Articles

Archive for Science and Medicine

If you’re sick, even the ridiculous can seem sublime

Let’s say you have cancer. And let’s say you’re really, really sick of having cancer. And let’s say that you’re also pretty tired of scans, chemo, radiation, hair loss, nausea. And let’s say you’re not really sick and tired of living, but actually pretty happy to be alive.

Finally, let’s say someone says that they can get rid of your cancer, without all of those pesky side-effects. It’s a win-win, no?

No.

It’s easy to believe in promises that are congruent with our wishes. That’s what makes human beings so easy to deceive. A case in point is the VIBE Machine, a discredited quackery device. This thing was marketed until about a year ago. Not surprisingly, Orac has written about this thing in his Friday Dose of Woo. Stephen Barrett, the King of Quack-Busters, has also tracked the sordid history of this rip-off. The device was recalled back in 2008, so this shouldn’t even be a story anymore, except that word of the device still circulates among cancer patients and their friends. The company’s website is down, which is good, but this thing is still out there.

At least one website is still promoting it in detail. The website is, needless to say, a whole lot of words that make no sense: (more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Health Fraud, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (5) →

“There must be a reason,” or how we support our own false beliefs

ResearchBlogging.orgFor a change of pace, I want to step back from medicine for this post, although, as you will see (I hope), the study I’m going to discuss has a great deal of relevance to the topics covered regularly on this blog. One of the most frustrating aspects of being a skeptic and championing science-based medicine is just how unyielding belief in pseudscience is. Whatever realm of science in which there is pseudoscience I wander into, I find beliefs that simply will not yield to science or reason. Whether it be creationism, quackery such as homeopathy, the anti-vaccine movement, the “9/11 Truth” movement, moon hoaxers, or any of a number of pseudoscientific movements and conspiracy theories, any skeptic who ventures into discussions of such a topic with believers will become very frustrated very fast. It takes a lot of tenacity to keep going back to the well to argue the same points over and over again and refute the same nonsense you’ve refuted over and over again. Many do not have sufficient stick-to-it-iveness, leading them to throw up their hands and withdraw from the fight.

Although some of us here have blamed this phenomenon on “cultishness” and, make no mistake, I do think that there is an element of that in many of these movement, particularly the anti-vaccine movements, cultishness alone can’t explain why people hold on so hard to beliefs that are clearly not supported by science or evidence, such as the belief that vaccines are responsible for an “autism epidemic.” Then last week, what should pop up in the newsfeeds that I regularly monitor but a rather interesting article in Science Daily entitled How We Support Our False Beliefs. It was a press release about a study1 that appeared a few months ago in Sociological Inquiry, and the the study was described thusly:
(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (10) →

Oriental Medicine or Medical Orientalism?

The following is the second adapted excerpt of an upcoming article called “The Untold Story of Acupuncture.” It is scheduled to be published in December 2009 in Focus in Alternative and Complementary Therapies (FACT), a review journal that presents the evidence on alternative medicine in an analytical and impartial manner. This section argues that the current flurry of interest in acupuncture and Oriental Medicine stems predominantly out of postmodern opposition to Enlightenment rationalism, and bears witness to Orientalism and consumerism in contemporary medicine.

In five years, from 1971 to 1975, l directly experienced Est [Erhard Seminars Training], gestalt therapy, bioenergetics, rolfing, massage, jogging, health foods, tai chi, Esalen, hypnotism, modern dance, meditation, Silva Mind Control, Arica, acupuncture, sex therapy, Reichian therapy and More House — a smorgasbord course in New Consciousness.1

 Jerry Rubin (1938 – 1994)

Although acupuncture has been known in the US since the 19th Century, its therapeutic claims were dismissed or judged to be “much overrated” by the medical community.2,3 Nonetheless, the publication of a report in the New York Times by James Reston, a reporter in President Nixon’s press corps who had received acupuncture for postoperative cramps in Beijing in 1971 changed this perception, and triggered a flurry of interest amongst the American public and some in the medical community.4 Within the following months, journalists, scientists and physicians rushed to China to withness this peculiar phenomenon, which the popular press and a few scientific journals sensationalized by reporting that thousands of successful operations of all sorts were being carried out in PRC using acupuncture anesthesia; some elaborated on its widespread use for a myriad of conditions, to include paralysis and deafness!5

These unconfirmed claims in the heady social and intellectual climate of the 1970s–meaning the American Counterculture; the rejection of mainstream values, beliefs and ideals; the youth movement, nonconformism and the hippie subculture, the belief in a “New” and  “Cosmic” consciousness and the cult phenomenon; revolutionary ideas mixed with environmentalism; organic farming and the avoidance of pollution, agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals; nonconformism and alternative lifestyles; a syncretistic mix of psychedelic drugs, Eastern religions and Native American spiritualities; the resurgence of the taste for mystic, occult, and magical phenomena;6,7 and the belief in the existence of a separate and non-ordinary reality, as upheld by one of the fathers of the New Age movement, Carlos Castaneda8–gave the justification to view acupuncture as a “heal all” therapy based on alternate perceptions of health and disease.  This amalgamation happened precisely when a whole generation of disenchanted Westerners were eager to find novel solutions for their existential predicaments; one that would be free from the constraints of the so-called “repressive rationality” of modern science in “overdeveloped” societies.9,10. Most Western publications on acupuncture therefore fostered the belief that Eastern healing arts have crucial characteristics directly and unequivocally opposite to the repressive rationalism of the West.
(more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, History, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (53) →

SBM in primary practice: one student’s experience

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Jones is off this week; fortunately, we have this guest post by Tim Kreider, our science-based medical student. Enjoy!

My first clerkship of my third year of medical school was Family Medicine, and I had a great experience. After the first two years spent mostly with books and then a three-year interlude in a basic science lab, these past five weeks were my first extended foray into the world of patient care. I had a few lectures and seminars on campus, but most days were spent in a primary care office learning on the job. I was assigned to an office attached to a community hospital with a Family Medicine residency program, so I was able to work with both attending physicians and residents in training. I learned a lot and gained some much needed confidence regarding my clinical exam skills, which were rather rusty after grad school.

I have heard as a criticism of the SBM mission that practicing medicine “in the real world” is different from what evidence-obsessed, ivory tower dwellers think it should be. Therefore I approached my Family Medicine clerkship as my first chance to see the challenges and realities of practice outside the university setting. How would the practice of community-based physicians compare to the perhaps lofty ideals espoused by academics? (more…)

Posted in: Medical Academia, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (6) →

The perils and pitfalls of doing a “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” study

The anti-vaccine movement is nothing if not plastic. It “evolves” very rapidly in response to selective pressures applied to it in the form of science refuting its key beliefs. For instance, when multiple studies looking at the MMR vaccine and autism failed to confirm the myth that the MMR causes autism or “autistic enterocolitis,” most recently late last year, it was not a problem to the anti-vaccine movement. Neither was it a major problem to the movement when multiple studies similarly failed to find a link between mercury in the preservative thimerosal that used to be in most childhood vaccines and is no more (except the flu vaccine) and autism. No problem! Andrew Wakefield is alleged, based on strong evidence, to have falsified his data alleging a link between the MMR vaccine and “autistic enterocolitis”? Fuggedabouddit! The anti-vaccine movement simply pivoted neatly, de-emphasized points that the evidence was so clearly against that even they couldn’t spin it to a positive anymore, and found new bogeymen. These days, it’s the “toxins” (such as formaldehyde and the latest antivax bogeyman, squalene), and “too many too soon” (a gambit given seeming respectability by Dr. Bob Sears and Dr. Jay Gordon, apologists for and supplicants to the anti-vaccine movement both.

However, there is one trait of the anti-vaccine movement that, however its camouflaging plumage may evolve, never, ever changes. It is as immutable as believers say that God is. That trait is that, whatever other claims, the anti-vaccine movement makes, at its core it is always about the vaccines. Always. No matter how often science fails to find a link between vaccines and autism or vaccines and whatever other horreur du jour the anti-vaccine movement tries to pin on vaccines, no matter how many studies do not support the viewpoint that vaccines cause autism, no matter how much the anti-vaccine movement tries to deny and obfuscate by saying that it is not “anti-vaccine” but rather “pro-safe vaccine,” at its core the anti-vaccine movement is about fear and loathing of vaccines. Always. When inconvenient science doesn’t support their views, anti-vaccine activists either ignore the science, distort the science, or launch ad hominems against the people doing the science or citing the science. And, as I said before, the claims of the anti-vaccine movement evolve. Never again will the anti-vaccine movement make the horrific mistake of yoking itself to a hypothesis that is as easily testable as the hypothesis that mercury in vaccines causes autism. The claim that mercury in vaccines causes autism predicted that, if thimerosal were removed from vaccines or reduced to pre-“epidemic levels” of the early 1990s, then autism rates should plummet. Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines (the sole exception being some flu vaccines), reducing infant mercury exposure from vaccines to levels not seen since the 1980s; yet autism rates continue to rise. This is about as resounding a refutation of the hypothesis that mercury in vaccines is a major cause or contributor to autism that even the anti-vaccine movement has backed away from the pure claim, which has now evolved to unnamed “environmental toxins,” either in concert with mercury or with other nasty things, as being the Real One True Cause of Autism.

It’s evolution in action. These new claims are much “fitter” because they are much harder to falsify through scientific research, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
(more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Medical Ethics, Public Health, Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (56) →

Science versus pseudoscience

I know this one’s been floating around the blogosphere for a while, but it finally made its way to me at a time when I needed something lighthearted and amusing (warning: some profanity and at least one use of the “F” word):

Best quotes:

“Well, science doesn’t know everything.” Well, science knows it doesn’t know anything, otherwise it would stop … But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you.”

…”nutritionist” isn’t a protected term. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. “Dietitician” is the legally protected term. “Dietician” is like dentist, and “nutritionist” is like tootheologist.”

“I’m sorry if you’re into homeopathy. It’s water. How often does it need to be said? It’s just water. You’re healing yourself. Why don’t you give yourself the credit?

I just wish more comics did routines like this. Sometimes humor can get the message through where analysis can’t.

Posted in: Health Fraud, Homeopathy, Humor, Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (10) →

Functional Medicine IV

When I started this series on Functional Medicine, David Gorski suggested looking at Mark Hyman’s web page, which I had seen months before, but thought did not reveal much. That was a wrong. It shows a lot, and I suggest bloggers et al review it.

So I decided on a fourth “functional medicine” (FM) installment, in search of what it FM really is. On the Mark Hyman web page and in his Public TV monolog fund-raiser,  Hyman follows a seven point outline of what he believes Fuctional Medicine (“FM”) is. If one follows the 7 “keys” as he writes, optimum health, “ultra-wellness” happens. Here are the points:

  1. Environmental inputs
  2. Inflammation
  3. Hormones
  4. Gut & digestive health
  5. Detoxification
  6. Energy/Mitochondria/Oxidative Stress
  7. Mind body

(more…)

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

Leave a Comment (18) →

Science-Based Medicine 101: Reproducibility

So far I have explained why most research (if not carefully designed) will lead to a false positive result. This inherent bias is responsible for many of the illusionary treatment benefits that we hear about so commonly through the media (whether they’re reporting about CAM or Western medicine), because it is their job to relay information in an entertaining way more so than an accurate manner (i.e. good science makes bad television).Then I explained a three step process for determining the trustworthiness of health news and research. We can remember these steps with a simple mnemonic: C-P-R.

The C stands for credibility– in other words, “consider the source” – is the research published in a top tier medical journal with a scientifically rigorous review process?

The P stands for plausibility– is the proposed finding consistent with known principles of physics, chemistry, and physiology or would accepting the result require us to suspend belief in everything we’ve learned about science to date?

And finally we arrive at R – reproducibility. If the research study were repeated, would similar results be obtained? (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (4) →

Why We Need Science: “I saw it with my own eyes” Is Not Enough

I recently wrote an article for a community newspaper attempting to explain to scientifically naive readers why testimonial “evidence” is unreliable; unfortunately, they decided not to print it. I considered using it here, but I thought it was too elementary for this audience. I have changed my mind and I am offering it below (with apologies to the majority of our readers), because it seems a few of our readers still don’t “get” why we have to use rigorous science to evaluate claims. People can be fooled, folks. All people. That includes me and it includes you. Richard Feynman said

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool.

Science is the only way to correct for our errors of perception and of attribution. It is the only way to make sure we are not fooling ourselves. Either Science-Based Medicine has not done a good job of explaining these vital facts, or some of our readers are unable or unwilling to understand our explanations.

Our commenters still frequently offer testimonials about how some CAM method “really worked for me.” They fail to understand that they have no basis for claiming that it “worked.” All they can really claim is that they observed an improvement following the treatment. That could indicate a real effect or it could indicate an inaccurate observation or it could indicate a post hoc ergo propter hoc error, a false assumption that temporal correlation meant causation. Such observations are only a starting point: we need to do science to find out what the observations mean. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (87) →

The Microbial Metagenome

First some background.  I was first directed to the Marshall protocol by a reader who wondered about the information the found on the web.  So I went to the web and looked at the available information, much as any patient would, and discussed what I found there.

I have subsequently been lead to believe that none of the information on the website http://www.marshallprotocol.com can be considered up to date or accurate.  As as result of,  I have told that my post is chockablock with errors, although, outside of writing doxycycline where I should have put minocycline, I am left in the dark as to exactly what my errors are.  I am told that it is my responsibility to locate the errors in the last post, yet I can find none when compared to the website.

However, to remedy the deficiency of having reviewed inaccurate and out of date material,  I have been sent 6 articles that I am informed represent the state of the art in understanding the science behind the Marshall protocol.  Ah, the peer reviewed medical literature.  An opportunity to carefully read and critique new  ideas.  It is one of the reasons people publish: to see if their ideas can withstand the scrutiny of others.

Several of these papers concern Vitamin D,  the Vitamin D receptor, and olmesartan which I will review, perhaps, another time.  I don’t find them a compelling read, but it not an area about which I have more than a standard medical knowledge. The other papers concern the role of infection in autoimmune diseases, which I will discuss here.  It is easier as an infectious disease doctor  to read this literature as I am, as least as far as the American Board on Internal Medicine is concerned, a specialist in the field.  Alternatively, I am a closed minded tool of the medical industrial complex who only seeks to push his own twisted, narrow agenda at the expense of suffering patients (1).  We can’t all be perfect.
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (30) →
Page 60 of 88 «...3040505859606162...»