Articles

The Primo Vascular System: The N-rays of Acupuncture?

Is this a PVS structure or something else?

Is this a PVS structure or something else?

Acupuncture meridians and acupoints are imaginary until proven otherwise. Anatomists have never been able to detect them by microscopy or autopsy, and they are not mentioned in anatomy textbooks. For decades, acupuncturists have been trying to prove that their pre-scientific belief system is grounded in scientific reality. Now they are telling us that acupuncture meridians and acupoints have been discovered in the form of the Primo vascular system (PVS). A typical website trumpets “Science Finally Proves Meridians Exist.”

The available information is confusing.

Primo vessels were supposedly missed by anatomists because they are so small. They are reported to only be visible by electron microscopy, yet researchers have used dye to show them under a regular microscope. There has been speculation about their involvement in cancer metastasis: one paper provides images of a putative PVS cancer metastasis thread afloat in a lymph duct.  PVS vessels are said to be too tiny to study by the usual methods of science, but some researchers say they have somehow learned that they are characterized by high resistance and low capacitance. They are allegedly studded with electrically charged nodes that attract nutrients, oxygen, and regulatory hormones. They allegedly transmit energy to organs and integrate the features of the cardiovascular, nervous, immune, and hormonal systems and serve as the physical substrate for acupuncture points and meridians. (more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Basic Science

Leave a Comment (0) →

Is there a reproducibility “crisis” in biomedical science? No, but there is a reproducibility problem

NOTE: Anyone who has seen several derogatory articles about me on the web and is curious about what the real story is, please read this and this.

Journal of Irreproducible ResultsMost scientists I know get a chuckle out of the Journal of Irreproducible Results (JIR), a humor journal that often parodies scientific papers. Back in the day, we used to chuckle at articles like “Any Eye for an Eye for an Arm and a Leg: Applied Dysfunctional Measurement” and “A Double Blind Efficacy Trial of Placebos, Extra Strength Placebos and Generic Placebos.” Unfortunately, these days, reporting on science is giving the impression that the JIR is a little too close to the truth, at least when it comes to reproduciblity, so much so that the issue even has its own name and Wikipedia entry: Replication (or reproducibility) crisis. It’s a topic I had been meaning to write about again for a while. Fortunately, A recent survey published in Nature under the somewhat clickbaity title “1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility” finally prodded me to look into this question again. Before I get to the survey itself, though, I can’t help but do my usual pontificating to provide a bit of background.
(more…)

Posted in: Basic Science, Pharmaceuticals, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

False balance about Stanislaw Burzynski and his disproven cancer therapy, courtesy of STAT News

Stanislaw Burzynski: 40 years of failure to prove that his antineoplastons are effective against cancer.

Stanislaw Burzynski: 40 years of failure to prove that his antineoplastons are effective against cancer.

One common theme that has been revisited time and time again on this blog since its very founding is the problem of how science and medicine are reported. For example, back when I first started blogging, years before I joined Science-Based Medicine in 2008, one thing that used to drive me absolutely nuts was the tendency of the press to include in any story about vaccines an antivaccine activist to “tell the other side” or to “balance” the story. So in a story on vaccines, on one side you would have Paul Offit, a bona fide, legitimate vaccine expert, and on the other side you would have J.B. Handley, Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield, or a lesser light of the antivaccine movement. This same trope included stories about autistic children in which a reporter does a human interest story about a family struggling with raising an autistic child in which he lets the parents spout antivaccine misinformation, providing only a brief token quote by a scientist for “balance.” Thus, whether they intended it or not, the reporter would let the emotional impact of the story serve as persuasion to believe the parents’ antivaccine views. So, even though there was not (and hasn’t been at least since 2001 or probably much earlier) anything resembling legitimate scientific controversy over the question of whether vaccines cause or contribute to autism, the press aided the antivaccine movement in keeping alive the appearance of a controversy. It was, as I like to call these things, a manufactroversy, a controversy manufactured by the antivaccine movement to give the appearance of an actual scientific controversy. It’s a time-dishonored journalistic failing that is still a major problem with reporting on, for example, anthropogenic global climate change and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Sometimes, however, the press is teachable. A few years ago, after already having blogged about vaccines and autism for several years, I started noticing fewer stories with false “balance” and more stories that simply treated the antivaccine movement like the fringe movement it was, either not bothering to mention it or, if it had to mention it, basically letting scientists explain why it’s bad science and dangerous to public health. These days, false balance and stories that are antivaccine propaganda are relatively rare, aside from stories by fringe journalists like Sharyl Attkisson and Ben Swann. That’s a good thing. Unfortunately, I wish I could say that I really believe it was due to the efforts of skeptics and science advocates more than it was due to the discrediting of a major antivaccine figure, Andrew Wakefield, but even six years after Wakefield lost his medical license and saw his infamous 1998 Lancet paper linking the MMR vaccine to bowel disease in autistic children (the one that ignited the MMR scare in the UK) retracted, I’m not entirely sure. Be that as it may, there still remain blind spots in the press. (more…)

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

Leave a Comment (0) →

Does your antivax doctor have another agenda?

A witch placing a scorpion into a potSeveral weeks back, I wrote a piece in praise of Michigan’s Fresh Air Camp’s decision to admit only properly vaccinated children. Predictably, there was a bit of a backlash from people who, despite the obvious benefits, oppose vaccinations.

I can’t fault a parent for the decisions they make for their kids. We all work from the gut when it comes to our children, and this can make us see risks incorrectly. But I cannot forgive people who should know better. Medical professionals should all support basic public health such as vaccination, just as they should support healthy eating, physical activity, and clean water. I feel strongly enough about this that I have called for pulling the licenses of doctors who oppose vaccination.

As usual when I write about vaccines, I got plenty of hate mail and disturbing blog comments – no biggie. That’s part of standing up for the truth. What really disturbed me was a local doctor, here in the same community that the camps serve, coming out publicly against the new policy. When a medical professional weighs in on a matter of public health, people listen. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

Newborn Phototherapy and Cancer: Cutting Edge Research or “Big Data” Failure?

intensive-phototherapy

Photo by Mike Blyth

While social media and news outlets were reacting, or in some cases overreacting, to a new rodent-based medical study on the unlikely link between cell phone use and brain cancer last month, two studies and an accompanying commentary were quietly published in Pediatrics that raised similar concerns. Rather than cell phone use, the proposed potential cause of pediatric cancer in these newly published papers was phototherapy, a common treatment for newborn jaundice that I use regularly and have written about before. My previous post has a full review of jaundice in the newborn, how it can potentially cause permanent brain damage, and why phototherapy is a safe and effective treatment in most cases.

But is phototherapy truly safe? Can exposure to a narrow spectrum of blue light increase the risk of cancer in young children? And if so, what type or types of cancer? This is exactly what the study authors set out to investigate using the power of “Big Data.” Time will eventually tell us if the authors’ conclusions are justified or if they will end up only serving as excellent future examples of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. (more…)

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Fooling Myself

They may have different packages, but these products are all the same inside.

Nothing says opportunistic like selling water for pain control.

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

Richard Feynman

I like to think of myself as a rational person, but I’ve been fooled by my own experience again and again. I’ve made bad decisions and wasted time and money believing what I was seeing, instead of being objective and looking at the evidence. One of my most memorable lessons has come over the past 14 years with my Labrador Retriever, Casey.

First the personal

We acquired Casey as a puppy, and she was less than a year old when she started limping. Investigations confirmed dysplasia, a genetic condition that leads to degenerative joints, arthritis, and pain. We were devastated. After considering the few treatment options that existed, we decided to skip surgery and treat it conservatively. I had no desire to start her on a lifetime of anti-inflammatory drugs, being very familiar with their side effect profile. I was familiar with a supplement used widely in humans that had some weak but somewhat promising evidence: We started giving her glucosamine and chondroitin supplements regularly. And we watched and waited.

It took some time, but Casey did appear to improve. We were thrilled. Life went on, and other than the occasional rough play session, Casey’s limping was mild, and she thrived. We continued the supplements, confident that we were doing good. But eventually I started paying attention to the emerging evidence on glucosamine and chondroitin. Once touted as a panacea for arthritis and joint pain, there had finally been some high-quality trials conducted – and the results were disappointing. Even this blog covered the issue, and contributors like Harriet were skeptical of glucosamine. Its supposed mechanism of action really wasn’t even that plausible. I started to wonder if the supplements were really doing anything for my dog’s pain. Eventually I decided on a trial – so I stopped the supplements about seven years after I started them. Neither my wife nor I could notice any difference at all in her mobility. Nor did the veterinarian. We’d been fooling ourselves, spending hundreds of dollars in the process. (more…)

Posted in: Critical Thinking, Herbs & Supplements, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

PET Scans Predict Coma Outcome

3x3

A new study shows that 42 really is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. OK, not really, but it does show that 42% of healthy brain activity is the minimum threshold for consciousness.

Disorders of consciousness, also referred to as coma when severe enough, can be a difficult situation to assess sufficiently to make reliable predictions about outcome. Part of the problem is that once someone is not able to maintain consciousness, we lose much of the neurological exam, and therefore it becomes more difficult to assess brain function other than to say that they are not conscious.

Types of coma

Two types of coma in particular are of interest: the persistent vegetative state, also called unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS), and the minimally conscious state (MCS). Both are severe impairments of consciousness. In UWS, by definition, the patient may have sleep-wake cycles, open their eye, have roving eye movements, and grimace, but they do not have any interaction with their environment. They do not respond to voice, look at faces, or move in response to stimuli.

(more…)

Posted in: Neuroscience/Mental Health

Leave a Comment (0) →

Therapeutic Touch Pseudoscience: The Tooth Fairy Strikes Again

When tested, therapeutic touch (TT) practitioners failed to detect the human energy field they thought they could feel. Experimental setup from Rosa et al., from JAMA, 1998, 279 (13)

When tested, therapeutic touch (TT) practitioners failed to detect the human energy field they thought they could feel. Experimental setup from Rosa et al., from JAMA, 1998, 279 (13)

A study out of Iran titled “Therapeutic touch for nausea in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: Composing a treatment” was recently published in the journal Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. It is a great example of the Tooth Fairy science that permeates much of the research in complementary and alternative medicine. In Tooth Fairy science, researchers attempt to study a phenomenon without first determining whether it exists.

What is therapeutic touch?

Therapeutic touch (TT) is a type of energy medicine; practitioners claim to be able to:

  1. sense a patient’s “human energy field” with their hands,
  2. manipulate the energy field by moving their hands near (but not touching) a patient’s skin surface, and
  3. thereby improve the patient’s health.

TT was the delusional invention of a nurse and a theosophist, and it has no scientific basis. Scientists can detect and measure minute energies down to the subatomic level, but they have never detected a “human energy field.” And when TT practitioners were tested on their ability to detect such a field, they failed miserably.

Therapeutic touch is pure vitalism, the belief in a soul or animating force,” writes Paul Ingraham, “exactly like the Force in Star Wars, and just as fanciful. Auras and life energy do not exist and cannot be felt, let alone manipulated therapeutically.”

Despite the combination of extreme implausibility and a total lack of evidence, TT is taught to nurses in many otherwise reputable institutions, and there are more than 90,000 practitioners worldwide. There is even a Therapeutic Touch International Association that claims TT is evidence-based. It is not.

TT practitioners believe they are helping patients. That belief is reinforced by seeing patients improve due to the natural course of illness, suggestion, and the “placebo” or nonspecific contextual effects of the provider/patient encounter. They allow confirmation bias to overcome scientific reality, and they do poorly-conceived research seeking further confirmation. Since the studies are designed to show that TT works rather than to ask if it works, they find evidence that is convincing to believers but not to the scientific community as a whole. (more…)

Posted in: Energy Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

No, a rat study with marginal results does not prove that cell phones cause cancer, no matter what Mother Jones and Consumer Reports say

The zombie story that cell phones cause cancer has risen from the grave yet again.

The zombie story that cell phones cause cancer has risen from the grave yet again.

There are certain myths that are frustratingly resistant to evidence, science, and reason. Some of these are basically medical conspiracy theories, where someone (industry and/or big pharma and/or physicians and/or the government) has slam-dunk evidence for harm but conspires to keep it from you, the people. For example, despite decades worth of negative studies, the belief that vaccines are harmful, causing conditions ranging from autism to sudden infant death syndrome, to all varieties of allergies and autoimmune diseases, refuses to die. Fortunately, this myth is one that, after more than a decade of hammering by scientists, skeptics, and public health advocates, has finally taken on enough of the patina of a fringe belief that most mainstream news sources no longer feel obligated to include the antivaccine side in stories about vaccines for “balance.” It is a zombie myth, one that, no matter how often it is “killed,” always seems to rise again. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the myth that cell phones cause cancer, as some very credulous reporting late last week demonstrated in the form of headlines like this:
(more…)

Posted in: Cancer, Public Health, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

Dry Needling

Pictured: The difference between the acupunctures and dry needling.

Pictured: The difference between the acupunctures and dry needling.

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y’all
War, huh,
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
Ohhh, war, I despise
Cause it means destruction
Of innocent lives
War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives
Ooh, war, huh
Good God, y’all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War, whoa,
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, it ain’t nothing
But a heartbreaker
Friends only to the undertaker
Ooooh, war
It’s an enemy to all mankind
The point of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die
Aaaaah, war-huh
Good God y’all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Come on, let me hear ya
War, it ain’t nothing but a heartbreaker
It’s got one friend
That’s the undertaker
War has shattered
Many a young man’s dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days
War can’t give life
It can only take it away
Ooooh, war, huh
Ooh yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y’all
War, whoa,
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Come on, sing it
War, whoa,
Come on and shout it, y’all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Come on, come on now
It ain’t nothing but a heartbreaker
Friends only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there’s got to be a better way
Ooooooh, war, huh
Good God y’all
What is it good for
absolutely nothing
Say it again, y’all
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y’all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

Edwin Starr

I’m convinced. War is bad. But I have a solution. To the 54 current armed conflicts in the world: forget about it. Then no shots will be fired and no one will be injured or killed. It’s that easy. Problem identified, problem sol-ved. Go Science and Big ‘S’ Skepticism. Any complaints about my solution aren’t worth responding to.

Now that the problem of war is settled, let’s move on to dry needling. (more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 5 of 264 «...34567...»