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…)
Massage therapy? Pranic healing? Polarity therapy? Zero balancing?
Back in my days of practicing law, one of my escapes from reality was a good massage. It was a great treat, exchanging the high-octane atmosphere of the law office for the soothing music, subdued voices and pastel tones of the treatment room. I could have stayed on that table for hours.
Little did I know just how much an escape from reality massage therapy would soon become.
About 15 years ago, when I called to book an appointment with my favorite therapist, a recorded message offered something called “ray-kee” – at least, that is how it was pronounced. I assumed it was just a form of massage and didn’t think anything about it. Then, at one session, while my feet were being rubbed, my massage therapist – an RN, no less – suggested I would be surprised at how often a sore spot actually correlated with a medical problem. She was talking about reflexology, of course.
Fast forward a few years. A new massage therapist and a new location, this time a “health center” (actually, a gym) owned by a local hospital. The massage therapist inquired whether I’d like to try “cranial sacral therapy“. “What’s that?” I asked. “Oh,” she said, “it would be hard to explain.” (She got that right.) She then proceeded to inform me that she had actually used it in one of our sessions. This alerted me to the possibility that informed consent was not part of the massage therapy protocol.
A few more years went by. Another therapist (also an RN), another location. I was pleased with her because I thought she did a good job and she also taught me some simple stretching exercises. To my surprise, in one session, she started pressing on the space between my toes because, she said, it corresponded with the (something, something – I didn’t get this part) of my neck. Reflexology again. (Are they now teaching reflexology in nursing school? I am beginning to wonder.) (more…)
To our surprise, that article generated a fair amount of press (for example this), with accounts of it showing up in the media in various places and Steven and I being asked to do a fair number of interviews. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that the editor made the article available for free for a month after its initial publication. (Unfortunately it’s back behind the pay wall again.) Part of the reason is that, intuitively, it makes sense to people not to waste money testing what is, at its core, magic. When I followed up that publication with an article criticizing “integrative oncology” in Nature Reviews Cancer entitled “Integrative oncology: Really the best of both worlds?“, the target was well and truly on my back. Indeed, let’s just say that the Society for Integrative Oncology and the Consortium of Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine (CAHCIM) are quite unhappy with me. When both their letters to the editor are published (right now, only one is), I might even blog about them.
In the meantime, I want to deal with criticism published in an unexpected place, albeit not by unexpected critics. The reason is that this criticism relies on a common straw man caricature of what we are saying when we advocate science-based medicine (SBM) that considers prior plausibility in determining what modalities to test in clinical trials and understands Bayesian thinking in which prior plausibility affects posterior plausibility that a “significant” result is not a false positive in contrast to the current evidence-based medicine (EBM) paradigm, which relegates basic science knowledge, even well-established principles of science that show that something like, say, homeopathy or reiki is impossible under the current understanding of physics, chemistry and biology, to the lowest rung on the EBM pyramid. It’s also a criticism that comes up frequently enough that, even though it’s been addressed before in various ways by various SBM bloggers, it’s worth revisiting from time to time. In this case, that’s particularly so because one of the two critics taking Steve and me to task is currently embroiled in a controversy about testing homeopathy for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at the University of Toronto (more details on that later). Let’s just say, the criticism of Steve and me gives me an “in” to address a story that I thought had passed me by, and I intend to take it. (more…)
Several snarks were painfully maimed in the writing of this blog post
I read a lot of the pseudo-medical websites. The writing is at best pedestrian, often turgid, and, at its worst, incoherent. It is rarely either engaging or clever.
Wit, the clever bon mot, the amusing turn of phrase or retort, is rare at best. So rare I cannot think of an example. It is ironic that those who engage in fantastical treatments are so often lacking in cleverness with language and thought. The closest you get to humor are the painfully-lame cartoons at the Natural News. I am sure that the readers will flood the comments with examples of all the clever writing I have missed in the world of pseudo-medicine just to prove me wrong. Not that the reality-based world is much better. It is the rare author on the internet whose style keeps me coming back for more.
I love that term, because it succinctly describes the infiltration of pseudoscientific medicine into medical academia. As I’ve said many times, I wish I had been the one to coin the phrase, but I wasn’t. To the best of my ability to determine, I first picked it up from Dr. R. W. Donnell back in 2008 and haven’t been able to find an earlier use of the term. As much as I try to give credit where credit is due, I have, however, appropriated the term “quackademic medicine” (not to mention its variants, like “quackademia”), used it, and tried my best to popularize it among supporters of science-based medicine. Indeed, one of my earliest posts on this blog was about how quackery has infiltrated the hallowed halls of medical academia, complete with links to medical schools that have “integrative medicine” programs and even medical schools that promoted the purely magic-based medical modalities known as reiki and homeopathy. It’s been a recurrent topic on this blog ever since, leading to a number posts on the unethical clinical trials of treatments with zero or minimal pre-trial plausibility, the degradation of the scientific basis of medicine, and the acceptance of magical thinking as a means of treating patients in all too many medical centers.
One strong candidate for quackademic ground zero, if there can be such a thing for the phenomenon like quackademic medicine, which is creeping up like so much kudzu in the cracks of the edifice of science-based medicine (SBM), is the University of Arizona. U. of A. is, of course, the home of one of the originators of the concept of quackademic medicine and one of its most famous and tireless promoters, Dr. Andrew Weil. Dr. Weil, as you might recall, has even been the driving force for creating a highly dubious “board certification” in integrative medicine. Sadly, apparently this new board certification has been so popular among physicians wanting to “integrate” a little quackery into their practices, that its first examination has been delayed from May to November 2014, so that the American Board of Physician Specialties can figure out how to accommodate the unexpectedly large number of applicants.
So what happens when a patient arrives at U. of A. for treatment? I found out last week when I received an e-mail, which led to a fairly long e-mail exchange, with a man whose son was diagnosed with leukemia and is being treated at the University of Arizona Cancer Center (UACC). Although this man gave me permission to use his name, I am going to decline to do so because there is a child involved, although anyone involved in his case at U. of A. will likely quickly be able to identify who the man is. It turns out that he is a professor at U. of A. in a humanities department (which is why I’ll refer to him henceforth as the Professor), and, even though he is not a scientist, he clearly knows how to think (which would not be surprising if you knew what department he was in). In his e-mail, he told me how appalled he was at the sorts of treatments being offered to his son: (more…)
Three weeks ago, I gave a talk to the National Capital Area Skeptics at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, VA. The topic was one near and dear to my heart, namely quackademic medicine.
I was informed the other day that the video had finally been posted. Unfortunately, there were some problems with the sound in a couple of places, which our intrepid NCAS video editor did his best to fix. Overall, however, the sound quality seems decent. The video even includes the Q&A session. In case you’re interested, the guy who asks the question about mercury in vaccines and autism is Paul Offit’s very own stalkerJake Crosby. I feel honored to think that Jake now apparently lumps me in the same category as Paul Offit, whom I admire greatly. Enjoy.
If there were an icon of Science-Based Medicine, I think it should be Sisyphus: pushing a boulder uphill, only to watch it roll down again. Forever. Blogging about pseudoscience in medicine can feel that way at times. There is no end to the variations of nonsense, most health professionals are indifferent at best, and sometimes I wonder if blogging is just preaching to the converted. Compared to the media presence and web traffic of those that promote pseudoscence, I do wonder what to make of SBM. Does it have a bigger impact. Occasionally something comes along to give you some hope that the key concepts of SBM are having some resonance.
To effect meaningful change, we need to teach the concepts of SBM – the process is the product, not the topics we blog about. This all came to mind as I was reading an open letter from TED organizers. TED talks are now iconic, but if you’re unfamiliar with them, the conferences started as a means of colliding speakers in the technology, entertainment and design fields to talk about big ideas. With a slogan of “ideas worth spreading,” perhaps it’s not surprising that TED talks can be provocative: that’s the point. TED talks are posted online and their success is remarkable: some talks get hundreds of thousands of views. The TED template has become so popular that it spawned TEDx, independent but licensed events that bring TED-like talks to smaller cities and venues. I’ve seen several TED talks and while many are compelling speakers, it’s clear the content is not always grounded in evidence. For all the talks by science advocates like Ben Goldacre, or James Randi, there’s the consciousnessbabble from Deepak Chopra. I’ve never seen TEDx presentations, but recently there’s been some very public criticism of its speaker standards. Anyone, it seems, can be a TEDx speaker including anti-GMO crusaders and naturopaths. Stung by recent criticism that the TED brand is losing credibility with its questionable presenters, TED HQ recently advised TEDx organizers to stop featuring pseudosicence:
It is your job, before any speaker is booked, to check them out, and to reject bad science, pseudoscience and health hoaxes. (more…)
I recently wrote a SkepDoc column on fantasy physics in Skeptic magazine in which I mentioned a study that had allegedly measured 2 milligauss emanations from a healer’s hands. A reader inquired about it and went on to ask “what criteria is [sic] necessary for gaining acceptance in the scientific community in regards to purported healing processes using energy fields generated in the human hand, specifically the palm area.”
What would it take to prove this implausible claim to the satisfaction of the scientific community? That is an excellent question with a complicated answer. It’s worth looking at because there is only one science and the same standards apply to how science evaluates any claim. I’ll take a stab at it, and perhaps our commenters can add words of wisdom.
The word “frequency” ranks right up there with “quantum” and “energy” as a pseudoscientific buzzword. It is increasingly prevalent in product advertisements and in CAM claims about human biofields and energy medicine. It doesn’t mean what they think it means.
I have written about Power Balance products, the wristbands and cards that allegedly improve sports performance through frequencies embedded in a hologram. They amount to nothing but a new version of the old rabbit’s foot carried for superstition and their sales demonstrations fool people with simple musculoskeletal tricks. I addressed their ridiculous claims (including “We are a frequency”). I pointed out that
The definition of frequency is “the number of repetitions of a periodic process in a unit of time.” A frequency can’t exist in isolation. There has to be a periodic process, like a sound wave, a radio wave, a clock pendulum, or a train passing by at the rate of x boxcars per minute. The phrase “33⅓ per minute” is meaningless: you can’t have an rpm without an r. A periodic process can have a frequency, but an armadillo and a tomato can’t. Neither a periodic process nor a person can “be” a frequency.
It’s boring to try to ferret out reliable health information from dry medical journals. It’s easier and more fun to watch a movie. A new movie promises to change the way you think about your health. To bring you breakthroughs that will transform your understanding of how to get well and stay well. To share the discoveries of leading researchers and health practitioners about miracle cures that traditional medicine can’t explain.
If this makes your baloney detector light up, good for you!
The Living Matrix: A Film on the New Science of Healing is an atrociously bad movie that falls squarely in the tradition of What the Bleep Do We Know? In his book Nonsense on Stilts, Massimo Pigliucci characterized the “Bleep” movie as “one of the most spectacular examples of a horribly tangled mess of science and nonsense,” and this new movie is more of the same. Bleep was just silly, but The Living Matrix is potentially dangerous because it might persuade patients to make poor decisions about their medical care. (more…)