Articles

Archive for Science and Medicine

Separating Fact from Fiction in Pediatric Medicine: Ear Infections

chiroears

Please don’t try chiropractic first, or at all, for any pediatric condition

As discussed numerous times on the pages of Science-Based Medicine, children are increasingly a target of chiropractors, with some even pushing for recognition as primary care practitioners. Despite a thoroughly inadequate training, and a lack of experience with ill pediatric patients, they believe that they have what it takes to recognize and manage common pediatric conditions or refer to an actual pediatric medical professional when they deem it appropriate. While a significant percentage of pediatric illness is self-limited, and thus might appear to respond to chiropractic manipulation, I have seen many deteriorate quickly and with little warning. The idea of an ill child suffering at the hands of a charlatan is terrifying.

Many chiropractors are of course more than happy to see pediatric patients without acting as their PCP. They love to claim that children are at risk of developing misalignment of the bones of the skull and spine, chiropractic subluxations, and numerous other conditions unique to alternative medical reality, particularly during the first few years of life. They tell caregivers that these insults can be subtle, or even silent for years, and that regular maintenance care is required to prevent severe problems, even going so far as to blame SIDS and “shaken baby syndrome” on these fictional entities.

Many chiropractors are also quick to claim that they can prevent or cure some of the most common conditions seen by pediatricians and family healthcare providers, such as viral infections of the upper respiratory tract, asthma, bedwetting, and ear infections to name just a few. By simply improving the function of the nervous system, chiropractors believe that they can “boost” the immune system’s ability to fight infections, improve control over bladder function, and even reduce airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction. If you think that sounds like nonsense, you’re right!

(more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Matt Ridley’s not-so-mythical “myth” of basic science

Matt Ridley: Specious arguments against government research funding.

Matt Ridley: Specious arguments against government research funding.

I’m a clinician, but I’m actually also a translational scientist. It’s not uncommon for those of us in medicine involved in some combination of basic and clinical research to argue about exactly what that means. The idea is translational science is supposed to be the process of “translating” basic science discoveries in the laboratory into medicine, be it in the form of drugs, treatments, surgical procedures, laboratory tests, diagnostic tests, or anything else that physicians use to diagnose and treat human disease. Trying to straddle the two worlds, to turn discoveries in basic science into usable medicine, is more difficult than it sounds. Many are the examples of promising discoveries that appeared as though they should have led to useful medical treatments or tests, but, for whatever reason, didn’t work when attempted in humans.

Of course, if there’s one thing that the NIH and other funding agencies have been emphasizing, it’s been “translational research,” or, as I like to call it, translation über alles. Here’s the problem. If you don’t have basic science discoveries to translate, then translational science becomes problematic, virtually impossible even. Translational research depends upon a pipeline of basic science discoveries to form the basis for translational scientists to use as the starting point for developing new treatments and tests. Indeed, like many others who appreciate this, I’ve been concerned that in recent years, particularly with tight budgets, the NIH has been overemphasizing translational research at the expense of basic research.
(more…)

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

Leave a Comment (0) →

Everything you always wanted to know about fermented foods 

Delicious homemade Kimchi (fermented cabbage). It's alive!

Delicious homemade Kimchi (fermented cabbage). It’s alive! Click for a closer look.

Fermented foods, such as sauerkraut and kombucha, have become popular for health reasons. I have made my own sauerkraut in the past and have recently made the tasty, fermented Korean side dish, kimchi. I did it not only for the taste but also for the hope that the bacteria responsible for the fermentation of the cabbage — lactic acid bacteria (LAB) — would contribute to the diversity of my gut microbiota.

As a research scientist in the field of bacterial pathogenesis, this made sense to me. Now that I have started blogging about health and fitness and have been writing more in depth articles about health related topics, I started wondering what research has been done on the health benefits of fermented foods. Can the bacteria in fermented foods even survive the harsh conditions of the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract, particularly the stomach?

I was amazed to learn that the fermentation of food has been used by humans for thousands of years as a way to preserve foods, and that the health benefits go beyond their microorganisms (don’t worry, citations are provided below). The fermentation process enhances the nutritional quality of food by contributing beneficial compounds such as vitamins, and by increasing the bioavailability of minerals. Probiotics, including those found in kimchi, have a range of positive effects on health, including the improvement of various intestinal inflammatory conditions, positive impacts on the immune system and even weight loss, and can alter the composition of the gut microbiome.

However, these effects mostly depend on whether the bacteria actually make it in sufficient numbers to the colon. And let me tell you, the journey to the colon is one harsh and dangerous ride!

(more…)

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

Leave a Comment (0) →

Whole Body Cryotherapy

wholebodycryotherapy

Last week a Hawaiian woman living in Las Vegas, Chelsea Ake, was found dead in a cryotherapy chamber where she works. Apparently she was using the chamber unsupervised and accidentally locked herself in or passed out, and was found 10 hours later. Her death, of course, is tragic and we have nothing but sympathy for her and her family.

The event, however, was the first time many people heard of whole body cryotherapy (WBC) and prompted many questions. Three months ago Zachary Hoffman published a guest post on SBM about cryotherapy, showing that the science is just not there. He focused mainly on using ice packs to treat sprains and sports injuries (which is surprisingly not evidence-based, but also perhaps not unreasonable), I am going to focus on using WBC for general health.

What is whole body cryotherapy?

As is often the case, perfectly legitimate or perhaps preliminary medical procedures are hijacked by entrepreneurs and hyped into a bogus “spa” therapy, snake oil, or medical device. Preliminary evidence or legitimate uses are then used to justify the pseudoscientific extrapolations. Stem cells are a legitimate area of medical research, but I would not go to a stem cell clinic in China to treat your ALS.

(more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

The Time a Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist Got Manipulated by a Chiropractor

docbrown

You have WiFi allergy, chronic Lyme, multiple chemical sensitivity, and menopause!

Katherine Ellison won a Pulitzer Prize in 1985, not for science journalism but for coverage of the monetary mayhem perpetrated by Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos on the people of the Philippines. I was nine at the time and have little recollection of the impact of her work, but I will assume that it was meaningful in light of the award. And she went on to win numerous additional accolades for her writing on politics, economics, and human rights.

Her most recent work, “Chiropractic Care Grows, and Gains Acceptance“, will likely not be considered for any journalism awards. The article, published on the New York Times Health and Wellness blog, reveals a terribly flawed understanding of chiropractic practice and philosophy and a preternatural ability to interpret fleecing at the hands of an obvious quack as a positive experience. She displays few if any signs of an ability to think critically when it comes to medicine and gives no indication of having done more than cursory research on the subject of chiropractic.

Sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree

The inspiration for Ellison’s article was a trip to the chiropractor after having injured her tail bone during a spin class. She does this despite having grown up with a surgeon father who apparently did not think highly of “alternative healers,” particularly chiropractors. Right off the bat she brings up the history of the AMA’s stance on the chiropractic profession:

Of course, this was in the 1960s, when the American Medical Association was still waging war on the profession via its Committee on Quackery, which labeled chiropractors as an “unscientific cult.”

And:

The A.M.A.’s Committee on Quackery is long defunct, having gone out of existence after a lawsuit by chiropractors led to a 1987 federal district judge’s ruling that the medical association had tried to destroy the chiropractic profession.

Well, not exactly. The AMA absolutely was vehemently opposed to chiropractic and its practitioners and, as Dr. Harriet Hall describes, they are far from beyond reproach in the methods they used. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would defend their tactics today. But the Committee on Quackery actually disbanded in 1974, two years prior to the filing of the infamous Wilk v. AMA antitrust lawsuit and at a time when all 50 states were licensing chiropractors. Louisiana, as backwards as my home state can be when it comes to science and medicine, was the last to give in that same year.

(more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

Naturopathy vs. Science: Diabetes Edition

Diabetes Mellitus
Does naturopathy offer something special or uniquely effective for the treatment of diabetes? Naturopaths are alternative medicine practitioners who claim to provide primary care, like medical doctors. Among naturopaths and their supporters, it’s regularly claimed that naturopathy offers something that “conventional” medicine does not: Naturopaths are described as “doctors plus”, using unconventional approaches to coax the body to “heal itself” with methods that are claimed to be safer and more effective than conventional drugs and medical interventions. The superiority of naturopathy over conventional medicine is an argument that showed up in the comments to my last post, when I pointed out that this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine failed to validate either naturopathy or herbalism. Here’s one example:

Someone diagnosed with pre-Type 2 diabetes could visit a Naturopathic Doctor and stop the disease in its tracks. The doctor would recommended a simple diet change to a high-fat, low-carb, zero refined sugar diet, maybe some supplements, and exercise. Bye, bye, Type 2 diabetes. The same person could visit an MD, and before you know it would be taking insulin and Metformin (and other horrible drugs) for the rest of his or her life. An added bonus with the insulin is weight gain. Notice that the diabetes commercials feature overweight actors and actresses? Yes, there are natural cures. Is this is a site promoting good health, or is it a front for the pharmaceutical companies?

You can follow the comment thread for the discussion that followed. The same commenter continued in Mark Crislip’s post on Friday about the difference between naturopathy and conventional medicine:

Allopath – you will be taking insulin, Metformin and other drugs for the rest of your life. Your diabetes will be managed, but there will be a slow deterioration in the quality of your life.

Naturopath – we can reverse this with a change in your diet, along with exercise.

Naturopath wins.

Now this individual never claimed to be a naturopath – but testimonials like these are not surprising. I’ve written several posts in the past about the claims made by naturopaths, and how they stack up against the scientific evidence. Naturopaths offer an array of disparate health practices like homeopathy, acupuncture and herbalism that are linked by the (now discarded) belief in vitalism – the idea we have a “life force”. From this philosophy can sometimes emerge sensible health advice, but not because naturopaths are following the evidence. As long as a treatment is viewed as being congruent with the naturopathic belief system, it’s acceptably “naturopathic”. In past posts I’ve looked at the naturopathic perspectives on fake diseases, infertility, autism, prenatal vitamins, vaccinations, allergies, and even scientific facts themselves. Britt Hermes is a former naturopath and has written extensively about naturopathy from the perspective of an insider, and her evaluation is scathing: There are no naturopathic standards of care, naturopathic training is much different than what naturopaths purport, and the accreditation of naturopathic schools is questionable. Now, diabetes is a widely prevalent chronic disease. It causes a huge burden of illness on society. And while we have a fair understanding of its causes and how to treat it, there are still far too many people suffering from complications of the disease. Diabetes already requires care from multiple medical professionals, including physicians, nurses, dietitians, and pharmacists. Should naturopathy be included? Is there any evidence that demonstrates that naturopathy can “stop” diabetes? And how does advice from a naturopath differ from “conventional” medical advice? (more…)

Posted in: Naturopathy, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

“Magic Socks?” Alternative Medicine’s Obsession With Your Feet.

earthing

Inappropriate earthing technique?

I recently received an email from none other than Jann Bellamy pointing out a particular flavor of naturopathic nonsense that I had missed up until this point: “magic socks.” A quick search revealed that our own Scott Gavura had briefly mentioned this remedy in a 2013 post, but I plan on going into much greater detail. The claim contained in the newsletter attached to Jann’s email involved the use of said magic socks to “alleviate congestion.” Three links were thoughtfully provided for more information and I took the bait. Thanks Jann.

That’s right, magic socks!

The first link took me to the website of Bastyr University, where Britt Hermes matriculated to the tune of $300,000 and a leader in “innovation in natural health education” that offers numerous degrees in “science-based natural medicine.” According to the experts at Bastyr, wet sock treatment, apparently synonymous with “magic socks”, is “a natural method of stimulating the immune system and zapping a cold or flu” that involves forcing a child to don ice-cold socks overnight. They even admit that this is a treatment approach recommended regularly by the naturopathic physicians at Bastyr Center for Natural Health.

According to the chief medical officer at BCNH (seems like there should be an asterisk there or something), we shouldn’t be thrown by how much this sounds like complete and utter nonsense, because it works. He reassures us that magic socks “rally the body’s defenses” using the healing power of nature. And it’s free! All you need is water, socks, a freezer, and some electricity. Okay, so it isn’t free but it’s pretty darn cheap. (more…)

Posted in: Naturopathy, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Tobinick Lawsuit Update – Justice Has Prevailed

Gavel-court-legal-law-lawsuit

On September 30, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Dr. Novella’s motion for summary judgment, ending the lawsuit against him by Dr. Edward Tobinick and two of his companies. Earlier in the case, all of the other defendants had filed successful motions to dismiss or for summary judgment and were no longer parties to the case.

That he won the remaining issues in the case on a motion for summary judgment is highly significant. Summary judgment motions are granted sparingly by the courts. In granting his motion, the judge was required by law to view the facts in the light most favorable to Tobinick and the other plaintiffs and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in their favor.  Dr. Novella had to convince the judge that there was no dispute as to any of the relevant facts and that those undisputed facts entitled him to prevail. Because of this ruling, the case will not go to trial.

For a quick background, Tobinick filed a suit against Dr. Novella, the Society for Science-Based Medicine (SFSBM), Yale University and SGU Productions. The subject of his suit was an article Dr. Novella wrote here critical of his claims that perispinal etanercept can treat a variety of neurological conditions, as well as a second article, posted after suit was filed.

(more…)

Posted in: Announcements, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Antivaccine activists fund a study to show vaccines cause autism. It backfires spectacularly.

You want to inject me with vaccines and then dissect my brain? Why? We already know vaccines don't cause autism!

You want to inject me with vaccines and then dissect my brain? Why? We already know vaccines don’t cause autism!

Having written about pseudoscience and quackery continuously for over a decade and having engaged in conversations about it online for over 15 years, I’ve come to recognize a number of traits that are virtually the sine qua non of quacks and pseudoscientists and their believers. Obviously, one of them is a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, a tendency of those with low expertise in a topic to overestimate their expertise and express far more confidence in their conclusions than warranted while those with high expertise know enough to know how much they don’t know about a topic and thus tend to express more uncertainty and caveats. Basically, the Dunning-Kruger effect describes how unskilled individuals express an illusory superiority, mistakenly believing their knowledge, competence, and ability to be much higher than it really is.

As a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect, coupled with other cognitive shortcomings suffered by all human beings (but seemingly amplified in believers in quackery and pseudoscience) that lead them to believe in pseudoscience, such as confusing correlation with causation, motivated reasoning, and the like, believers in pseudoscience are often so absolutely rock-solid in their beliefs that they are virtually impossible to reason with. It is incredibly difficult to change their minds, and disconfirming evidence often causes them to dig in all the more deeply to defend their beliefs. Not uncommonly, this leads them to commission studies designed to support their beliefs. But what happens when such a study does not actually support their belief? What happens when such a study backfires spectacularly and not only fails to support their belief, but emphatically so? Skeptics were re-treated to just such a spectacle last week when SafeMinds and other antivaccinationists were burned by a study they funded (subscription required):

Between 2003 and 2013, SafeMinds provided scientists from the University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, the University of Washington, the Johnson Center for Child Health & Development and other research institutions with approximately $250,000 to conduct a long-term investigation evaluating behavioral and brain changes of baby rhesus macaques that were administered a standard course of childhood vaccines. (The National Autism Association, another organization that has questioned vaccine safety, also provided financial support for this research.) The latest paper in the multiyear project was published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). In it, the researchers concluded that vaccines did not cause any brain or behavioral changes in the primates.

Astute readers will recognize that I’ve written about similar papers before reporting that pediatric vaccines cause changes in behavior and/or brain structure in macaque monkeys. Specifically, way back in 2008, I noted the initial report of this ongoing study, first when preliminary results were reported as a poster presentation and then later another publication from the same group published in 2009. Steve Novella and a certain well-known friend of the blog have also described how poor experiments published from these studies in 2010 were, the latter of whom cited several other major criticisms of the study, not the least of which was some reporting of changes in the size of a part of the brain known as the amygdala that were…hard to believe. There were also a lot of issues with the control group chosen.

Basically, these abstracts and papers reported the results of an ongoing study looking at infant vaccines in macaque monkeys to see if there was an effect on socialization or changes in brain anatomy, the key hypothesis seeming to be that thimerosal-containing vaccines cause autism. (The investigators even added thimerosal to some of the vaccines because they weren’t being made with thimerosal anymore!) You can read the links I cited just now if you want the gory details; suffice to say that these were not good studies and not particularly good evidence that vaccines cause autism, as shown by the fact that homeopaths loved the study, and ultimately the paper examining hepatitis B specifically was withdrawn. Yet these reports were flogged for quite a while by the antivaccine movement as proof positive primate data that vaccines are Evil.

Fast forward to 2015. Now we have a much larger, much better study. It’s even by the same people. And guess what? It’s as negative as negative can be. No wonder SafeMinds and other antivaccinationists are unhappy. Let’s take a look. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Open vs Blinded Peer-Review

ScientificReview

The overall goal of science-based medicine is to maintain and improve the standard of science in the practice of medicine at every level. At the heart of the scientific basis of medical knowledge and practice is a process known as peer-review. We have occasionally written about peer-review on SBM, and once again the process is under the microscope over a specific question – should peer review be open or blinded?

What is peer review

The term peer-review refers to a pre-publication process in which a journal editor will send a submitted manuscript to 2-3 experts in a field relevant to the paper to carefully examine every aspect of the paper. They then provide a detailed analysis of the paper: is the research question relevant and appropriate, did the study design properly address the question, were the methods rigorous, was the statistical analysis appropriate, was the data presented fairly, are the conclusions supported by the data, did the authors account for other publications addressing the same issue, and did they address every possible question or objection?

The reviewers’ reports will make specific recommendations for changes that would be necessary to improve the paper, and also make their bottom-line recommendation: accept as is, accept with revisions, or deny. The journal editor(s) then rely upon those reviews, plus their own assessment, to make a final decision.

(more…)

Posted in: Medical Academia, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 4 of 92 «...23456...»