Posts Tagged homeopathy

Nobody licenses quacks in my state! HB 4531 and the licensing of naturopaths in Michigan

Just as nobody steps on a church in Peter Venkman's Manhattan, nobody licenses quacks in my state...I hope.

Just as no giant marshmallow man steps on a church in Peter Venkman’s Manhattan, nobody licenses quacks in my state…I hope.

Over the years, I’ve taken care of women with locally advanced breast cancer so advanced that it’s eroded through the skin, forming huge, nasty ulcers filled with stinky dead cancer tissue that’s outgrown its blood supply, leaving the patient in chronic pain. If the patient is fortunate, her cancer has not metastasized beyond her axillary lymph nodes (the lymph nodes under her arm), and her life might still be saved by a combination of chemotherapy, radical surgery, and radiation. If the patient is not fortunate, either the cancer has metastasized and she is doomed or hasn’t metastasized yet, but it’s invaded into the chest wall and the nerves in her axilla (the structures under the arm), making it impossible to remove surgically but not likely to kill her any time soon. In the latter case, chronic pain, infection, and blood loss is what the patient will look forward to until the cancer either metastasizes or invades a vital structure. Fortunately, I’ve only seen a handfull of these patients over the last 20 years. Fortunately, the number of such patients I’ve seen and taken care of has been small.

I fear that, before long, I’m going to bee seeing a lot more of them. Leave it to Jann Bellamy to wake me up to that possibility.

I’m referring, of course, to her post last week about yet another attempt by naturopaths to expand their scope of practice. Worse, this is happening in my state through Michigan House Bill 4531, which has been approved by the Michigan Committee on Health Policy and referred to the full House for consideration. Yes, of these patients I’ve seen with horrific neglected breast cancers, at least half of them had relied on naturopaths before they came to the attention of real oncologists and surgeons. The last time I wrote about naturopaths trying to expand their scope of practice in my state was in 2013 in the form of a bill that was not as broad as HB 4531, namely HB 4152. Fortunately, it went nowhere and, in contrast to HB 4531, didn’t even make it out of the Committee on Health Policy.

Although Jann has already ably discussed the bill and occasional Science-Based Medicine (SBM) contributor Peter Lipson has referred to naturopaths as fake doctors in white coats (which is true), as well as why naturopathy is unscientific and how he as a primary care internist not infrequently has to clean up the messes left when local naturopaths treat patients incompetently, this is my state, and I can’t help but chime in myself. What I will try to do is to predict what the potential consequences will be if HB 4531 passes and expands the scope of practice to be nearly as broad as that of MDs practicing primary care medicine. I will do that by looking at real world examples of naturopathic shenanigans and disasters both within our very own state, because these are the people with whom the reins of primary care will be shared if HB 4531 were to pass.

Posted in: Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Legislative Alchemy: Michigan House Bill 4531 gives naturopaths a broad scope of practice

Legislative Alchemy

Legislative Alchemy

Michigan House Bill 4531, if passed, would give naturopaths one of the broadest scopes of practice in the U.S., essentially equaling that of a family practice MD or DO. The bill made it through all the necessary House committees and is now before the House for an initial vote determining whether it will proceed further in that body. If it passes there, it will move to the Senate and its committee process.

Most naturopathic licensing bills fail, even in those states where attempts are made year after year. Michigan is no exception. Both David Gorski (a Michigan resident) and I discussed the previous licensing attempts there. In the two states where naturopathic licensing or registration has succeeded in the last few years, they have been able to get only a much more limited scope of practice than the full primary care scope they desire. For example, in Colorado, there are severe limitations on naturopaths’ seeing pediatric patients. They must disclose they are not physicians, recommend to parents that their children have a relationship with a licensed pediatric practitioner, and give parents the CDC-recommended vaccination schedule. All this is to thwart their efforts to talk parents out of vaccinating their children by giving them “balanced” information that is actually full of anti-vaccination dog whistles.

In Maryland, where naturopaths are regulated by the Maryland Board of Physicians, they cannot call themselves physicians or claim to practice primary care. They must have a collaboration and consultation agreement with an MD or DO and attest to the Board that the ND will “refer patients to and consult with physicians and other health care providers.” NDs must also have patients sign a consent form stating that the ND’s practice is limited to the scope of practice allowed by law. They cannot deviate from what is termed “safe care of patients” whether or not actual injury to a patient is established.

If passed, HB 4531 would be a radical departure from that trend. This newfound success in moving the ball forward may be due to an influx of funds from Emerson Ecologics, a company that sells dietary supplements and homeopathic remedies to naturopaths for resale to their patients. The company also sells the sort of dubious diagnostic tests used by naturopaths in their practice. For example, they offer a test for “adrenal stress” (to discover, not just “adrenal fatigue,” but actual “exhaustion”) and a saliva test for hormone levels as an indicator of the need for “bio-identical hormones.” (Neither the test nor “bio-identical hormones,” which is actually a marketing, and not medical term, are recommended in evidence-based medical practice.) In March, Emerson Ecologics announced a “grant” to the Michigan Association of Naturopathic Physicians (MANP) of $10,000 to support the effort to obtain full licensure for naturopathic doctors in Michigan.

Posted in: Legal, Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

The “Incoherent Mess” That Is Homeopathy: Old and New Insights

Back in 1943 a Dutch physician, David Karel de Jongh, wrote a PhD dissertation on homeopathy. It was based on his experience working in a homeopathic hospital and on all the published information he could find, and was highly critical of homeopathy. It was an impressive opus, with over 200,000 words. It is way too long for the average reader to wade through; and since it is in Dutch, few of us could read it even if we wanted to. Jan Willem Nienhuys, secretary of the Dutch skeptics’ organization Skepsis, has done us a great favor by summarizing its contents and updating it with information about recent developments. He has kindly had his summary translated into English and published in full on the Skepsis website. He comments “Basically Dr. de Jongh’s conclusions were that homeopathy is an incoherent mess.”

We all should know by now how monumentally silly homeopathy is (“delusions about dilutions”). I had investigated the subject and knew enough about it to have written about it repeatedly, but there is much more that I didn’t know. Nienhuys’ article is full of surprising facts and fascinating details. (more…)

Posted in: Homeopathy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Medical exemptions to vaccine mandates for sale after SB277! Get ’em before they’re gone!

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.

SB277, which eliminates nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates in California, is a very good law, but it's not perfect. Unfortunately, one provision allows the issuance of medical exemptions based on the say-so of doctors using antivaccine misinformation and pseudoscience.

SB277, which eliminates nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates in California, is a very good law, but it’s not perfect. Unfortunately, one provision allows the issuance of medical exemptions based on the say-so of doctors using antivaccine misinformation and pseudoscience.

I realize that it’s a cliché to say so, but some clichés are true. Time really does fly. It’s hard to believe that a year ago California—and, by proxy, the rest of the country—was in the throes of a major political war over the bill SB277. SB277, you will recall, was a bill introduced into the California Assembly in the wake of the Disneyland Measles outbreak in early 2015 that eliminated non-medical exemptions to school vaccine mandates beginning with the 2016-2017 school year. Ultimately, SB277 passed and was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown last July. It was an uncommon victory for science and public health, and already appears to be having a positive effect on vaccine uptake in kindergarten children.

Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, to say that the proposal and passage of SB277 into law drove the antivaccine movement into even greater fits of crazy in response is to put it mildly. It became a common trope on antivaccine websites and blogs to see SB277 compared to fascism, in particular the Holocaust. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and “Dr. Bob” Sears explicitly compared SB277 to the Holocaust. Truly, the Godwin was strong in the antivaccine movement. One particularly offensive meme that went around at the time consisted of antivaccinationists suggesting that SB277 was a major step in the direction of requiring unvaccinated children to wear a badge or armband to identify themselves, the way that the Nazis required Jews to wear badges or armbands with a yellow Star of David on them. One, Heather Barajas, even went so far as to be photographed with her children wearing such an “unvaccinated” badge and juxtapose that photo with photos of Jews from the Third Reich wearing yellow Stars of David.

Posted in: Homeopathy, Politics and Regulation, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

April Fool Cannot Surpass SCAM

Stick some coffee up the tailpipe and you've got yourself some complementary and alternative auto care!

Stick some coffee up the tailpipe and you’ve got yourself some complementary and alternative auto care!

It’s April Fools’ day in the US of A. One of the internet traditions is to come up with a story that is weird or unlikely, but not so weird or unlikely that it is not believable, in order to fool people that the story is real.

I gave it the old SBM try, I really did, but I couldn’t do it. I wanted to come up with a SCAM therapy so weird, so unlikely, that I could not find an example of it actually being practiced.

It can’t be done. Like a Trump utterance*, you can’t invent a SCAM (Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine) that someone, somewhere, has already pulled out of, er, well, thin air and are using it on patients.

Of course, what would you expect given that many SCAMs were in fact, pulled out of, er, well thin air. Think chiropractic and DD Palmer, iridology by August von Peczely, and reiki by Mikao Usui. Making up fantastical stuff is what they do.

But even within the spectrum of pseudo-medicine there are those are practices and papers that are so bizarro they should be an April Fools’ joke. But are not. It may be a matter of taste, what one person considers wack-a-loon another would find imminently reasonable. There are certainly assigned delegates that prove that assertion. But even within the wack-a-loon world of SCAM, there are those practices and papers that are more wack-a-loon than others and should be April Fools’ jokes. Maybe it is like more unique. Unique is one of a kind, so something can’t be more one of a kind. More wack-a-loon? Such is the world of SCAM. (more…)

Posted in: Acupuncture, Energy Medicine, Homeopathy, Medical devices, Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

American Journal of Public Health article touts “potential public health benefits” of homeopathy

Homeopathy: It's just water.

Homeopathy: It’s just water.

An article in the April, 2016 issue of the American Journal of Public Health caught my eye: “Homeopathy Use by US Adults: Results of a National Survey.” I was pleased to see that homeopathy use is actually quite low. The 2012 National Health Survey found that only 2.1% of U.S. adults used homeopathy in the last 12 months, although that was a 15% increase over 2007. Users were mostly young, white, well-educated women, the typical CAM consumer.

Even fewer saw a homeopathic practitioner (only 19% of all users), although those who did perceived a greater benefit from homeopathic remedies. This difference, speculate the authors, could be due to several factors, one of which is

a more individualized and effective homeopathic prescription by the provider.

What? Are the authors suggesting that the series of off-the-wall questions asked by homeopaths leads to a prescription of an “effective” homeopathic remedy?

They certainly seem to be. Who are these authors, anyway?

They are Michelle L. Dossett, MD, PhD, MPH, Roger B. Davis, ScD, Ted J. Kaptchuk, and Gloria Y. Yeh, MD, MPH. All are, or were, with the Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. All are also connected with Harvard and work, in various ways, in “integrative medicine” research. The article was funded, in part, by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and in part by Harvard. (more…)

Posted in: Clinical Trials, Homeopathy, Medical Academia, Public Health, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

Is it ethical to sell complementary and alternative medicine?

Legal to sell, yes. But ethical to sell?

Legal to sell, yes. But ethical to sell?

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is no longer fringe, and anything but the mom-and-pop image that manufacturers carefully craft. CAM is big business, and most Americans today take some sort of supplement. The impetus for my blogging (and tilting at CAM windmills) emerged from years spent working in a pharmacy with a heavy reliance on CAM sales. If it was unorthodox, this store probably sold it. Conventional drug products (the ones I was familiar with) were hidden off in a corner, and the store was otherwise crowded with herbal remedies, homeopathy, and different forms of detox kits and candida cleanses. All of this was unlike anything I’d ever seen or heard about in pharmacy school – so I started researching.

I looked at CAM from a scientific evidence perspective, the one I was taught in pharmacy school, using the same approach I’d take when assessing a new drug. Did the evidence support the claims made about these products, or not? The answers, as you might expect, were often the same. There was little or no credible evidence to demonstrate CAM had any meaningful benefits. I started blogging my own reviews as a way of documenting my own research, while offering some information to anyone on the Interwebs who might be searching for evidence.

Over time my blogging focus expanded, as I asked myself the inevitable questions: How could implausible products with no scientific backing even be approved for sale at all? I discovered the regulatory double-standard allowed for anything considered a dietary supplement (or in Canada, a “natural health product“) and the history and politics that have made CAM the “Wild West” of health care, with a marketplace that prioritizes a manufacturer’s right to sell over a consumer’s right to purchase a product that is safe and effective. Given the retail marketplace that’s been established by regulators like the FDA and Health Canada, I’ve turned my focus on to health professionals, who have an ethical responsibility to put patient interests above that of commercial interests. From a professional practice and medical ethics perspective, I have argued that health professionals that sell or promote CAM are on ethically shaky ground, and compromise the credibility of the profession.

Despite the lack of evidence that CAM (in general) offers any health benefits at all, it’s been remarkable to watch its popularity grow, to the point where even large pharmacy chains now sell aisles of products that are implausible and often highly questionable. Generally meeting these changes with a collective shrug, the pharmacy profession has even tried to lower its own ethical standards. While I do get the occasional encouragement from some of my peers, most just say “it’s business” or “the customer wants it, and these are legal products.” My argument today is CAM fails even this lower ethical bar. (more…)

Posted in: Ethics, Herbs & Supplements, Homeopathy, Medical Ethics, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Is “harnessing the power of placebo” worthwhile to treat anything?

We frequently write about placebo effects here on Science-Based Medicine. The reason is simple. They are an important topic in medicine and, at least as importantly, understanding placebo effects is critical to understanding the exaggerated claims of advocates of “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), now more frequently called “integrative medicine” (i.e., integrating pseudoscience with science). Over the years, I (and, of course, others) have documented how CAM advocates have consistently moved the goalposts with respect to the efficacy of their pseudoscientific interventions. As larger and better-designed clinical trials have been done demonstrating that various CAM therapies without a basis in science—I’m distinguishing these from science-based modalities that have been co-opted and “rebranded” as CAM, such as exercise and nutrition—have no specific effects detectable above placebo effects, CAM advocates move the goalposts and claim that CAM works through the “power of placebo” and do their best to claim that “harnessing” that “power of placebo” is a justification to use their treatments. It turns out, however, that when placebo effects are examined rigorously there’s just not a lot of there there, so to speak. Results are underwhelming, and trying to “harness the power of placebo” without an intervention that actually impacts the pathophysiology of disease can even be dangerous. That’s not to say that learning to maximize placebo responses (whatever they are) while administering effective medical treatments isn’t important; rather, it’s to point out that, by themselves, placebo effects are not of much value.

Unfortunately, none of this has stopped what Steve Novella refers to as the “placebo narrative” from insinuating itself into lay discussions of medicine. That narrative proclaims in breathless terms (as Steve put it) the “surprising power of the placebo effect” without putting it into reasonable perspective or even really defining what is meant by “placebo effect.” First, as we have tried to explain time and time again here, there is no single “placebo effect.” There are placebo effects. Second, the only really correct reference to “the placebo response” or “placebo effect” is the outcome measured in the placebo arm of a clinical trial. The problem is that, all too often, discussions of placebo responses conflate the placebo effect measured in a clinical trial with all the other various placebo effects that add up to the response that is measured in that trial. Those effects include reporting biases, researcher biases, regression to the mean, conditioning, and many other components that contribute to what is measured in the outcome of a clinical trial. Another common misconception about placebo effects is that they are somehow “mind over matter,” that we can heal ourselves (or at least reduce our symptoms) through the power of will and mind. This is not true. Placebo effects are not the power of positive thinking.

Posted in: Acupuncture, Basic Science, Clinical Trials, Homeopathy, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (0) →

Continued Battle over Homeopathy

Homeopathy - not medicine
The battle to rid modern scientific societies from the blatant and harmful pseudoscience of homeopathy continues. This past year has been overall a good one – in the US both the FDA and FTC decided to review their regulation of homeopathy. They have gathered their testimony and are now apparently reviewing everything. Their decisions on this topic are eagerly anticipated and could decide the fate of homeopathy for the next one or more generations.

Some success

In the UK the situation is also very positive. Their national health service is considering blacklisting homeopathy so that general practitioners cannot prescribe homeopathic products.

Success in the UK is largely due to The Good Thinking Society, founded by Simon Singh. They have been tirelessly campaigning against NHS coverage of homeopathy and are making steady progress. They are demonstrating that skeptical activism can be effective.

Likewise, SBM and the Society for SBM are having an impact in the US, mainly through persistent persuasive writing and being available as a resource to politicians, the press, and regulators. Members have personally consulted with the FDA, FTC, and staff of senators interested in the issue.


Posted in: Homeopathy

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 2 of 13 12345...»