Alternative medicine
Book review–Don't Swallow Your Gum!: Myths, Half-Truths, and Outright Lies About Your Body and Health
I just finished reading Don't Swallow Your Gum!: Myths, Half-Truths, and Outright Lies About Your Body and Health (ISBN:031253387X, 2009) written by Aaron Carroll MD and Rachel Vreeman MD, both pediatricians and researchers at the University of Indiana School of Medicine.
First of all, the book is an amusing, easy read, using terms like “snot” and “poo” to describe bodily secretions. At some 200 pages, it was a quick read, not requiring a lot of time. Obviously, the book was written for a wide audience, debunking many pseudoscientific myths about health. For those of us who demand supporting research, it has a vast list of primary and secondary research citations for further reading. In fact, for me, those citations are going to be invaluable in future articles.
The book goes about debunking silly myths such as “don’t swallow your gum because it will get stuck in your intestine for 5 (10, 20, whatever) years” or the old “five second rule” which we all suspected wasn’t wise. There was one chapter on “double dipping”, which was popularized on a Seinfeld episode many years ago, in which the authors discussed research that showed that double dipping does in fact transfer a lot of germs from the chip to the dip. Not that I would confess to being a double dipper, but I may not be a single-dipper at a party after reading this book! Read More...
First of all, the book is an amusing, easy read, using terms like “snot” and “poo” to describe bodily secretions. At some 200 pages, it was a quick read, not requiring a lot of time. Obviously, the book was written for a wide audience, debunking many pseudoscientific myths about health. For those of us who demand supporting research, it has a vast list of primary and secondary research citations for further reading. In fact, for me, those citations are going to be invaluable in future articles.
The book goes about debunking silly myths such as “don’t swallow your gum because it will get stuck in your intestine for 5 (10, 20, whatever) years” or the old “five second rule” which we all suspected wasn’t wise. There was one chapter on “double dipping”, which was popularized on a Seinfeld episode many years ago, in which the authors discussed research that showed that double dipping does in fact transfer a lot of germs from the chip to the dip. Not that I would confess to being a double dipper, but I may not be a single-dipper at a party after reading this book! Read More...
The 124th Meeting Of The Skeptics’ Circle
Nov/21/09 08:19 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Evidence based medicine | Quackery | Alternative medicine
One of my favorite bloggers on debunking medical quackery and pseudoscience is hosting a little party. Visit, and read some of the best articles on debunking myths, pseudoscience, quacks and anti-science. Read More...
How pseudoscience makes its case, Part 3
Nov/19/09 09:12 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Vaccines | Alternative medicine | Evidence based medicine
This is part of my ongoing discussion on how quacks use pseudoscience to push their myths and potions on the world. Part 1 discussed the scientific method, which allows us to objectively analyze the natural world. Part 2 discussed the best way for us to examine the difference between science and pseudoscience.
I just read an outstanding analysis, by Steven Novella, MD, a clinical neurologist at Yale University, of how pseudoscience (those who pretend to praise the scientific method, yet do it in a way that is not actually science) and anti-science (those who repudiate science outright, or even undermine science, with subjective analysis and untestable spirituality) to reject evidence-based medicine.
Dr. Novella clearly states how science in medicine works:
I just read an outstanding analysis, by Steven Novella, MD, a clinical neurologist at Yale University, of how pseudoscience (those who pretend to praise the scientific method, yet do it in a way that is not actually science) and anti-science (those who repudiate science outright, or even undermine science, with subjective analysis and untestable spirituality) to reject evidence-based medicine.
Dr. Novella clearly states how science in medicine works:
This leads us to the final continuum – the consensus of expert opinion based upon systematic reviews can either result in a solid and confident unanimous opinion, a reliable opinion with serious minority objections, a genuine controversy with no objective resolution, or simply the conclusion that we currently lack sufficient evidence and do not know the answer. It can also lead, of course, to a solid consensus of expert opinion combined with a fake controversy manufactured by a group driven by ideology or greed and not science. The tobacco industry’s campaign of doubt against the conclusion that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer is one example.The anti-vaccine movement’s fear-mongering about vaccines and autism is another. Read More...
How pseudoscience makes its case, Part 2
Nov/04/09 16:30 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Vaccines | Alternative medicine | Evidence based medicine
A few days ago, I discussed how science works. It's not a belief. It's not a random set of rules. It is a rational and logical process to determine cause and effect in the natural world. Pseudoscience, by its very nature, ignores the scientific process; instead, it pretends to come to conclusions through science, although it does not.
Again, be very wary if you hear someone say, "it's proven." I've heard those words from both alternative medicine pushers and from well-trained physicians. I have previously discussed the ineffectiveness of almost every alternative medicine therapy. But what about your physician? They are, by far, devoted to your health and well-being. But they cannot know everything about medicine (thus, why we have specialists), so they may repeat information that is not valid. Read More...
Again, be very wary if you hear someone say, "it's proven." I've heard those words from both alternative medicine pushers and from well-trained physicians. I have previously discussed the ineffectiveness of almost every alternative medicine therapy. But what about your physician? They are, by far, devoted to your health and well-being. But they cannot know everything about medicine (thus, why we have specialists), so they may repeat information that is not valid. Read More...
How pseudoscience makes its case, Part 1
Nov/02/09 09:38 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Vaccines | Alternative medicine | Evidence based medicine
I always get suspicious when someone makes an argument with the statement of "it's been proven to work", "the link is proven", or, alternatively, they state the negative. Typically, I hear these kinds of statements from the pseudoscience pushing group. Many of us have debunked the "there is a proven link between vaccines and autism." Or that any number of alternative medicine (CAM) therapies don't actually work. In fact, science rarely uses the term "proven", because the scientific method is not a system to make a definitive answer on any question–scientists always leave open the possibility of an alternative hypothesis that can be tested. If the alternate hypothesis can be supported through experimentation, then it can replace the original one. When an alternative medicine or junk science supporter states "it has been proven" then you can be assured that conclusion is unsupported by scientific research. Read More...
Swine flu remedies
Sometimes, I just read the most awful pseudoscience with respect to swine flu, or the H1N1 flu variant. I had to read this woo over at Daily Kos, a liberal blog site. Let's review the authors "claims":
- Get sleep. OK, this is probably a good piece of advice for anyone. But there is no evidence whatsoever that sleep has any influence on subsceptiblity to infections. However, I won't be too critical of this advice, because sufficient sleep is important.
- Eat right. Once again, good advice. The author mentions shiitake mushrooms, but the evidence is only in animal models, and even there, the in vivo results required an unorthodox method to detect a change. The author mentions zinc, the effect of which has already been discredited. The rest of the claims are similar. No real research supporting it, or actually showing it doesn't work.
- Stay hydrated. Once again, good advice. But it's not going to do anything to prevent you from getting the flu.
- Exercise. The author makes two specious and unsupported claims. First, a little exercise strengthens your immunity, but, second, too much exercise makes you more subsceptible. Well, there's some evidence that aerobic exercise does improve immunity to certain infections. But it doesn't say anything about "too much." Of course, I would contend a healthy cardiovascular system through vigorous aerobic exercise would be worth the risk of a flu.
- Some woo about foods to eat if you do get the flu. None of it works. The flu will take its course, so it's important not to infect others, and if there are serious secondary infections, the patient should seek treatment.
Civilized Medicine, Part III. My Proposal
Originally, I was going to make my proposals for healthcare reform as the last item. But now there is so much debating, amending, backtracking, and all around lying, I can’t figure out what’s being proposed. Well, I do know there are no death panels, even if Sarah Palin makes stuff up. Since I’ve installed myself as health care czar (in my own mind), let me make my proposals. Read More...
Tom Harkin's wants to waste money on healthcare
Tom Harkin, Democratic Senator from Iowa, and one of the leading supporters of quack medicine is at it again. As the US Senator who forced the junk science NCCAM onto the National Institutes of Health and has drained precious scientific research dollars, he is now putting his pseudoscientific ideas into health care reform. As a member of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP), he is trying to be sneaky, because he has the power to do so. He has been instrumental in attaching some amendments to the Affordable Health Choices Act (the formal name for the bill in Congress to reform healthcare policy), including:
I have no issue with the first two, especially since the cost of medical education is so large that some deferment is appropriate. I might add that other health care students (pharmacy, nursing, and other technical specialties in medicine) should receive a similar consideration. Read More...
- A provision to allow medical students to defer loan repayment until they finish their residencies
- Limits on the types of expenses medical students cover with loan funds
- An provision to promote and fund research on pain management
- Inclusion of alternative medicine workers in the bill's definition of "healthcare workforce"
I have no issue with the first two, especially since the cost of medical education is so large that some deferment is appropriate. I might add that other health care students (pharmacy, nursing, and other technical specialties in medicine) should receive a similar consideration. Read More...
Zicam, Part II
I discussed Zicam yesterday, but my comments were probably just gloating over the FDA dealing with a unproven supplement in the same manner as it does with regular prescription and over-the-counter drugs. I want to go into some answers to questions I had in my own mind about this product.
Read More...
Read More...
Homeopathic product recall
Today, the US FDA warned consumers to immediately stop using the product Zicam, a homeopathic remedy, because it may cause anosmia, the loss of sense of smell. The FDA has received over 130 adverse reports from consumers who believe that they suffered anosmia after using Zicam.
Zicam is marketed a Big Herba company, Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., and is sold as a remedy for relief of symptoms of colds, flu, and allergies (all with different causes). There is little or no evidence from respected peer reviewed journals that zinc gluconate, the active ingredient in Zicam, has any effect on the course, duration, or severity of common upper respiratory tract infections. The Cochrane Reviews state that, the “evidence of the effects of zinc lozenges for treating the common cold is inconclusive.” Infectious disease researchers from Stanford University have concluded that most positive studies of zinc gluconate are flawed in design and that the “therapeutic effectiveness of zinc lozenges has yet to be established.” A well designed double-blind study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases concludes that the “data do not support a role for intranasal zinc gluconate for prevention or treatment of the common cold.” Read More...
Zicam is marketed a Big Herba company, Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., and is sold as a remedy for relief of symptoms of colds, flu, and allergies (all with different causes). There is little or no evidence from respected peer reviewed journals that zinc gluconate, the active ingredient in Zicam, has any effect on the course, duration, or severity of common upper respiratory tract infections. The Cochrane Reviews state that, the “evidence of the effects of zinc lozenges for treating the common cold is inconclusive.” Infectious disease researchers from Stanford University have concluded that most positive studies of zinc gluconate are flawed in design and that the “therapeutic effectiveness of zinc lozenges has yet to be established.” A well designed double-blind study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases concludes that the “data do not support a role for intranasal zinc gluconate for prevention or treatment of the common cold.” Read More...
Big Herba
One of the strawman arguments I constantly hear is that Big Pharma (the pejorative term used by woo-meisters to describe ethical pharmaceutical companies) block natural therapies because they will lose profits. My argument has always been that if these “therapies” actually worked, Big Pharma would find a way to patent them, bring them to market and make more profits. Well, at least that’s what I thought. Read More...
Alternative medicine–waste of money
As I’ve discussed before, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) are so-called treatments that lack any scientific or medical support. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), which was funded by the US Congress to be a part of the National Institutes of Health, continues to discover that these treatments do not work. And it wasted $2.5 billion to discover that they don’t work. I would have done it for $1.5 billion. In fact, given that most of the CAM therapies rely upon ideas that have no foundation in physics, chemistry, biology, physiology or any other science, most of the studies shouldn’t have been done at all. Read More...
If it looks like a duck...then it must be Quack medicine
One of the largest wastelands of medical science is something that has evolved into being called Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). What is CAM? There’s no clear definition, but the epicenter for this pseudo-medicine is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) which was funded by the US Congress to be a part of the National Institutes of Health. They define CAM as CAM is a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. The most common CAM therapies are homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, naturopathy and herbalism. Typical of most pseudosciences, it does not rely upon the scientific method to generate results, it usually appeals to emotion, such as the great Big Pharma conspiracy against these potentially life-saving therapies.
I think that individuals should choose the therapy that they want, especially if it does no harm. If I had a chronic and terminal disease, I might choose an alternative therapy. If someone chooses to consume vast amounts of vitamin C to prevent cancer, despite little or no evidence that it works, that is their choice. What is troubling is when CAM is offered as an appropriate replacement to evidence based medicine, that is, “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” Best evidence relies upon scientific and clinical research, publication in peer-reviewed (and respected) journals, and sometimes, the opinions of respected authorities in the field.
The National Institutes of Health is a US government agency responsible for biomedical and health related research. One of the “centers” of NIH is NCCAM, which was established in 1991 by order of Congress. In fact, Senator Tom Harkin (D, Iowa) pushed for the formation of the center because he had been cured of allergies by taking bee pollen supplements, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that bee pollen would do so. In fact, there’s more evidence that bee pollen will cause an adverse allergic reaction. Read More...
I think that individuals should choose the therapy that they want, especially if it does no harm. If I had a chronic and terminal disease, I might choose an alternative therapy. If someone chooses to consume vast amounts of vitamin C to prevent cancer, despite little or no evidence that it works, that is their choice. What is troubling is when CAM is offered as an appropriate replacement to evidence based medicine, that is, “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” Best evidence relies upon scientific and clinical research, publication in peer-reviewed (and respected) journals, and sometimes, the opinions of respected authorities in the field.
The National Institutes of Health is a US government agency responsible for biomedical and health related research. One of the “centers” of NIH is NCCAM, which was established in 1991 by order of Congress. In fact, Senator Tom Harkin (D, Iowa) pushed for the formation of the center because he had been cured of allergies by taking bee pollen supplements, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that bee pollen would do so. In fact, there’s more evidence that bee pollen will cause an adverse allergic reaction. Read More...