Alternative Medicine Is Infiltrating Veterinary Continuing Education

We want the veterinarians who care for our animals to continue their education and keep up to date by learning about new developments in science. A new proposal for veterinary continuing education would encourage them to learn to use questionable treatments based on pseudoscience and fantasy.

We want the veterinarians who care for our animals to continue their education and keep up to date by learning about new developments in science. A new proposal for veterinary continuing education would encourage them to learn to use questionable treatments based on pseudoscience and fantasy.

My friend Carmen Czachor is a science-based veterinarian practicing in Port Angeles, Washington. She has alerted me to a disturbing development that she fears will “put veterinary medicine back in the dark ages.” The Washington State Department of Health is contemplating a rule change in the regulations requiring continuing education for veterinarians. Current requirements are for 30 hours of continuing education every 3 years; the only restriction is that no more than 10 hours can be earned in practice management courses. The Veterinary Board of Governors had observed an increase in the volume of continuing education courses related to CAVM (complementary and alternative veterinary medicine) and they wanted to provide some guidance. They explain:

The board originally proposed a ten hour limit on the number of veterinary CAVM CE hours that can be earned in any three year reporting period. After stakeholder feedback from multiple veterinary practitioners who practice solely in CAVM, the board decided to revisit the proposal. The board now proposes to establish a twenty hour limit on CAVM continuing education and add a ten hour minimum requirement for conventional medicine. The board finds that doing so would not result in a reduction in the quality of care provided and supports the consumer’s choices about what kind of care they seek.

Note: “stakeholder feedback from multiple veterinary practitioners who practice solely in CAVM.” I find this alarming. Veterinarians are licensed to practice veterinary medicine, not CAVM. Alternative medicine is called “alternative” because it is not supported by the kind of evidence that would earn it a place in conventional medicine. What does it mean that veterinarians are “practicing solely in CAVM”? Does that mean they have abandoned the conventional veterinary medicine that they were licensed to practice?

And how on earth did they determine that the proposal “would not result in a reduction in the quality of care provided”? They just made that up because they wanted to believe it and because they believe alternative medicine constitutes quality care. (more…)

Posted in: Politics and Regulation, Veterinary medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

“Non-pharmacological treatments for pain” ≠ CAM, no matter how much NCCIH wishes it so

NCCIH #TalkPain

I’ve had the Monday spot on this blog for quite a long time now. While there are many advantages to posting on Monday, not the least of which is having more time to put a post together (although that is also a disadvantage because it incentivizes my taking more time than I sometimes should), one distinct disadvantage is that all the Monday holidays are mine. That leaves me a choice on, for example, Memorial Day and Labor Day every year. It’s a choice with three options: The first is: Don’t post. (Do stop laughing, please. I know it’s me.) The second is: Use a guest post. I thought about this, and there are guest posts in the pipeline, but I don’t like to use a guest post just because I’m feeling lazy. It strikes me as an abuse of being the managing editor. Finally, I could post, which is what I decided to do.

I mainly decided to do a post because late last week there was something to blog about that was pretty important and interesting, courtesy of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), which was formerly known as the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). Basically, on September 1, the NCCIH published a press release, “Review Examines Clinical Trial Evidence on Complementary Approaches for Five Painful Conditions.” Elsewhere, NCCIH Lead Epidemiologist and first author of the review, Richard Nahin, PhD, MPH, bragged on the NCCIH blog, “New Review Offers Providers and Researchers Evidence-Based Information on Complementary Health Approaches for Pain.” It didn’t take long for headlines to start appearing that said things like:

Posted in: Acupuncture, Clinical Trials, Medical Academia, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Leech Therapy


Imagine this Leach attached to your knee.

Medicine can be aggravatingly slow to change and it can take years for new diagnostic or therapeutic interventions to percolate through the medical community. It can take equally long for old practices to fade. I have tried to follow the dictum of “be neither the first to try nor the last to abandon a therapy.”

But nothing in the real world rivals that of the pseudo-medical world, who follow the dictum “be the first to try and the last to abandon a therapy.”

New, often preliminary, findings are spun into grand diagnostic and treatment plans, especially in the world of naturopathy, where there is a fondness for innumerable one cause of all disease.

And the old is never abandoned, although there is a weird propensity for various pseudo-medicines to combine to produce a new mutant strain of pseudo-medicine. But leeches?

Who knew that leeches were still a thing? (more…)

Posted in: Humor, Naturopathy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Nada for NADA: “acudetox” not effective in addiction treatment

NADA auricular acupuncture
The National Acupuncture Detoxification Association (NADA) teaches and promotes a standardized auricular acupuncture protocol, sometimes called “acudetox.” NADA claims acudetox

encourages community wellness . . . for behavioral health, including addictions, mental health, and disaster & emotional trauma.

I do not know what “community wellness” is or how one measures whether wellness has been successfully “encouraged.” In any event, in the NADA protocol, acupuncture needles are inserted bilaterally into the auricle (outer portion) of the ear at a depth of 1-3 mm at five specific points (sympathetic, shen men, lung, liver, and kidney) and left in place for 45 minutes.


Beyond the actual needling treatment, a key element of the protocol specifies qualities of behavior and attitude on the part of the clinician, consistent with what is known as the Spirit of NADA.

NADA claims there is

strong evidence for the effect of the NADA protocol in improving patient outcomes [in addiction treatment] in terms of program retention, reductions in cravings, anxiety, sleep disturbance and need for pharmaceuticals.


Posted in: Acupuncture, Clinical Trials, Legal, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

No Compromise on Vaccine Refusal


A few years ago some colleagues and I at the Institute for Science in Medicine were debating what our official position should be regarding non-medical vaccine exemptions. We all agreed that the ideal situation would be no non-medical exemptions. There is no legitimate reason for such exemptions and the evidence clearly shows that states who allow non-medical vaccine exemptions have lower vaccination rates.

The debate was about whether or not that should be our only position, to take a strong and uncompromising stance, or should we also advocate that states who do allow non-medical exemptions to make them as difficult as possible (which also is effective in reducing vaccine refusal). The concern was that the perfect solution was politically too difficult and the lesser solution was at least something (like a prosecutor including lesser charges in case they lose on the big charge).

I advocated for the latter position, which is what we ultimately decided. After the Disneyworld measles outbreak, however, I think the political calculus has changed. It is much more politically viable to simply advocate for the elimination of all non-medical exemptions. (more…)

Posted in: Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

Efforts to Encourage Breastfeeding Like the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) May Have Unintended Consequences

A brand-new newborn. According to BFHI rules, he must maintain continuous skin contact with Mom and start breastfeeding with in the first half hour.

A brand-new newborn. According to BFHI rules, he must maintain continuous skin contact with Mom and start breastfeeding within the first half hour.

“Breast is best,” but current efforts to increase the rate of breastfeeding may be misguided. A recent article in JAMA Pediatrics by pediatricians Joel Bass, Tina Gartley, and Ronald Kleinman is titled “Unintended Consequences of Current Breastfeeding Initiatives.” They criticize the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), saying “there is now emerging evidence that full compliance…may inadvertently be promoting potentially hazardous practices and/or having counterproductive outcomes.”


The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative was launched by WHO and UNICEF in 1991 and has been adopted in 152 countries. In the US it has been promoted as the standard of care by government agencies like the CDC and the Joint Commission, and has been implemented by a growing number of hospitals. The criteria for a hospital’s Baby Friendly accreditation include:

  1. Have a written breastfeeding policy that is routinely communicated to all health care staff.
  2. Train all health care staff in skills necessary to implement this policy.
  3. Inform all pregnant women about the benefits and management of breastfeeding.
  4. Help mothers initiate breastfeeding within one half-hour of birth.
  5. Show mothers how to breastfeed and maintain lactation, even if they should be separated from their infants.
  6. Give newborn infants no food or drink other than breastmilk, not even sips of water, unless medically indicated.
  7. Practice rooming in – that is, allow mothers and infants to remain together 24 hours a day.
  8. Encourage breastfeeding on demand.
  9. Give no artificial teats or pacifiers (also called dummies or soothers) to breastfeeding infants
  10. Foster the establishment of breastfeeding support groups and refer mothers to them on discharge from the hospital or clinic.


Posted in: Obstetrics & gynecology

Leave a Comment (0) →

The cruel sham that will not die: Right-to-try marches on in California and beyond

The cruel sham that will not die: Right-to-try marches on in California and beyond

We here at SBM, particularly Jann Bellamy and myself, frequently write about naturopathic licensing laws, noting that naturopaths are relentless. They keep trying and trying to get states to pass laws granting their specialty licensure, and, like the Terminator trying to kill Sarah Connor or her son, they absolutely will not stop, ever, until science-based medicine is dead there are naturopathic licensing laws in all 50 states by 2025. Part of their strategy is that they never give up. No matter how many times a given state legislature denies them what they want, they are soon back, and they keep coming back again and again and again and again until they get the law they want passed. It’s the problem with playing defense, naturopaths can fail as many times as they have resources for, defenders of science-based medicine can’t afford to fail once. Worse, once such laws are passed, naturopaths are back again and again and again and again to keep trying to expand their scope of practice. It never ceases to amaze me that physicians’ groups go ballistic protecting their turf when advance practice nurses lobby to expand their scope of practice to encompass what they are trained for but remain more or less silent when naturopathic quacks push to have the state place its imprimatur on their pseudoscience.

Sadly, I’ve come to the conclusion that “right to try” laws are a lot like naturopathic licensing laws in that respect, only worse. Why worse? Unlike naturopathic licensing bills, right-to-try bills rarely die; most of them pass. In fact, only one right-to-try bill that I’m aware of has ever been successfully resisted and blocked from becoming law, and that required a veto by the governor. I’m referring, of course, to the California right-to-try bill vetoed last fall by Governor Jerry Brown. Amazingly, Brown’s veto held. Well, a new right-to-try bill is back in California, less than a year after the old right-to-try law had been vetoed. Passed in the legislature by overwhelming margins, it’s now back on Gov. Brown’s desk, and he has to decide what to do with it.

Its supporters hope that this time will be different, that this time Gov. Brown will sign the bill. They might be right. The rationale Gov. Brown used when vetoing the bill was that he wanted to wait to see what happened with reform of the FDA Expanded Access (sometimes called “Compassionate Use”) program. It’s quite possible that, despite the FDA moving forward with such reform, right-to-try advocates might persuade the governor that it isn’t enough. They’re wrong. In any case, given the resurrection of the California right-to-try law, now seemed like a good time to review what’s been happening with these laws since last year and discuss the situation in California and at the federal level. It isn’t good for patients or drug development. On the other hand, now that it’s been nearly two and a half years since the first right-to-try law was passed in Colorado, we have time to see just what a sham these laws are.

But first, since it’s been nearly a year since I last discussed right-to-try, let’s review why these laws are so pernicious.

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Ethics, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Good Thinking Society’s successful challenge to NHS homeopathy

[Editor’s note: For no reason whatsoever other than to share great news, we bring you this contribution from Michael Marshall, project director of the Good Thinking Society and vice president of the Merseyside Skeptics Society.]
Homeopathy in the UK, flag, smallAs regular readers of this blog may know, skeptics here in the UK have been campaigning for some time to end the funding of homeopathic remedies by the National Health Service. This is a campaign that we at the Good Thinking Society – the charity I work for full-time, led by science writer Simon Singh (yes, that Simon Singh) – have been at the forefront of over the last couple of years, and we recently secured a significant victory as NHS Liverpool brought their homeopathy service to a close, as a direct result of the legal challenge we brought in 2014.

While the background to our project was ably and generously described by Harriet Hall here at Science Based Medicine following her appearance at the QED conference last year, it is perhaps worth detailing the progress we’ve made in the last year, and how this success came about. After a series of Freedom of Information requests allowed us to determine where in the country homeopathy is funded by public funds, we were able to monitor for new funding decisions being made – knowing that any decision to spend public funds can be subjected to scrutiny and to legal challenges if not carried out correctly. (more…)

Posted in: Announcements, Homeopathy, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

An Unexpected Miscellany of Medical Malarkey



I had originally intended a focused discussion of a single topic, but life circumstances have conspired to prevent me from doing so.  In the place of my intended post, please enjoy the following collection of hastily assembled pseudomedical odds and ends brought to my attention over the past few weeks. (more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Do pill organizers help or hurt?

"Blister packs" help people take their medication on the correct schedule.

“Blister packs” help people take their medication on the correct schedule.

In order for medication to work, getting a prescription filled isn’t enough. You have to actually take the medication. And that’s where you (the patient) come in. Estimates vary based on the population and the medication, but a reasonable assumption is that 50% of people given a prescription don’t take their medication as prescribed. In pharmacy terminology we usually call this medication compliance, but because that sounds a bit paternalistic, the term medication adherence is also used. People forget doses, deliberately skip doses, and sometimes even take more than directed. Often, the prescription isn’t finished completely. Perhaps not surprisingly, people are less likely to adhere to their prescribed medication schedule when the condition they are treating has no symptoms. All things being equal, you’re more likely to take your pain control medicine than your hypertensive medications: Pain medications have side effects, but should help you feel better right now. Hypertension medications can only make you feel worse. Statins (as a group of medications) are another good example. We treat high cholesterol to lower the risk of heart disease: heart attacks, strokes, and death. It has no obvious benefit now, nor will we ever be able to point to the benefit we received. We’re taking the medication to reduce the risk of something happening in the future. If the drug isn’t taken regularly (or at all) then you’re not going to get the expected benefits of statin therapy. The “value” that treatment delivers is reduced (or eliminated). And if you stop a medication periodically, then restart it, you might get more side effects than you would have if you just took it regularly. (more…)

Posted in: Medical devices, Pharmaceuticals, Quality Improvement, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 5 of 271 «...34567...»