Archive for Science and the Media

Brian Clement claims Hippocrates treatments “reverse” multiple sclerosis

Brian Clement

Brian Clement

American charlatan Brian Clement made another trip to Canada recently and was caught on audiotape claiming multiple sclerosis could be “reversed” at the Hippocrates Health Institute (HHI), where he serves as Director. This is yet another in a series of his misrepresentations about the effectiveness of the quack treatments offered at HHI. Indeed, Clement calls to mind the old joke about inveterate liars:

Q: Know how can you tell this guy is lying?

A: His lips are moving.

Once again, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which has done an outstanding job exposing Clement and his mendacity, caught him in this particular fabrication. (The American media, by contrast, has largely ignored the story, even to the point of printing credulous puff pieces about Clement.) According to the CBC, it:

obtained a recording of a lecture Clement gave in September in Montreal where he said, “Last week, we had somebody at the institute that reversed multiple sclerosis.”

He went on to claim that many other people who visited his Florida spa, the Hippocrates Health Institute, saw similar results.

“A nurse that came to us two years ago was crippled, had braces on. By the time she left Hippocrates, she reversed the multiple sclerosis.

“And mainstream medicine, they think it’s remarkable. I’ve seen lots and lots of people over the years did that.”


Posted in: Cancer, Health Fraud, Legal, Politics and Regulation, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

To debate or not to debate: The strange bedfellows of Andrew Weil

Andrew Weil

To debate or not to debate, that is the question.
Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous quackery
Or to take arms against a sea of quackademia,
And, by opposing end them.

Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1, paraphrased badly.


The question of whether it is worthwhile to debate cranks, quacks, and advocates of pseudoscience has long been a contentious issue in the skeptic community. Those of you who’ve been reading my posts for a while know that I’ve always come down on the side that it is not a good idea One thing I’ve learned in my more than a decade of blogging, both here and at my not-so-super-secret other blog, is that advocates of pseudoscience love public debates. Indeed, whenever you see a skeptic agree to a public debate with an advocate of pseudoscience, it’s a damned sure bet that it wasn’t the skeptic who proposed it. I suppose it’s possible that there have been such instances that I’m unaware of, but I do know of a lot of instances where it was the other way around. I’ve even witnessed one myself, when our fearless founder Steve Novella debated antivaccine quack Julian Whitaker about vaccine safety at FreedomFest in Las Vegas while we were at TAM three years ago. Steve mopped the floor with Dr. Whitaker so dramatically that it almost changed my mind about the value of debates with quacks because, witnessing the debate, I saw that the arguments Dr. Whitaker marshaled were such hackneyed antivaccine talking points that I knew I could also have demolished them. Still, in the end, no minds were likely to be changed, and the question of vaccine safety was clearly being used as a tool to oppose school vaccine mandates or, as antivaccinationists like to call them deceptively, “forced vaccination.” Whether vaccines are safe and effective or not is a separate question from whether the government should mandate certain vaccines as a precondition for attending school or being in day care.

Over the years, I myself have been “challenged” to similar debates myself. Perhaps the most bizarre example occurred when someone claiming to represent HIV/AIDS denialist Christine Maggiore contacted me claiming that she wanted to arrange a debate between us. Maggiore, unfortunately, died a mere two years later of—you guessed it—AIDS-related complications. Although occasionally the ego gratification of being asked to participate in such events vied with my longstanding belief that debating cranks doesn’t sway anyone, sharing the stage with a real scientist does unduly elevate the crank in the eyes of the public. Besides, whatever the seeming outcome of the debate, you can count on the crank to declare victory and his believers to agree. In any event, science isn’t decided by the metrics used to judge who “wins” a public debate, which rely more on rhetoric and cleverness rather than science to decide the outcome. Finally, such debates are not without risks. Although Julian Whitaker, for example, was terrible at it, other cranks are adept at the Gish Gallop, and an unprepared skeptic or scientist can be made to appear clueless in front of a crowd that is almost always packed with supporters of the crank, not the skeptic.

Just last week, there was another “debate” challenge that led me to question my resolve not to debate cranks. It came from a most unexpected source.

Posted in: Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

Information Literacy and the Number Needed to Treat

NNTIncreasingly people are accessing healthcare information in order to make decisions for their own health. A 2010 Pew poll found that 80% of internet users will do so for health care information. This presents a huge potential benefit, but also a significant risk.

Information literacy

Daniel Levitin talks about the need for public information literacy, something we also discuss frequently here on SBM. If you are accessing the internet to inform your health care decisions, then you need to know how to determine the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the websites you are visiting. There is a big difference between NaturalNews (a crank site full of misinformation and conspiracy theories) and Nature News (an outlet for one of the most prestigious science journals in the world).

Even when you can discriminate between good and bad health information websites, the challenge remains to properly interpret the scientific information to which you now have access.


Posted in: Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

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


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.”


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.


Posted in: Science and Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

NPR and the False Choice of Alternative Medicine

NPR National Public Radio logo

A recent segment on NPR is an excellent representation of some of the mischief that promotion of unscientific medical treatments can create. The title is a good summary of the problem: “To Curb Pain Without Opioids, Oregon Looks To Alternative Treatments.

The entire segment is premised around a false dichotomy, between excess use of opioids and unproven alternative treatments. It is clear that the reporters didn’t even speak to a pain specialist who relies upon science-based treatments, or if they did the specialist was completely ignored because a SBM approach did not fit into the narrative of the report.

Non-opioid options for pain control

The problem addressed by the segment is real – the current technology of pain control is limited. I don’t want to sell pain management short, we have an array of powerful and effective treatments. There are limitations, however, and many patients are inadequately treated.


Posted in: Acupuncture, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

“Precision medicine”: Hope, hype, or both?

The cost to sequence a whole genome has been plummeting impressively since 2007.

The cost to sequence a whole genome has been plummeting impressively since 2007.

I am fortunate to have become a physician in a time of great scientific progress. Back when I was in college and medical school, the thought that we would one day be able to sequence the human genome (and now sequence hundreds of cancer genomes), to measure the expression of every gene in the genome simultaneously on a single “gene chip,” and to assess the relative abundance of every RNA transcript, coding and noncoding (such as microRNAs) simultaneously through next generation sequencing (NGS) techniques was considered, if not science fiction, so far off in the future as to be unlikely to impact medicine in my career. Yet here I am, mid-career, and all of these are a reality. The cost of rapidly sequencing a genome has plummeted. Basically, the first human genome cost nearly $3 billion to sequence, while recent developments in sequencing technology have brought that cost down to the point where the “$1,000 genome” is within sight, if not already here, as illustrated in the graph above published by the National Human Genome Research Institute. Whether the “$1,000 genome” is truly here or not, the price is down to a few thousand dollars. Compare that to the cost of, for instance, the OncoType DX 21-gene assay for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, which costs nearly $4,000 and is paid for by insurance because its results can spare many women from even more expensive chemotherapy.

So, ready or not, genomic medicine is here, whether we know enough or not to interpret the results in individual patients and use it to benefit them, so much so that President Obama announced a $215 million plan for research in genomic mapping and precision medicine known as the Precision Medicine Initiative. Meanwhile, the deeply flawed yet popular 21st Century Cures bill, which passed the House of Representatives, bets heavily on genomic research and precision medicine. As I mentioned when I discussed the bill, it’s not so much the genomic medicine funding that is the major flaw in the bill but rather its underlying assumption that encouraging the FDA to decrease the burden of evidence to approve new drugs and devices will magically lead to an explosion in “21st century cures,” the same old antiregulatory wine in a slightly new bottle. Be that as it may, one way or the other, the federal government is poised to spend lots of money on precision medicine.

Because I’m a cancer doctor, and, if there’s one area in medicine in which precision medicine is being hyped the hardest, it’s hard for me not to think that the sea change that is going on in medicine really hit the national consciousness four years ago. That was when Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs revealed that after his cancer had recurred as metastatic disease in 2010. Jobs had consulted with research teams at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and the Broad Institute to have the genome of his cancer and normal tissue sequenced, one of the first twenty people in the world to have this information. At the time (2010-2011), each genome sequence cost $100,000, which Jobs could easily afford. Scientists and oncologists looked at this information and used it to choose various targeted therapies for Jobs throughout the remainder of his life, and Jobs met with all his doctors and researchers from the three institutions working on the DNA from his cancer at the Four Seasons Hotel in Palo Alto to discuss the genetic signatures found in Jobs’ cancer and how best to target them. Jobs’ case, as we now know, was a failure. However much Jobs’ team tried to stay one step ahead of his cancer, the cancer caught up and passed whatever they could do. (more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Cancer, Clinical Trials, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

How should we treat DCIS?

How should we treat DCIS?

I’ve written more times than I can remember about the phenomenon of overdiagnosis and the phenomenon that is linked at the hip with it, overtreatment. Overdiagnosis is a problem that arises when large populations of asymptomatic, apparently healthy people are screened for a disease or a condition, the idea being that catching the disease at an earlier stage in its progression will allow for more successful treatment. Two prominent examples include—of course—screening for breast cancer with mammography and screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, and I’ve written about the problem of overdiagnosis with each of them on many occasions. Basically, overdiagnosis occurs when the screening test picks up what we call “preclinical” disease (i.e., disease that hasn’t become symptomatic) that, if left untreated, would never become symptomatic or endanger the health or life of the patient). Although intuitively, it seems to the lay public (and, truth be told, most doctors) that detecting cancer earlier must be inherently better, it turns out that it’s way more complicated than you think. There is a price to be paid for early diagnosis in the form of overtreatment of disease that doesn’t need treatment and for disease that is destined to threaten the life of the patient earlier treatment doesn’t always result in better outcomes. Also, whenever you screen for a condition in asymptomatic people, you will always—always—find much more of it, and the significance of those added diagnoses is not always clear, as a new study in JAMA Oncology shows.

DCIS and mammography: Some background

Before I get to the meat of the study, from my perspective, nowhere is the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer screening as pronounced than in the condition known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). DCIS is commonly referred to as “stage 0″ breast cancer and is characterized by milk duct cells that appear malignant but remain confined to the milk ducts. In other words, they haven’t invaded the tissue surrounding the ducts. In general, DCIS is treated similarly to breast cancer, with surgical excision, either by mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery, followed by radiation therapy if breast conserving surgery is used. Then, depending on its hormone receptor status, adjuvant treatment consists of blocking estrogen for five years. The rationale for this treatment is the view of DCIS as being a precursor to fully invasive breast cancer and that treating the DCIS will prevent the development of breast cancer. Over the last couple of decades, however, it has become clear that not all DCIS is created equal. Much of it will never progress to breast cancer in the lifetime of the woman (particularly if the woman is older, which means less time for fully malignant transformation to occur). Evidence suggesting this includes studies showing an increase in DCIS incidence by 16-fold since the 1970s, when mammography started to be introduced on a large scale, with little change in the incidence of invasive cancer. Today, 20-25% of mammography-detected breast cancer diagnoses are DCIS; forty years ago, DCIS was an uncommon diagnosis, except associated with an invasive cancer.

Posted in: Basic Science, Cancer, Clinical Trials, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

Medical Theater

Me and my wife, in a very small number of years from now.  YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

Me and my wife, in a very small number of years from now. YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts,

His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,

Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.

Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel

And shining morning face, creeping like snail

Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,

Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad

Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,

Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,

Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,

Seeking the bubble reputation

Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,

In fair round belly with good capon lined,

With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,

Full of wise saws and modern instances;

And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts

Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,

With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;

His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide

For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,

Turning again toward childish treble, pipes

And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,

That ends this strange eventful history,

Is second childishness and mere oblivion,

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII

This summer my wife and I have been transitioning somewhere between stage 5 and 6. My eldest left Tuesday for law school in Boston and my youngest leaves for college next week in LA. So we will soon be empty nesters. As part of the change we have been making a point of going out, to dinners, bars, concerts and theater. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine, Science and the Media, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

The evolving story of the harms of anti-inflammatory drugs

Advil (ibuprofen)

Owing to summer vacation, today’s post updates a 2011 post and a 2013 post with some new information.

Anti-inflammatory drugs are among the most well-loved products in the modern medicine cabinet. They can provide good pain control, reduce inflammation, and eliminate fever. We give non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in infancy, continuing through childhood and then adulthood for the aches and pains of modern living. It’s the later stages of life where NSAIDs are used most frequently, usually in the treatment of joint disease like osteoarthritis, which eventually affects pretty much everyone. Over 17 million Americans use NSAIDs on a daily basis, and this number will grow as the population ages. While they’re widely used, they also have a long list of side effects. Not only can they cause stomach ulcers and bleeding by damaging the lining of the gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular risks are also significant.

It was the arrival (and withdrawal) of the drugs Bextra (valdecoxib) and Vioxx (rofecoxib) that led to a much better understanding of the potential for these drugs to increase the risks of heart attacks and strokes. And it’s now well-documented that these effects are not limited to the “COX-2″ drugs – almost all NSAIDs, including the old standbys we have used for years, raise the risk of heart attacks and strokes. (more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Politics and Regulation, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

NCCIH and the true evolution of integrative medicine

NCCIH and the true evolution of integrative medicine

There can be no doubt that, when it comes to medicine, The Atlantic has an enormous blind spot. Under the guise of being seemingly “skeptical,” the magazine has, over the last few years, published some truly atrocious articles about medicine. I first noticed this during the H1N1 pandemic, when The Atlantic published an article lionizing flu vaccine “skeptic” Tom Jefferson, who, unfortunately, happens to be head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, entitled “Does the Vaccine Matter?” It was so bad that Mark Crislip did a paragraph-by-paragraph fisking of the article, while Revere also explained just where the article went so very, very wrong. Over at a blog known to many here, the question was asked whether The Atlantic (among other things) matters. It didn’t take The Atlantic long to cement its lack of judgment over medical stories by publishing, for example, a misguided defense of chelation therapy, a rather poor article by Megan McArdle on the relationship between health insurance status and mortality, and an article in which John Ioannidis’ work was represented as meaning we can’t believe anything in science-based medicine. Topping it all off was the most notorious article of all, the most blatant apologetics for alternative medicine in general and quackademic medicine in particular that Steve Novella or I have seen in a long time. The article was even entitled “The Triumph of New Age Medicine.”

Now The Atlantic has published an article that is, in essence, The Triumph of New Age Medicine, Part Deux. In this case, the article is by Jennie Rothenberg Gritz, a senior editor at The Atlantic, and entitled “The Evolution of Alternative Medicine.” It is, in essence, pure propaganda for the paired phenomena of “integrative” medicine and quackademic medicine, without which integrative medicine would likely not exist. The central message? It’s the same central (and false) message that advocates of quackademic medicine have been promoting for at least 25 years: “Hey, this stuff isn’t quackery any more! We’re scientific, ma-an!” You can even tell that’s going to be the central message from the tag line under the title:

When it comes to treating pain and chronic disease, many doctors are turning to treatments like acupuncture and meditation—but using them as part of a larger, integrative approach to health.


Posted in: Acupuncture, History, Medical Academia, Naturopathy, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (19) →
Page 1 of 38 12345...»