of course, to the case of Jenny Fry, a British teen who hanged herself in June and whose mother has been claiming that her “allergy to wifi” was what drove her to suicide. So, while there will be some overlap with my previous discussion, I will try to step back and take a broader view of the evidence regarding the fake diagnosis of EHS, interspersed with examples (hopefully) illustrating my point. Think of this as the post I wished I had written the first time around but, due to time constraints, couldn’t.

Bogus science and lawsuits over EHS

By way of background, it’s worth briefly revisiting the case that Harriet discussed. Indeed, if you Google “lawsuit” and “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” and “wifi” the first two pages of results consist mostly of articles discussing it. That’s probably because this is just the latest lawsuit that made the news. It happened in Massachusetts, where the parents of a 12-year-old boy (designated “G” in court records) who was attending Fay School in Massachusetts alleged that the school violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make accommodations to protect G from electromagnetic radiation from the school’s wifi routers. From the complaint’s summary statement:
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Neuroscience/Mental Health, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

Holding the supplement industry to account: Can we learn from tobacco regulation?

When it comes to supplements, you can't trust what's on the label

When it comes to supplements, you can’t trust what’s on the label

The idea that “natural” products are safe and effective has been so effectively marketed to us that many don’t recognize it as a fallacy. Much of the supplement industry is built around an appeal to nature. Supplements are described as natural, gentle, and “holistic”. Medicine, especially prescription drugs, is the opposite. They’re “chemicals”. They’re risky and dangerous – just look at that list of side effects! Supplements are packaged beautifully, have impressive claims, and are for sale at Whole Foods. Drugs are hazardous: They may come in a plain vial, with warning labels, detailed information sheets, and cautious statements about their effectiveness. Is it any wonder that many consumers, when faced with health concerns or medical issues, instinctively think of supplements as a safer alternative? Purveyors of supplements and alternative medicine have leveraged this fallacy so effectively that it’s even guided the regulations that allow their sale. Regrettably, the result is a marketplace that puts consumers’ interests last. The supplement industry has completely stacked the odds against the consumer, challenging their ability to make informed decisions about their health. Most supplements on the market have never been properly tested for safety or effectiveness. And those that have been tested have largely been shown to be ineffective – or in the case of products like vitamins, often unnecessary. And while there are undoubtedly some ethical companies out there, the industry is regularly revealed to resemble a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Despite this, the industry has gone from success to success – in terms of sales, at least. In 1994 supplement sales were about $4 billion in the US. It’s now a $37 billion industry that is remains only lightly regulated – or largely unregulated. With recent action taken against fraudulent products, there are more questions than ever about how to force the supplement industry to make consumer protection a priority. A new paper in Drug Testing and Analysis makes a provocative suggestion: Local and state governments already regulate another hazardous product: tobacco. Can lessons learned from the tobacco wars improve the safety of supplements? (more…)

Posted in: Epidemiology, Health Fraud, Herbs & Supplements, Politics and Regulation, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

No, Purell Does Not Breed Super-Anything

Pictured:  Mechanism of pumpy doom, or savior to us all?  Neither!

Pictured: Superbug spawner, or savior to us all? Neither!

Recently, I was sitting in a meeting and reached for the dispenser of Purell hand sanitizer sitting on the conference room table. A colleague of mine gave a small, rueful shake of her head to the person on her other side. Apparently I had erred. I asked what was the matter, and got a brief answer to the effect of “because superbugs.” We exchanged nothing more about it; the interaction was over before the alcohol had dried from my hands.

I wouldn’t have thought anything of such an interaction with anyone else, but my colleague is a PhD student in immunology, six years older and more schooled than I, doing her doctoral research in a lab run by a physician-scientist — a specialist in infectious disease, no less. A touch ironic.

And so I noticed a need for some mythbusting: alcohol-based hand sanitizers do not breed resistant bacteria. (more…)

Posted in: Epidemiology, Evolution, Public Health, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

The elusive “potential” of integrative medicine

The Integrative Medicine Wheel

The Integrative Medicine Wheel

 

UPDATE: Dr. Katz has responded to this post in his usual venue, The Huffington Post.

Alternative medicine was all about “potential” from the get go:

In 1991, the Senate Appropriations Committee responsible for funding the National Institutes of Health (NIH) declared itself “not satisfied that the conventional medical community as symbolized at the NIH has fully explored the potential that exists in unconventional medical practices.”

Thus, the Committee, led by chair Sen. Tom Harkin, directed the NIH to create an advisory panel that would “fully test the most promising unconventional medical practices.”

The advisory panel became the Office of Alternative Medicine, which became the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which became the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, its current iteration.

This effort to unlock the “potential” of unconventional (renamed alternative, renamed complementary and alternative, renamed integrative) medicine forced an uncomfortable alliance between science and pseudoscience from the beginning. Advocates like Harkin, and his two quackery-promoting constituents, Berkeley Bedell (colostrum and something called “714-X,” derived from camphor) and Frank Wiewel (immuno-augmenative therapy for cancer), were all for “fully testing” until they realized what “fully testing” meant to a scientist: double-blind, placebo controlled trials. It was thus that the true believers discovered the value of special pleading: they “favored quick field studies that would validate alternative treatments.”

Taxpayer monies flowed into legitimate medical and scientific research institutions to conduct alternative medicine research: the Maryland School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, University of California at Davis, and the Texas Health Science Center, among others, received funds for the study of antineoplastons, cartilage products, magnets, mind-body control, and even Bedell and Wiewel’s beloved “714-X” and immuno-augmentative therapy. (more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Medical Academia, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

Antivaccinationists and the Nation of Islam protest in front of the CDC, but don’t you dare call them “antivaccine”

Flyer for "CDC Truth" Rally. Apparently a bunch of antivaccine activists showed up in Atlanta on Saturday to annoy CDC employees and try to use the manufactured "scandal" of the so-called "CDC whistleblower" to attack vaccines. Same as it ever was.

Flyer for “CDC Truth” Rally. Apparently a bunch of antivaccine activists showed up in Atlanta on Saturday to annoy CDC employees and try to use the manufactured “scandal” of the so-called “CDC whistleblower” to attack vaccines. Same as it ever was.

If there’s one thing that’s guaranteed to anger most antivaccine activists, it’s a skeptic calling them “antivaccine.” The reason, of course, is that (1) many of them actually believe they are “not antivaccine” but rather “pro-vaccine safety,” even though their words and actions proclaim otherwise and (2) they crave legitimacy. They want desperately to be taken seriously by the government and scientific community. The problem is that, again, by their very words and actions they make it almost impossible for anyone who knows anything about vaccines to take them seriously, except as a threat to public health. They have no one but themselves to blame, as a critical perusal of Age of Autism, The Thinking Moms’ Revolution, VacTruth (and VaxTruth), or any number of antivaccine websites and blogs will indicated to anyone of a scientific bent who has the intestinal fortitude to plunge down any or all of those rabbit holes of magical thinking and pseudoscience.

Another thing that I’ve come to understand over the more than a decade that I’ve been doing this is that there is a profound tension between what I like to call the two wings of the antivaccine movement. Basically, as is the case in most political or ideological movements, antivaccine activists gravitate towards one of two views. The first (and most prominent view) tends to be the pragmatic view. These are the antivaccinationists who deny vociferously that they are “antivaccine” and instead portray themselves as “pro-safe vaccine.” They want to appear reasonable and are willing to take partial victories on an incremental path towards achieving their ends. Then there are the “loud and proud” antivaccine activists. They don’t eschew or hide from the term “antivaccine.” They embrace it and proudly proclaim that they believe that vaccines are irredeemably toxic, that they don’t protect against disease, that big pharma is a criminal syndicate intent on poisoning their children and turning them autistic, and that the CDC is complicit in the whole plot. Of course, like all ideological movements, there is not a dichotomy; rather, there is a continuous spectrum between the two. Also, in this case, the two groups differ more on tactics than actual beliefs. As I’ve found many times, push a “reasonable” antivaccinationist, one who proclaims herself “not antivaccine” but “pro-vaccine safety,” and it’s usually not hard to get them to say things indistinguishable from the hard core antivaccinationists. They’ll basically cling to their self-perception as “pro-safe vaccine, while making the same evidence-free claims that vaccines cause autism, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), autoimmune diseases, diabetes, and all the other conditions on which antivaccinationists blame vaccines.
(more…)

Posted in: Politics and Regulation, Public Health, Religion, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

The American Cancer Society’s new mammography guidelines: Déjà vu all over again

The American Cancer Society’s new mammography guidelines: <em>Déjà vu</em> all over again

One of the things that feels the weirdest about having done the same job, having been in the same specialty, for a longer and longer time is that you frequently feel, as the late, great Yogi Berra would have put it, déjà vu all over again. This is particularly true in science and medicine, where the same issues come up again and again and again, often with the same arguments on either side. Sometimes the same players are even involved. So it is with mammography recommendations. Indeed, I’m feeling déjà vu all over again right now, as I read headlines like “Women advised to get mammograms later, less often“, “American Cancer Society, in a Shift, Recommends Fewer Mammograms“, and “ACS: Breast cancer screening should begin at age 45“. What provoked these headlines was a major revision in the American Cancer Society’s recommendation for mammographic screening for breast cancer in women at average risk of the disease. In a seeming replay from 2009, when the United States Preventative Services Taskforce (USPSTF) sent shockwaves through the breast cancer world by recommending that most women not start mammography until age 50 and then only to have it done every two years instead of every year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) has now just similarly ratcheted back its recommendations for screening mammography, just not as much as the USPSTF did. The new recommendations were communicated in a special communication published by JAMA on Tuesday.

What changed regarding mammography recommendations

Before we get to the issues, how, specifically, did the ACS change its mammography recommendations? Before this change, the ACS basically recommended the same thing that most other American professional societies dealing with breast cancer did: yearly mammography starting at age 40 for the rest of a woman’s life. The new guidelines now recommend that women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years and continuing annually until age 54. From age 55 and older, the ACS recommends that women transition to every two years. (More details below.) As I Tweeted when I saw these recommendations, basically it appears that the ACS has more or less split the difference between the old recommendations and the USPSTF recommendations.

So why is the ACS changing its recommendations? And what does this say about the science and our values regarding cancer screening? If you’ve been reading this blog, you know that over the last several years there has been a steady drip, drip, drip of studies that range from highlighting the downside of widespread mammographic screening to downright questioning the value of mammography. That’s why I’ve been discussing rethinking screening for breast cancer since at least 2008. Basically, you can go back and read my old posts and, if you have a lot of time and are enough of a glutton for punishment to read them all, watch the evolution of my thinking about breast cancer screening over the last seven years.

Back in the day, I used to fully support breast cancer screening beginning at age 40 and proceeding yearly throughout. As I examined more and more of the evidence, I became less enthusiastic about screening so intensely and started to believe that starting at 40 was too young for most women. Indeed, I was probably the only breast cancer doctor at my cancer center in 2009 who supported the USPSTF recommendations when they were announced, which led to some—shall we say?—interesting discussions about what should be said to the press and what a press release our cancer center wanted to release ASAP should actually say. I also got myself into a little…trouble…for criticizing colleagues in radiology—not from my institution, I hasten to add!—for some rather blatant turf protection. Let’s just say that a prominent radiologist, one who’s achieved far more renown in his field than I ever have in mine, was most displeased with some of my commentary and let me know about it. I found this displeasure odd, given that I am most definitely not a nihilist with respect to mammography screening (and, make no mistake, there are quite a few of those out there these days). I’m just a lot more balanced and aware of its limitations than I used to be. On the other hand, I did call him out for some of his more obnoxious comments that implied that those who question mammography are cackling gleefully at the thought of more women dying of breast cancer. Interestingly, I don’t seem to get asked to contribute to such press releases that much anymore, but in fairness neither do most of the other breast cancer clinicians I work with; so I probably can’t blame it on my previous outspokenness.

What brought me to this point is an increasing understanding of the concepts of overdiagnosis and lead time bias, coupled with a string of studies that show more modest benefits (and, in one case, no benefit) from screening mammography. To be honest, the attack dog reaction by some mammography supporters to some of these negative studies also set my skeptical antennae a’twitchin’ as well.
(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

“Liquid biopsies” for cancer screening: Life-saving tests, or overdiagnosis and overtreatment taken to a new level?

Could a blood draw be all you need to diagnose cancer and identify the best treatment for it? Not so fast...

Could a blood draw be all you need to diagnose cancer and identify the best treatment for it? Not so fast…

I’ve written many times about how the relationship between the early detection of cancer and decreased mortality from cancer is not nearly as straightforward as the average person—even the average doctor—thinks, the first time being in the very first year of this blog’s existence. Since then, the complexities and overpromising of various screening modalities designed to detect disease at an early, asymptomatic phase have become a relatively frequent topic on this blog. Before that, on my not-so-super-secret other blog, I noted that screening MRI for breast cancer and whole body CT scans intended to detect other cancers early were not scientifically supported and thus were far more likely to cause harm than good. That was well over ten years ago. Now we have a company offering what it refers to as a “liquid biopsy” for the early detection of cancer. I fear that this is the recipe for the ultimate in overdiagnosis. I will explain.

The problem, of course, is that disease progression, including cancer progression, is not always a linear process, in which the disease progresses relentlessly through its preclinical, asymptomatic phase to symptoms to complications to (depending on the disease) death. There is such a thing as disease that remains asymptomatic and never progresses (at which point it’s hard to justify actually calling it a disease). As I pointed out in my first SBM post on the topic, at least three-quarters of men over 80 have evidence of prostate cancer in autopsy series. Yet nowhere near three-quarters of men in their 80s die of prostate cancer—or ever manifest symptoms from it. This is what is meant by overdiagnosis, the diagnosis of disease that doesn’t need to be treated, that would never cause a patient problems.

When teaching medical students and residents, I frequently emphasize that overdiagnosis is different from a false positive because overdiagnosis does diagnose an actual abnormality or disease. For example, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed by mammography leading to a biopsy is a real pathological abnormality; it is not a false positive. We just do not know which cases of DCIS will progress to cancer and which will not, leading to a question of how DCIS should be treated or at the very least whether we should treat it as aggressively as we do now, particularly given that the apparent incidence of DCIS has increased 16-fold since the 1970s, all of it due to mammographic screening programs and the increased diagnosis of DCIS and early stage breast cancer has not resulted in nearly as much of a decrease in the diagnosis of advanced stage breast cancer as one would expect if early diagnosis were having an impact in reducing the diagnosis of late stage disease.

Overdiagnosis would not be such an issue if it didn’t inevitably lead to overtreatment. DCIS, for instance, is treated with surgery, radiation, and anti-estrogen drugs. Early stage prostate cancer used to be treated with radical prostatectomy, but now more frequently with radiation. Many of these men and women didn’t actually need treatment. We just don’t know which ones. This is why over the last six or seven years a significant rethinking of screening for breast and prostate cancer has occurred. There has been a backlash, of course, but the rethinking seems to have taken hold.

Not everywhere, of course. (more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Cancer, Diagnostic tests & procedures, Public Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

An aspirin a day to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and cancer?

Low dose aspirin is now recommended to prevent heart disease and cancer.

Low dose aspirin is now recommended to prevent heart disease and cancer.

Despite the remarkable advances in medicine over the past 20 years, cardiovascular disease and cancer will still kill half of us. Beyond the deaths, millions survive heart attacks, strokes and cancer, but many are left with disability and a reduced quality of life. While lifestyle changes can improve our odds of avoiding these diseases, they do not eliminate our risk. Finding ways to medically prevent these diseases before they occur, a term called “primary prevention”, is a holy grail in medicine. Primary prevention can be a tough sell, personally and medically. It means taking medicine (which may cause side effects) when you’re well, with the hope of preventing a disease before it occurs.

The US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) released draft guidelines on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer last week. The USPSTF is now recommending daily aspirin in some age groups who have at least a 10% risk of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years. This isn’t the first guideline that’s recommended aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, but it is the first major guideline to endorse aspirin to prevent colorectal cancer. Given these recommendations will apply to millions of people, they have attracted considerable controversy. Is this strategy going to reduce deaths and disability? Or are we about to start “medicalizing” healthy people inappropriately? (more…)

Posted in: Public Health, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 4 of 30 «...23456...»