“May your epididymitis be treated with acupressure by André the Giant!”
The new year is upon us, and with it comes a unique opportunity for the Science-Based Medicine team to look deep into our crystal balls, to channel our Atlantean spirit guides, and to ride the waves of cosmic consciousness in order to bring to you our predictions for 2016. But before you scoff at our collective powers of prognostication, know that we have never made a prediction that has not come to pass. We’ve also never made any official predictions before, but that’s neither here nor there.
In the process of discussing what will become of this new alternative medicine fad (have you heard of it?) in the coming year, I have discovered that the contributors to SBM are all extremely pessimistic. Sadly, the vast majority of the responses to my request for predictions were focused on the future advances of pseudoscience in medicine and the steady decline of our ability to tell the difference between reality and medical fiction. But I agree with each and every one. (more…)
Listen to your science: Eat your vegetables.
This is an expansion of a post I did over on the Society for Science-Based Medicine blog about this time last year. The original post, which got far more traffic than is usual for the SFSBM, is a good example of how science works and the good that it can do. The hard work of real science illustrated here serves as a striking counterpoint to the slap-dash system of pseudoscience, which churns out fake diseases, causes, and cures by the dozen based on a fuzzy understanding of real science fueled by a healthy dose of imagination.
Naturopaths and “functional medicine” practitioners would have the public believe that they are the true experts on nutrition and health. Even though their nutritional advice contains a large serving of hooey and a big helping of dietary supplements, which they are happy to sell to patients.
So it was with great interest that I read the obituary of Dr. Lee Wattenberg in the New York Times.
Dr. Wattenberg published a landmark paper in the journal Cancer Research that reviewed 36 years of animal studies on the effects that certain compounds had on the development of cancer. The paper laid the framework for understanding how these compounds work. . . .
He showed that cabbage, brussel sprouts, cauliflower and broccoli inhibit the development of carcinogens. He isolated a compound in garlic that decreased “by a factor of three” the chances that animals injected with cancer agents would develop that cancer. He found two chemicals in coffee that neutralize free radicals, which are harmful chemicals commonly implicated in the onset of cancer.
I’ve frequently noted that one of the things most detested by quacks and promoters of pseudoscience is peer review. Creationists hate peer review. HIV/AIDS denialists hate it. Anti-vaccine cranks like those at Age of Autism hate it. Indeed, as a friend of mine, Mark Hoofnagle, pointed out several years ago, pseudoscientists and cranks of all stripes hate it. There’s a reason for that, of course, namely that it’s hard to pass peer review if you’re peddling pseudoscience, although, unfortunately, with the rise of “integrative medicine,” it’s nowhere near as difficult as it once was.
Be that as it may, peer review, the process by which scientific papers are evaluated by scientific “peers” to look for problems with the science and decide if the paper is appropriate for publication in a scientific journal, is a concept that dates back hundreds of years. However, for the most part, before the middle of the 20th century, the ultimate determination of whether a paper was appropriate for scientific publication was made by editors or editorial committees. Opinions of external reviewers were sometimes sought when deemed appropriate by journal editors, but by no means was this the practice for most manuscripts. Over the last six or seven decades, external peer review by scientists chosen by the journal editor evaluating a submission has become the standard. Similarly, decisions regarding whether or not to fund grant applications are now generally made by a panel of external reviewers. In the case of the NIH, these panels are called study sections and consist of scientists with expertise in the types of applications being referred to the study section for evaluation, along with (usually) a statistician or two and officials from the NIH who take care of organizing and running the meetings of the panel. The scientific members of a study section usually include “permanent” members, who are assigned to fixed terms on the study section, and ad hoc members, called in for one or a few meetings as needed and deemed necessary by the NIH.
Editor’s note: This post is a collaborative effort between Grant Ritchey, a Science-Based Medicine semi-regular, and Stephanie Tornberg-Belanger, a co-author of the research paper discussed below and who brought the study to Grant’s attention. We are pleased to welcome Stephanie as a guest contributor to SBM.
That amazing coconut oil! What can’t it do?
In his last SBM post, Grant reported on a systematic review of the literature that undermined just about everything dentists had been taught in dental school and have been preaching to patients since The Olden Times: flossing, as it turns out, is not the be-all, end-all that we’ve been led to believe with regard to cavity and gum disease prevention. While the message itself was interesting and relevant, the meta-message in that piece is that we all must be willing to slay our own sacred cows when the evidence demands it, even if it requires shedding long-held, cherished beliefs. This is difficult for any human being to do, and skeptics who are presumably open minded are no different (and can sometimes be worse, because we are often overconfidently convinced of our “rightness”).
So with that in mind, gather ’round children, because we have another meta-message for you. This one deals with coconut oil.
(Pause for gasps.) (more…)
Chelation with intravenous EDTA (disodium ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid) has long been used for heavy metal poisoning. It binds the metal ions and facilitates their excretion from the body. In recent years it has been used for many other indications that are not evidence-based, such as autism and coronary heart disease.
The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) was done to assess the effectiveness and safety of EDTA plus high-dose oral vitamins for preventing second heart attacks in patients who had already had one. An article on The People’s Pharmacy website portrays the study as strongly positive. The Graedons, authors of the website, claim that science supports the use of chelation. They report that for every 12 patients undergoing chelation, one heart attack will be prevented over a five-year period. They cite a 5-year NNT (number needed to treat) of 16 for statin therapy and they conclude that:
EDTA chelation outperformed statins because fewer people needed to receive treatment to achieve a desirable outcome.
While it is both easy and fun to point out the inadequacies of unscientific modalities such as chiropractic and homeopathy, our goal at Science-Based Medicine is the application of a single standard to all medical practice, even if it stings a bit. We are far from perfect. While I firmly believe that most conventional healthcare professionals are good people who strive to provide the best care possible for their patients, I accept that there is room for improvement and pediatric medicine is certainly no exception.
In fact, one of the characteristics that best distinguishes conventional from so-called alternative medicine is the simple fact that we systematically attempt to recognize and correct our errors on an individual and system wide level. That we evolve in the light of new and better evidence, albeit sluggishly as a rule rather than an exception, allows me to sleep at night. There is no quality control in alternative medicine. There are only shifting trends in the marketing of nonsense to the curious, desperate, and gullible. (more…)
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…)
A couple of years ago, the James Randi Educational Foundation commissioned me to develop a series of 10 video lectures on Science-Based Medicine. After a lot of work and many vicissitudes, it has finally gone live on YouTube. http://web.randi.org/educational-modules.html The lecture titles are:
- Science-Based Medicine vs. Evidence-Based Medicine
- What Is CAM?
- Naturopathy and Herbal Medicine
- Energy Medicine
- Miscellaneous “Alternatives”
- Pitfalls in Research
- Science-Based Medicine in the Media and Politics
The series is accompanied by a Course Guide that can be downloaded as a pdf.
Strong medicine…along with a little nonsense
Since passing my board exams in family practice in 1979 I have relied heavily on the American Academy of Family Physicians for continuing medical education via the American Family Physician and the AAFP home study programs. The AAFP prides itself on its evidence-based approach to medicine. In general, it delivers. But the recent FP Essentials Number 432 on “Chronic Pain Management” fell short. It recommended treating chronic pain with acupuncture, chiropractic, touch therapy, and S-adenosyl methionine (SAM-e), presenting them in a way that misled readers into thinking that the recommendations were based on good scientific evidence. They were not.
With 6,500 peer reviewed journals and over two million papers published every year, it is easy to find a study to support pretty much any point of view. John Ioannidis taught us that most published research findings are false, with preliminary studies frequently being overturned by larger, better follow-up studies. When evaluating the evidence for a treatment, it is not enough to find one or two positive studies. It is essential to also look for negative studies and for systematic analyses that weigh all the published evidence, and to put all the available evidence into perspective. The authors failed to do that. (more…)