Science and Medicine

Archive for Science and Medicine

The Windi: Revolutionary Relief for Colic or a Pain in the Butt


Stand back.

We tend to cover some very serious topics here on Science-Based Medicine. In fact, most of our posts are downright depressing. This will hopefully not be one of them.

In just the past few weeks we have written about the public health menace of anti-vaccine pseudoscience, autistic children being subjected to dangerous bleach enemas, and chiropractic-induced stroke in children. Unsurprisingly, there is typically no shortage of rage and heartache on the pages of this blog. But not today. Today will be a reprieve from the misery.

I’ll be discussing two products that were recently brought to my attention by colleagues. The last product I skeptically evaluated was the Buzzy, a device designed to reduce procedural pain in kids that is little more than a clever distraction technique. That product, however, was considerably more complex in concept and design than the ones I’ve chosen for this post. But the NoseFrida and the Windi are marketed to parents using equally dubious claims of efficacy, and use of one of them has an unfavorable risk-benefit analysis in my opinion. At least they’re funny…kind of.

The NoseFrida and the Windi come from the Miami-based FridaBaby LLC. The company website provides a succinct mission statement:

FridaBaby specializes in baby products you actually need! Our products are for the important stuff, you know, like breathing. Instead of using harsh chemicals to relieve your baby of discomfort, we opt for more natural solutions. Our focus on pragmatic and “gross” products (their words, not ours, nothing grosses us out!) that really work has garnered us a cult like following of ENTs, pediatric GIs nurses, doulas, midwives, lactation consultants, bloggers, and parents.

Okay, they help promote a needless anxiety over chemicals in baby products, and yes, that statement contains a straw man implication that all other options require the use of “harsh chemicals”, but they seem like decent enough folks. Who doesn’t like breathing? I do it daily and recommend it to all my patients. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (201) →

David Tredinnick – Quack Candidate for Health Select Committee Chair

DAVID-TREDINICK-large570Today the UK Parliament will have a vote for the chair of the Health Select Committee. The two choices could not be more starkly different, so much so that this vote might be seen as a referendum on two world views, one that respects science and another that confuses pseudoscience and spirituality for medicine.

On one side we have Sarah Wollaston, the previous chair, who is a former general practitioner and has taken a solid stand against pseudoscience in medicine. She has previously tweeted, for example, “Homeopathy can also have serious harms when masquerading as a ‘vaccine’.”

Tredinnick, on the other hand, has previously argued that the NHS should incorporate astrology into the healthcare system. I have previously argued that homeopathy is the most absurd and easily debunked major form of alternative medicine. Astrology, however, is arguably more absurd, I had just never heard it offered as a basis for healthcare. Tredinnick has at least accomplished setting a new low bar for alternative medicine nonsense.

Tredinnick appears to be a true-believer, fully steeped in the propaganda that is CAM (so-called complementary and alternative medicine). He has said:

Ninety per cent of pregnant French women use homeopathy. Astrology is a useful diagnostic tool enabling us to see strengths and weaknesses via the birth chart.

And, yes, I have helped fellow MPs. I do foresee that one day astrology will have a role to play in healthcare.


Posted in: Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (97) →

Leaky Bowel

Pictured: Something you might need if you actually had a leaky gut.  Click to embiggen.  Weirdo.

Pictured: Something you might need if you actually had a leaky gut. Click to embiggen. Weirdo.

We are at a disadvantage. We have to rely on reality to validate the practice of medicine. Anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, chemistry, the basic sciences that made up the first two years of medical school education and a huge chunk of pre-med. And we have to rely on the truth, as slippery a concept as that can be. I can’t just make up a disease or a therapy.

It would be so much easier to not have to worry about reality in deciding on a disease and treatment for people with symptoms.

I came across “Healthy Life: Leaky Gut Syndrome” in my feeds. I am always attracted to exclamation marks! They must mean something important! Or surprising to the author!

It’s called “leaky gut syndrome” and patients say it can wreak havoc on everyday life, but some doctors say there’s no such thing!

Some doctors. Must be that pesky 10% percent or so of obstructionist doctors who don’t recommend Tylenol or Advil. (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Naturopathy, Nutrition, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (258) →

Chiropractic Manipulation of the Neck Linked to Stroke in a 6-Year-Old Child…


The risk of suffering a stroke when undergoing aggressive chiropractic manipulation of the neck is not a new concern. We’ve discussed it several times on the pages of Science-Based Medicine over the years, most recently in November of 2014 when Steven Novella covered the death by chiropractor of 30-year-old Jeremy Youngblood, whose fatal brain injury occurred while seeking treatment for a sore neck. For a nice review of cervical manipulation in general, the evidence against its inappropriate use, and an assessment of the literature on this subject, check out prior posts by Dr. Hall and chiropractor Samuel Homola.

I believe that my take on the issue is in line with my fellow SBM authors. There is no role for high velocity, low amplitude (HVLA) thrust-type maneuvers that cause sudden and intense rotation of the neck in any patient, for any reason. It is not effective for neck pain, headache or any other complaint, and it is a proven risk factor for injury to the vertebral arteries and subsequent stroke. Some patients are at higher risk, such as the elderly or those with atherosclerosis or connective tissue disorders, but this type of injury can occur at any age and even in a perfectly healthy individual. (more…)

Posted in: Chiropractic, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (518) →

Medicine doesn’t come from the hardware store: Don’t drink turpentine

This is not a health food. Don't drink it.

This is not a health food. Don’t drink it.

I enjoy feedback from readers. Yes, there’s the regular hate mail accusing me of being a Big Pharma Shill. But there’s the occasional appreciative comment from someone that found a post helpful or informative. The most gratifying feedback is when someone tells me that something I wrote led to a more informed health decision. Often it’s because I was able to answer a question that they couldn’t find a science-based answer to. I’ve answered thousands of questions in my pharmacy career, and have only blogged a handful of them (so far). One of my most fascinating experiences was a stint working evenings in a pharmacy that happened to have a large “natural” health focus. It’s there I began to scrutinize alternative medicine more closely, because it was virtually all the store sold. Homeopathy, ear candles, copper bracelets and salt lamps were all for sale. If it was unproven, proven ineffective, or defied some law of physics or chemistry, this pharmacy probably sold it. But the customers loved these products. I was dumbfounded. Some would buy dozens of supplements, costing hundreds dollars per month, on the advice of their naturopath, treating some vague or non-specific complaints. Others swore by homeopathic remedies, for themselves and their pets. It was common to meet people who were treating conditions that either didn’t exist, or hadn’t been properly diagnosed, like naturopath-diagnosed “food intolerances” or “hormone imbalances”. There were also the occasional “pH balancing” advocates that insisted I was misguided and uneducated for reassuring them that their body’s pH was just fine, despite what their urine test strips were telling them. (more…)

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Naturopathy, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (116) →

Attitudes Predict CAM Use

 From the US Food and Drug Association article "6 Tip-offs to Rip-offs: Don’t Fall for Health Fraud Scams

CAM: More branding than medicine.

One of the persistent themes of SBM is that CAM (complementary and alternative medicine, or integrative medicine) is nothing more than a marketing brand. Its recent popularity is not based upon new evidence or a changing paradigm of medicine as its proponents claim. Its popularity is increasing despite the lack of evidence for specific CAM treatments and despite a dedication to evidence-based medicine within the medical profession.

CAM is also modern mythology, which I guess all really effective advertising and branding is. It floats atop a number of demonstrably false marketing claims. One is that the popularity and use of CAM is surging. This is partly a self-fulfilling prophesy, and no doubt it is increasing, but the degree to which CAM is popular has been consistently exaggerated by proponents (largely as a way to justify its existence).

This myth is largely perpetuated by redefining CAM as needed, including things like prayer, massage, and taking vitamins. I suspect that praying for a sick loved-one has always been popular and doesn’t represent a trend toward CAM. When unequivocal alternative modalities are considered, their use is still tiny and not increasing. The most recent NIH survey found:

Use of acupuncture (1.1%), homeopathic treatment (1.7%) naturopathy (0.2%), and energy healing (0.5%) was miniscule.


Posted in: Medical Academia, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (316) →

Don’t just stand there, do nothing! The difference between science-based medicine and quackery

Tree of Life - the first-known sketch by Charles Darwin of an evolutionary tree describing the relationships among groups of organisms (Cambridge University Library).

Tree of Life – the first-known sketch by Charles Darwin of an evolutionary tree describing the relationships among groups of organisms (Cambridge University Library).

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines science as:

Knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.


Knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

While this should distinguish science from pseudoscience, those who practice the latter often lay claim to the same definition. But one of the major differences between science and pseudoscience is that science advances through constant rejection and revision of prior models and hypotheses as new evidence is produced; it evolves. This is the antithesis of pseudoscience. At the heart of pseudoscience-based medicine (PBM) is dogma and belief. It clings to its preconceptions and never changes in order to improve. It thrives on the intransigence of its belief system, and rejects threats to its dogma. Despite the constant claims by peddlers of pseudoscience that SBM practitioners are closed-minded, we know that, in fact, PBM is the ultimate in closed-minded belief. Of course, those of us who claim to practice SBM aren’t always quick to adopt new evidence. We sometimes continue practices that may once have been the standard of care but are no longer supported by the best available evidence, or perhaps may even be contradicted by the latest evidence. Often this is a byproduct of habituated practice and a failure to keep current with the literature. While this is certainly a failure of modern medicine, it is not an inevitable outcome. It is not emblematic of the practice of medicine, as it is with PBM. When medicine is science-based, it strives for continual improvement based on modifications around emerging evidence. (more…)

Posted in: Critical Thinking, Medical Ethics, Public Health, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (98) →

Legislators want “pharmaceutical cost transparency”. Are they asking the wrong question?

Drug Costs

If science-based medicine is unaffordable, then your care won’t be science-based. Prescription drug costs are one of the biggest concerns in health care today. There seems to be no upper limit on prices, with some new treatments costing over $1,000 per day. The arrival of new drugs to treat (and cure) hepatitis C has created a perfect pharmaceutical storm: highly effective treatments, a large population of potential patients, and huge per-patient costs. It’s renewing the debate about whether important medical treatments are being priced out of the reach of the patients that need them. It’s not just hepatitis. Cancer drug costs are rising as well, driven by more patients and new drugs that in some cases are transforming our expectations about what cancer drugs can do. And while many of us rely on some form of drug insurance to protect us from high drug costs, insurers are struggling with balancing coverage and premiums: A report by Express Scripts paints a grim picture:

An estimated 576,000 Americans spent more than the median household income on prescription medications in 2014. This population of patients grew an astounding 63% from 2013. Further, the population of patients with costs of $100,000 or more nearly tripled during the same time period, to nearly 140,000 people. The total cost impact to payers from both patient populations is an unsustainable $52 billion a year.

This isn’t just an issue in the United States. Prescription drug costs are climbing around the world, because we’re effectively all in this together: We all rely on private companies to bring new drugs to market, and we’re largely buying the same drugs from the same small group of companies. Because ready access to safe and effective prescription drugs is so important to the practice of medicine and the delivery of health care, the pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated – not just by the FDA, but by regulators worldwide. Yet despite the dual requirements of regulatory disclosure and the financial obligation to be transparent (as many pharmaceutical companies are publicly-held), little is known about how much it costs to bring drugs to market, and how manufacturers arrive at their selling prices. Pharmaceutical manufacturers claim that high drug costs reflect the high costs of research and development (R&D), and provide the incentives for companies to invest heavily and take risks, when many drugs may never make it to market. Are they correct? (more…)

Posted in: Pharmaceuticals, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (89) →

Lyme Testimony

The black-legged tick, responsible for spreading Borrelia burgdorgeri, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease

The black-legged tick, responsible for spreading Borrelia burgdorgeri, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease

As the saying goes, when you do not have the facts, argue the law. This tried and (?) true approach was successful in New York where a law was passed protecting those who are, shall we say, creative in treating patients with Lyme and ‘chronic’ Lyme.

The bill protects those from investigation of misconduct:

based solely on treatment that is not universally accepted by the medical profession.

The major bone of contention has been extended courses of IV antibiotics for ‘chronic’ Lyme, but there are a wide variety of treatments that may be used by so called “Lyme literate” doctors.

The number of therapies divorced from reality that are offered to Lyme patients is remarkable. I do not know if chronic Lyme patients have greater use of pseudo-medical therapies than other pseudo-diagnoses, but I am impressed by the offerings in a recent review:

Results. More than 30 alternative treatments were identified, which fell into several broad categories: these included oxygen and reactive oxygen therapy; energy and radiation-based therapies; nutritional therapy; chelation and heavy metal therapy; and biological and pharmacological therapies ranging from certain medications without recognized therapeutic effects on Borrelia burgdorgeri to stem cell transplantation. Review of the medical literature did not substantiate efficacy or, in most cases, any rationale for the advertised treatments.

Conclusions. Providers of alternative therapies commonly target patients who believe they have Lyme disease. The efficacy of these unconventional treatments for Lyme disease is not supported by scientific evidence, and in many cases they are potentially harmful.


Posted in: Lyme, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (166) →

Homeopathy and the UK’s National Health Service

Homeopathy in the UK, flag, small

Homeopathy is arguably the silliest form of alternative medicine: the published studies show no evidence of anything beyond nonspecific contextual effects, and the underlying premise is incompatible with the existing body of scientific knowledge. Homeopathy has increasingly been questioned or denounced by organizations in several countries, most recently in FDA hearings in the US.

I recently spoke at the QED conference (Question, Explore, Discover) in Manchester, England. Another speaker, Michael Marshall, gave a talk on homeopathy and the National Health Service. He presented information that was new to me and that I thought was worthy of sharing with SBM readers. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (33) →
Page 10 of 95 «...89101112...»